Miles Mathis: The Un-Unified Field – New Book

Posted: January 13, 2011 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

I just bought an electronic copy of Miles book from Amazon. :)

I did consider the hardback but as there is no index, and kindle e-books are searchable, I went the high tech route. My fiancee kindly downloaded it to the Kindle e-book reader I bought her for Christmas. Now I just have to prize it from her fingers long enough to read Mles’ highly entertaining and thought provoking material.

The first edition of the paperback is on back-order from Amazon UK here.
There are only two copies of the hardback left, an astute investment at £24.22 if you ask me.

Most of the material is out there for free at milesmathis.com too, but I think Miles deserves a bit of our cash, for writing things like this:

http://milesmathis.com/bode.html

As you will now see, the solution to this problem is so simple that it makes three centuries of physicists and mathematicians look like bumblers. I looked at that sequence of numbers for about half a minute before I saw it was based on the square root of 2. The “law” has been in the wrong form since the beginning, and so no one was able to see the proper sequence.

Currently, the sequence goes like this:

4, 7, 10, 16, 28, 52….

But it should be written as

4, 5√2, 7√2, 11√2, 20√2, 36√2….

Which can be written as

22
(22 + 1)√2
(22 + 1 + 2)√2
(22 + 1 + 2 + 22)√2
(22 + 1 + 2 + 22 + 32+ 42) √2

If we want to express this with Mercury as 1, then we just divide by 4.

22 /22
[(22 + 1)√2]/22
[(22 + 1 + 2)√2]/22
[(22 + 1 + 2 + 22)√2]/22
[(22 + 1 + 2 + 22+ 32) √2]/22

Which expands to:

22 /22
√2 + (1/22)√2
√2 + (1/22)√2 + (2/22)√2
√2 + (1/22)√2 + (2/22)22 + (22/22)√2
√2 + (1/22)√2 + (2/22)22 + (22/22)√2 + (32/22)√2

Which simplifies to:

1
(5/4)√2
(7/4)√2
(11/4)√2
(20/4)√2

You will say, “Great, you expressed Bode’s Law in terms of √2. So what?” Well, the so-what is that it ties directly into my correction to Newton’s equation a = v2/r. I have shown that the equation should read a = v2/2r, since our current expression of the orbital velocity is not a velocity. Yes, a = v2/r works if v = 2πr/t, but 2πr/t isn’t a velocity. It is a curve over a time, which isn’t a velocity. It is just a heuristic ratio that we like because it is easy to measure. But since the orbit curves, it must be an acceleration, and that acceleration is expressed by the equation,

aorb = 2√2πr/t

=============================

Physicists couldn’t look at it without scales on their eyes, since they had bought the “gravity only” interpretation. Laplace “solved” the perturbation equations 230 years ago, and no one has had the gumption to look closely at them since then. Mathematicians failed to solve this, too, and we may assume it is because they got deflected in about 1820, or 190 years ago, by new maths. They weren’t interested in simple algebra like I do here: they wanted to use curved fields and infinities and complex numbers and quaternions and lord knows what else. Actually solving a simple problem of mechanics was beneath them. It really makes you wonder how anything ever gets done.

In physics and math, nothing much does get done, as I have shown. The history of physics and math has not been a wonderland of brilliance and fast progression; it has been a shocking wasteland of deflection, misdirection, and complete incompetence, and it is only getting worse. I expect the response to my papers to continue to be vicious, since there is nothing more reactionary than a field of sinecures. It will be like trying to overthrow the Aristotelians or the French Academy or any other nest of nepotism and privilege and corruption. But they had best put on their waders, because the water is high. I am coming right at them, and I am used to deep currents.

Go Miles!

Comments
  1. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    What I have found is that in accelerating velocity, mass compresses and when the desired speed is reached, the mass relaxes. I believe there would be a slight compression but have not looked into this.
    So, walking on the planet surface and walking on a plane does not change the density of force against it on the inside of the travelling object.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Joe, when you say that this is what you have found, what do you mean?
    Have you measured it, theorised it with formulae, read it somewhere else, or intuited it?

    Just askin’

  3. Polarity binds and disengages: “Solve et Coagula”, neutral mass it is but a comfortable illusion, a fleeting event, a precarious equilibrium, of wave motion.
    As water emits vapor becomes emission, if it loses its charge it drops again as rain.
    As Heraclitus said:
    τὰ ὄντα ἰέναι τε πάντα καὶ μένειν οὐδέν”
    Ta onta ienai te panta kai menein ouden
    “All things move and nothing remains still”

  4. Tenuc says:

    Glad you’re enjoying the book Roger – Miles is truly one of the few bright sparks left in the world of science. He shows us just how badly ‘consensus science’ does at getting to the truth.

    Regarding your question to Joe, I have personally observed this effect when flooring the pedal on my little sports car. Mass and inertia have little or nothing to do with weight, although modern science seems to conflate thinks on a regular basis.Interestingly de-acceleration seems to have the opposite effect and temporarily decreases density… :-)

  5. tallbloke says:

    Having driven a few sportscars round racetracks in my time, I know how things feel when subjected to cornering forces, braking forces, and acceleration forces. Quantifying what exactly is going on is another matter. Miles is a master at getting down to the root of mechanical science and pulling apart the accepted equations of motion into their constituent parts so we can see how they hang together.

  6. suricat says:

    Hi tallbloke!

    I think I know what you mean. Mathematical energies have striven for the easy computation that ‘plots the curve’ for coriolis effect and ‘dumped’ the energy equations. It’s many moons since I dealt with this, but probably the best place to start is with ‘The Conical Pendulum’.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conical_pendulum#Analysis

    This isn’t easy for me, I’m uncomfortable with some of the math transformations as they tend to either ‘loose’ information, or ignore the minor influences entirely, and also I don’t/can’t post superscript, but here goes.

    T sin (theta) = m v^2/r is the given first equation. Where m v^2/r is the centrifugal force (notice that this is an acceleration), and T sin (theta) is a ‘geometric’ ‘Cartesian co-ordinate’ that relates to the side graphic. Where a perpendicular line dropped from the junction point between T and L shall dissect the base line r at a point that is ‘scalar-metrically’ the equivalent, when extended to the point at T,r. Thus, the ‘centripetal force magnitude : centrifugal force magnitude (m v^2/r)’.

    There’s a problem with this. The centripetal component is a ‘constant force’ and invariable, whereas the centrifugal component is an ‘accelerating force’ that can be influenced. Though this ‘is’ a basic model, it shows that incongruities exist from the outset of this field of study. The associated forces aren’t directly comparable, as at least one of them has the potential of variability. This being the case the ‘invariable’ force has to be altered also, leading to all sorts of trajectory alteration.

    ‘Speak to you later’ if this is your train of thought and I hope this makes sense. :)

    Best regards, Ray Dart.

  7. suricat says:

    tallbloke.

    Drat! Italic isn’t shown from a ‘Word Pro’ cut’n paste here either. This is hard.

    Best regards, Ray Dart.

  8. Zeke the Sneak says:

    I got my son a Kindle for Christmas. He’s 10. He downloaded Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes complete works for only a couple of dollars, and the illustrations look really terrific on this screen, which uses ink I’m told. You really do need a reading light with these – like a book.

    Although I was not as lucky as tallbloke was. He won’t let me download any pdfs. He told me that before I even asked! lol

  9. cementafriend says:

    Tallbloke, thanks for the post
    You can download Kindle for PC. I searched for the Amazon Kindle Books, put in the Authors name, pressed the buy and it opened on my PC. Then I received an email with details of the order and that the price $9.99 will appear on my credit card.
    Now I have to work out a way of printing the book.
    Some very interesting concepts.
    Also, downloaded the paper on Stefan-Boltzman law. I have wondered where the T^4 came from. From a quick read and first thought is that the concepts would fit in energy only flowing from high temperature to low temperature.
    keep strong
    Cementafriend

  10. tallbloke says:

    Zeke, follow cementafriend’s lead and download kindle for pc. Free and you can put pdf on it. Not as portable as a kindle though!

    You can pick up e-book readers which will do pdf uite cheap of ebay now though. My lady’s previous reader is coming up for sale if you want it.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Ray, sounds interesting. I’ll email you so we can see if your stuff will reformat for a guest post.

  12. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Oh if I had a lab the experiments coming out would be quite interesting.
    I have been playing around with materials science has ignored and do not fit into the current laws of science such as a coil spring. In rotation and straight motion these show how you can compress mass and gases at a macrolevel with the energy of motion.

    Cold gas compression and hot gas compression are two different things as cold gases store energy compressed to a point that the liquid will not allow anymore compression. But hot compression is far more powerful as the molecules are agitated and vibrate. These can be compressed more due to the vibration can compact tighter

  13. tallbloke says:

    Miles on the Cavendish Experiment confirming the law of Gravity:

    “Of course if you work at one of the big universities, you can look up these papers in the library. But those skeptical of the standard model aren’t found working at the universities. Those working at the universities are working there because they have accepted the need for a standard model. Or you can spend $20 to $80 a pop buying them from PRL or APS or IOP online. Or you can look for old books at Alibris or somewhere. But it won’t be easy. My point being that the information is not open, the argument is not open, and finding any counter-argument, even if it exists, is nearly impossible. You can easily find a million variations of the standard model gloss (or, it would be more accurate to say that you are assaulted with them, since they dominate all searches) but all the critiques have been hidden or deleted or priced out of reach. Most of the old books are out of print. You couldn’t buy one if you wanted to. As an independent researcher, you have to travel to a major university and make heavy use of the copier.

    You will say that this has always been one of the difficulties of the amateur, or the independent researcher. And while that is true to a degree, it is to miss my point. The scientific method would require that the question remain open, that the information remain open, and that argument remain open, at all times. And yet that is not what we see. The internet has not become a tool for open information, since most of the information in physics is owned by universities or private publishing houses, and they are not open. They claim to share information, but it always turns out that they share only the information they want you to have. That is not an increase in openness, that is an increase in propaganda. The universities are more than willing to share standard model information with Wikipedia and a thousand other sources, but they are not willing to share historical critiques of the standard model. Any time you seek theories or papers or books that run counter to the standard model, you run up against a huge wall. The problem is not only finding the information, it is ignoring all the negative and false commentary surrounding it, meant to drive you away, and the constant chorus of abuse you will inherit with any question you may have. This is true even when, or especially when, these theories come from respected scholars inside academia. For instance, S.J. Barnett was a professor at UCLA, then went to work at Cal Tech and JPL. He was not some crank or marginal character. And he was not an ancient or outdated character: he was still writing for PRL as late as 1953. He specialized in the field of electromagnetism, and wrote a famous book on electrostatics. He said, “Due to the nature of the laws of electrostatics, the experiment of Cavendish is not conclusive.” Dangerous, and now deleted. “

  14. P.G. Sharrow says:

    “The Law of Gravity”………….Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks.

    Next they will be telling us that there are gravity particals and gravity waves!

    Baa it is all humbug. ;-)

  15. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    I also have had a problem with gravity. Since most things on this planet contain iron and water has the ability to have trace amounts in it. It seems more an electro-magnetic effect.
    So many unknowns and so little time.
    In the past water made an arrangement with salt to help hold it to the planets surface when it was rotating faster. Changed it’s density.

  16. tallbloke says:

    Joe,

    Miles says two factors are at work, the repulsion of the fundamental E/M field,and the expansion of everything. It’s a lot of fun trying to get your head round it. In the end it’s no crazier than a force of attraction operating at a distance. The really interesting thing is Miles says that if you do it his way, relativistic calculations suddenly get easier. I haven’t had the time to work through it.

    Be my guest :)

  17. Joe Lalonde says:

    Thanks Tallbloke!! Your ALL heart! :-)

    Hard to make the science community listen when they are closed minded and think they are 100% correct. Considering the science of today collapses when brought back in time to a more dense water and no evaporation.
    As far as science is concerned, storing and releasing energy is an impossibility(which it is not).

  18. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    I have been following the trail of an Ice Age. For some reason, we believe once an Ice Age occurs, it quickly melts. Which is far from accurate. It takes thousands of years the the millions of square kilometers to melt. Also what it leaves behind is water.
    This was the thermostat of the planet from overheating but oceans developed triggers with the atmosphere to change the water density when it does overheat. Changing of pressure at the equator with centrifugal force can generate massive precipitation.
    Mountains seem to have a directional effect to these systems if you watch the current systems slowdown and stall for long periods of time and moving along the mountain systems.

    Ocean precipitation can do a piggy-back style of covering a land mass from west to east if it dumps a great deal of water for the next storm to pick up.

  19. tallbloke says:

    Joe, I was halfway through a reply when my browser crashed. I’ll pick this up in a while.

  20. suricat says:

    Hi tallbloke.

    I think my last comment can be read ‘as is’ for the most part, so there’s no need for a corrigendum.

    However, to take that point further and more to do with the ethos of your post (I’ve not read the book yet BYW):

    I’m often faced with ‘washing up’ the dinner plates following the evening meal and it strikes me that when dinner plates that ‘stack’ together well are also hard to ‘pull apart’ when fully ‘nested’ under-water. If there’s spacing between them, separation is easy, but if they ‘nest’ snugly, separation is more difficult.

    To me, this suggests an analogy to the ‘Casimir Effect’.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

    Which supports the theory of a ‘detrained aether’. See: http://www.orgonelab.org/energyinspace.htm
    in it’s entirety.

    I think you’ll find this interesting.

    Best regards, Ray Dart.

  21. Zeke the Sneak says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:36 am
    Zeke, follow cementafriend’s lead and download kindle for pc. Free and you can put pdf on it. Not as portable as a kindle though!

    You can pick up e-book readers which will do pdf uite cheap of ebay now though. My lady’s previous reader is coming up for sale if you want it.

    I think a little reader would sort this out. She did not have to reformat anything, did she? Well make me an offer I can’t refuse!

    I can’t read books or pdfs on the computer. Everyone sees me on the laptop and thinks I am posting on WUWT in my pajamas. It looks bad. Also my posture is never good at the computer.

  22. tallbloke says:

    Zeke, Miles Book can only be read on the Kindle platform. We tried to make it possible to read it on the old e-book reader but we were defeated by the encryption. So it looks like you need a good old fashioned printed book unfortunately.

  23. suricat says:

    Zeke the Sneak.

    “I can’t read books or pdfs on the computer. Everyone sees me on the laptop and thinks I am posting on WUWT in my pajamas. It looks bad. Also my posture is never good at the computer.”

    OK! Load these pages:

    http://milesmathis.com/bode.html

    And!

    http://milesmathis.com/

    Now print each HTML page (including your requirement from ‘milesmathis.com/’)!

    You can now take these printed pages wherever you want to, but it’s cost you more (even if you employed two sided printing).

    TB.

    Unless you want to diverge upon the original subject of this thread, I think it’s dead. However, because the thread content includes the subject of ‘Miles Mathis’, I think it still has ‘legs’.

    Best regards, Ray Dart.