Miles Mathis: The Physics Behind the Golden Ratio

Posted: August 26, 2013 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, Electro-magnetism, Energy, Gravity, solar system dynamics

The Physics behind


the Golden Ratio

by Miles Mathis : First posted January 11, 2011


Abstract: I will show the mechanical cause of the golden ratio in physical problems. I will do this by expanding the variables in the math to include the ambient field. I will show that this field, which is the charge field or the unified field, is both the cause and the medium of the golden ratio in physical problems. It is the physical constraint that pushes the numbers into golden ratio.

As a place to begin, the problem is perhaps best put this way: “Why should the larger member seek a size or position that balances the smaller member and the sum? And how could the two members position or re-position themselves, once this balance was chosen?” In other words, we require a feedback mechanism. The two bodies that “seek” the golden ratio would require a form of communication. This has always seemed mysterious, since it is not clear that plants, celestial bodies, etc., could communicate in this way. But now that we have discovered the charge field, and shown that it is a real mechanical field already existing in the field equations of Newton and Einstein, we may look at this problem anew.

So we have at least two big questions to answer in this paper, questions never answered before:
1)Why would inanimate objects, of any size or relationship, desire to be in a golden ratio? Or, put less provocatively, why should they tend to that ratio, mechanically?
2)How does the charge field act as a medium, either facilitating or actually causing the bodies to move to the golden ratio?

What we will find is that the two questions have the same answer. The charge field is not just a medium that facilitates the golden ratio, by allowing for mechanical communication between bodies, and thereby a feedback mechanism. No, the charge field is what causes the bodies to tend to the golden ratio in the first place.

We can see this if we remember that all bodies are emitting a charge field, and that they are emitting based on their size. More rigorously, they are emitting based on their mass and their surface area. We need to know how many emitting particles there are in the body, and the mass tells us this. And we need to know how much space the body is emitting into, and the surface area tells us this. Let us take the Earth and Moon as our test or sample bodies, and let us imagine they are both perfectly spherical. We know that the Earth exists in the Moon’s E/M field at all times, and we know that the Moon exists in the Earth’s E/M field at all times. Given that, we may ask what this “existing in eachother’s charge field” might mean, mechanically and in the long term. No one has ever asked that, have they? Although we now know of the E/M field of celestial bodies (the magnetosphere as well as the electrical sphere), no one has spent much time theorizing about its long-term effects. Until recently, celestial mechanics has been dominated by the gravity field; and even now that plasma physics has gained some traction, it is admitted by only a few that E/M may play a sizeable part in the whole. But be that as it may, we may still ask how this “existing in eachother’s charge field” might play out. Whether or not you believe that celestial mechanics are governed solely by gravity, you can ask this question.

To answer it, we will work backwards from currently accepted numbers. I have used this trick successfully many times in other problems, and it will be useful here again. If we use the two parameters above, mass and surface area, together we get a sort of spherical density. We get the amount of emitting matter we have in a spherical space. And if we look at the known densities of the Earth and Moon, we find the numbers 5.515 and 3.3464. The ratio there is 1.648, which an astute reader was kind enough to point out is very near the golden ratio. I noticed that several years ago when I wrote my paper called The Moon Gives up a Secret, but I passed it by in my hurry to solve other problems. Recently this reader, coming from that paper, kicked me under the table and encouraged me to quit ignoring it. I told him I had shied away from the golden ratio, since I am already being attacked from a thousand quarters: I didn’t need to be attacked as a numerologist as well. I told him when I had a mechanical explanation of phi, I would speak up, and not until then.

Well, I now have it. For if we study the densities, we see that the Moon needs to increase its density to about 3.4 to reach the golden ratio. Two questions come to mind: is it doing that, and why would it be doing that? A third question is, how would it be doing that?

The third question is the easiest to answer. The Earth is being bombarded by charge from everything around it, and so is the Moon. So the Earth is being bombarded by (everything + Moon) and the Moon is being bombarded by (everything + Earth). Therefore, the Moon would be expected to be gaining density slightly faster than the Earth. I don’t mean that the Moon is gaining weight from photons or charge, I mean that the bombardment is actually squashing it a bit. The Moon feels more charge pressure than the Earth, and so it gains density faster than the Earth. It gains density because it is in the heavy charge field of the Earth.

You will say, “If that were so, we would have clear evidence of it. Since the Moon is always showing the same face to us, this ‘squashing’, as you put it, would happen mainly from one side.” Amazingly, we do have that evidence. We know that the Moon is being squashed more in front, and we have known it for decades. Current schematics of the Moon clearly show a deformation or obliteration heaviest nearest the Earth. The nearside crust has been almost completely blasted away, with the heaviest blasting centered at the nearest point. The nearest part of the Moon IS being squashed the most, as we would expect given a charge field.

The first question is simply one of data, and it appears that the Moon isgaining density very slowly. It is doing this by getting smaller, just as you would expect from something that is getting squashed. If a body gets smaller and keeps the same mass, it gains density. My theory was bolstered just last year, when headlines all over the world announced that according to NASA, the Moon is getting smaller. Some will say that NASA did not mean to provide proof of my theory, and that we have no similar data showing that the mass has remained stable over the eons (which my theory would require). But the data from NASA is about as good as any data we are likely to get on this question, since we have not been monitoring the radius of the Moon long enough to compare it to the mass. Real proof of my theory from data would require monitoring both radius and mass over millions of years, and we can’t have done that, obviously. But these indications of noticeable shrinkage are strong if incomplete evidence that the Moon is gaining density. So we have straightforward answers to questions 1 and 3.

Now for question 2. Why would the Moon be tending toward a density of 3.4? Again, working backwards theoretically, we propose that it would do so because it is in the charge field of the Earth. Because the Moon and Earth are very near, they exist within one another’s charge fields. Of course, everything exists in the charge field of everything else, but, due to the nature of the field as emitted by spheres, it must tail off very quickly with distance. To feel the charge field as emitted by a sphere, you must be quite near it. This is another reason charge has been ignored in celestial mechanics: in many instances, it really can be ignored. The direct charge effect of the Sun upon the Earth is small, for example, due to the nature of the field. Even though the charge emitted by the Sun is stupendous, it has already mostly dissipated at the distance of the Earth (relative to the other strong forces at the Earth). We get huge charge side-effects here, due to the Solar Wind and so on, but this is due to the ions driven along by the photons. Without the ions, the photons spit out by the Sun would have a minimal field effect here, relative to gravity, the ambient charge field, the Solar Wind, and so on.

At any rate, although the charge field (of specific bodies) is a small player at great distances, at smaller distances like between the Earth and Moon, it can be a big player. And in the presence of ions, it is a very big player. We know there are lots of ions between here and the Moon, so we have a mechanism available. We have a mechanism, but we don’t have a cause. We could explain an effect, but we don’t yet have a viable theory for an effect, do we?

Actually, we do, but it is still hidden in the words above. Where is it hidden? It is hidden in the word “everything.” Above I said that the Moon was affected by (everything + Earth) and that the Earth was affected by (everything + Moon). Before we unlock the secret, let us study those words a bit more closely. You will say that I could apply that sort of word-math to any two bodies at random, but that isn’t really true. As I just showed, the Earth and Moon are affecting one another via the charge field in a way that nothing else is affecting them. They are feeling weak charge from all other nearby bodies, but strong charge from one another, due only to distance. Also notice that they are feeling the same overall field from outside. In other words, the Moon receives the same forces from all other bodies that the Earth does. In this way, the “everything” of the Moon is equal to the “everything” of the Earth. Whatever the Earth receives from the Sun, the Moon also receives. Whatever the Earth receives from Jupiter, the Moon also receives. Whatever the Earth receives from the galactic core, the Moon also receives. This is simply because the Moon is orbiting the Earth. The center of the Moon’s space is the also the center of the Earth’s space. The distance of the Earth from the Sun is 1AU; the distance of the Moon from the Sun is 1AU. Etc.

We can turn this “everything” upside down and put it into the golden ratio, like this: the golden ratio can be stated “small is to large as large is to sum.” But “everything” really means “everything except the sum.” When I say “everything” above, I mean everything outside the Earth-Moon system. The Earth-Moon system is the sum, therefore “everything” means “everything except the sum.” To put it another way, we now have four variables or entities to work with where we had three before. In the golden ratio, we have a, b, and (a+b). This way of writing the math makes us think we only have two or possibly three players, so we cannot understand how the three terms influence one another. But I have just shown that we really have a, b, (a+b), and (everything beyond a+b). Up to now, we have represented the golden ratio by line segments or triangles, but these representations are incomplete, because they leave out “everything else.” Because we think “everything else” is stable or constant, we ignore it. We don’t represent it in our drawings or math. But the physical fact is that “everything else” is influencing a and b all the time. Not only that, but “everything else” is related mathematically and mechanically to a, b, and (a+b) all the time. This will give us both the math and cause of the math.

To make this a bit less airy and philosophical sounding, let us re-assign variables. Let us change the name of (a+b) to c, and (everything beyond a+b) will be d. The universe is now represented by c+d, which we will also give a variable, u. Now, instead of just looking at how a and b relate to one another, we can look at how a and b relate to u. This is how the universe and how physics really work. Perhaps now you see that the current math of the golden ratio treats a and b as straight co-dependents or functions, when they aren’t. The golden ratio couldn’t be understood mechanically as long as we were trying to define a and b in terms of one another. They aren’t physically defined in terms of one another only. The terms a, b, and a+b are all functions of d and u.

Let me state that one more way, for good measure. If we treat a+b as a line segment, we must remember that a line segment is defined as a partial thing. A line segment is part of a greater line. If you have the segment that is between a and b, you also have the segments that are not between a and b. The current representation ignores that. If you represent phi by a triangle, you not only have what is inside the triangle, you have what is outside the triangle. The current representation ignores that.

I know that this will sound like zen or yoga to many people at first, but it is straight math and physics. Physics is always applied math, and if you have faulty or incomplete variable assignments, you have faulty or incomplete math. The historical representation of phi has been at least one variable short.

A reader will say, “What do you mean, a variable short? We can’t assign a variable to infinity, can we? If you include the “line segments” on either side of (a+b), you only have two infinities!”

I am really not being esoteric here, since I am the one that will remain mechanical. It is current mathematicians and physicists who are airy, not me. They are the ones that teach that math is or should be pure. They are the ones that tell you not think of math in terms of tangibles. They are the ones that tell you to learn calculus without asking for visualizations. They are the ones that tell you not to expect quantum mechanics or relativity to make sense. They are the ones that tell you to shut up and calculate. If you can’t understand the physics, they tell you to stick to the math. I am doing the opposite. If you don’t understand the math, go back to the physics. Go back to something tangible or physical. If the math hits you with an infinity here, go back to the physics. It will show you how to get around the infinity.

Go back to the Moon+Earth problem. We want to represent the “everything” beyond the E+M system. Although space may or may not be infinite, we don’t need to represent “everything” by an infinity. We can more easily represent it by 1. We let the universe be 1 or totality, in which case the E+M system becomes 1 – d. The Earth is then 1 – d – b, and the Moon is 1 – d – a. We can then rewrite the golden ratio as

(1 – d – a)/(1 – d – b) = (1 – d – b)/( 1 – d)

You will say that is just juggling numbers, but it isn’t, because the question has changed. We aren’t asking why the smaller body should be in the same ratio to the large body as the large is to the sum, which is the same as asking how the two relate to one another. No, we are asking why the two variables a and b relate to the number 1 in such a way as to create this equality. The two variables are functions not only of one another, but of the number 1. The way the current equation is written, this cannot be seen, because even if we try to think of the problem in this new way, we end up trying to write the two variables as functions of eachother and infinity, which is impossible. This way, we see how the number one can limit the math.

This new representation solves the problem not only mathematically, but conceptually. Although the universe may or may not be infinite, we know the unified field force from the universe upon the Earth and Moon is not infinite. It is some real and therefore finite force. This being so, the forces of the Earth and Moon upon one another must be some real fraction of this total force. So a, b, and d can all be written as fractions, or as parts of the number 1. This automatically makes them functions of the number 1, and allows us to limit the math. The variables a and b are not just functions of one another, they are functions of one another and the number 1. Or, to say it another way, the Moon and Earth are not just functions of one another, they are functions of one another and of the total unified field at the Earth. The total unified field at the Earth/Moon acts as a sort of wall against which a and b can bounce. The values of a and b are limited not only by a and b, they are limited by the total external field.

Some readers will balk here and tell me that the charge field, or whatever I am using as this limiting wall, is not big enough to act as a wall. They will say we have no evidence of such an “ether,” and so on. But of course we do. We have centuries of evidence, if not of an ether, then of an electromagnetic space that surrounds everything. Mainstream physics has just ignored it for the last century, because it conflicts with their current equations. They don’t want to rewrite all their Nobel-Prize-winning math, so they ignore mountains of old evidence, and new evidence coming in every day (see my other papers to find these many mountains). I have shown that the charge field exists prominently in the field equations of Einstein and Newton, and has all along. Not only that, but I have recently shown that this charge field is what physicists are now calling dark matter. Dark matter is not non-baryonic, it is photonic. The only thing these physicists have right is the percentage of “dark matter.” They tell us that 95% of the universe is dark matter. No, 95% of the universe is charge photons. Charge outweighs everything else by 19 to 1. Which makes it perfectly capable of acting as a wall in this current problem.

Other readers will still not understand how this provides a mechanical or mathematical solution. They will say, “Fine, you showed some mystical influence from the rest of the universe. But the question remains, why the number 1.618 instead of some other number? Why does the smaller body tend to be the same fraction of the large body as the large body is to the sum?”

The answer to those who keep asking this is, “You are still seeing the problem upside down. You are seeing a and b as functions of one another only. They aren’t. The smaller body doesn’t tend toward that fraction of the large body. Both the large body and the small body simultaneously maintain a relationship with one another and with the universe.” The Earth is being pushed by both the universe and the Moon, and the Moon is being pushed by both the universe and the Earth. It is these combined influences that create phi. The current equation is incomplete because it tries to represent the problem as a pure math problem. As a pure math problem, the line beyond ab can be ignored. But the problem of the golden ratio is a physics problem, not a pure math problem. Pure numbers don’t tend toward the golden ratio. Numbers applied to real things tend to the golden ratio. Therefore we have to study the mechanics of real bodies to understand the golden ratio.

Mathematicians have long known that it requires constraints to create the golden ratio. The golden ratio is a sort of feedback mechanism between two variables, forcing them into the ratio. They can show these constraints mathematically, but they cannot show them physically. Put simply, the golden ratio is the only solution to x – 1 = 1/x. Mathematicians can show you tricks with that all day long, but they can’t tell you why phi shows up in nature, although we know that it does. That is what I am doing here. The short answer is that pure math doesn’t have the complexity necessary to solve this. That last equation has only one variable in it. The more popular form of the golden ration has two. But that still isn’t enough. We have to give the constraints variables, also, in order to show the mechanical cause of the ratio. And once we have given the constraits variables, we have to assign those variables to something. That is the other historical problem here: without the charge field, physicists had nothing to assign the constraints to. Gravity is completely incapable of causing the golden ratio, and most physicists in history came to see that pretty quickly. So they gave up. That is why the problem still exists today.

It may help to look more closely at the physics involved with the Earth/Moon problem. Again, if the math is unclear, look at the physics. This is just the opposite of the current mantra, which tells you to stick with the math when the physics gets hard. I have shown above that the Earth and the Moon are in the same field, with regard to distance from other objects. Since the Moon orbits the Earth, it is the same average distance from the universe. But because the Earth and Moon are not the same size, they do not react the same to the same unified field or the same unified force. Because the Earth is larger, it encounters a larger section of the field; and because it is denser, its constituent particles get hit more often. Therefore, the Earth feels more force from the ambient field than the Moon does. This is how a and b are functions of 1, and how a and b are not the same function of 1. This is why the current math and representations don’t work: they ignore the variable influence of 1 upon a and b. They ignore the line beyond the segment ab, which is a mathematical and physical mistake. The line segment beyond ab is not a constant and cannot be ignored. It is a variable, and must be included in the math.

This realization allows us to extend our equation above once more, to flesh it out. For we now see that we don’t just have a, b, c, and d, we have a, b, c, d as felt by a, and d as felt by b. Or, to say it the long way, we have the Earth, the Moon, the Earth+Moon, the universe as felt by the Earth, and the universe as felt by the Moon. We have FIVE dependent variables. This is why the number five is important in problems concerning phi.

We can see this clearly if we look at the triangle visualization of phi. This is the figure they publish at Wikpedia and all the other physics pages:

Ignore all the blue tags and we will concentrate on the line segments, whose lengths represent the forces of our bodies upon one another. This visualization is useful because it allows us to represent and tag our five variables. Like this:

a = AX
b = BX
a+b = AB
da = CA
db = CB

[As you see, I have ignored the tags of Wikipedia, and assigned my own variables to the golden triangle.] To say it in English, the line segment CA is the force of the rest of the universe upon the Earth, and CB is the force of the rest of the universe upon the Moon. We see that they are different lengths, and I have shown that this is because the Moon and Earth are different sizes. We also see that the angle at C is bisected. Until now, this was just a fact, unexplained. Why is the angle at C bisected? And why is C where it is, and not at some other point? For example, if C were moveable, we could slide it over until it was equidistant from A and B. In that case, we could slide X to the midpoint of AB, and the angle at C would be bisected. Why does C want to be bisected where it is in the figure, and at no other place? In other words, why does CB want to be the same as AX? In English, why does the force of the universe upon the Moon want to be equal to the force of the Earth upon the Moon? As you can see from the figure, CB = AX. Why? Simple. If the forces weren’t equal, the Moon wouldn’t be in equilibrium. It wouldn’t stay were it is. The Moon keeps its position in the universe because the forces from the Earth and the rest of the universe balance at the Moon.

So we have found that the force from the rest of the universe upon the Moon is not only finite, it is relatively small. It is the same as the force from the Earth.

You will say, “But isn’t the charge force from the Earth a vector? At any one moment, the Earth is only one direction from the Moon, so the charge force from the Earth to the Moon must be directionalized, or uni-directional. The force from the universe is not uni-directional; it is coming from all directions. How can these forces balance?”

That’s a good question, but it is easily answered. The best way to answer it is to think of the old “equal and opposite rule” of Newton. And, again, to think of the ambient charge field as a wall. I have shown that the ambient charge field is 19 times more massive than matter itself, even in the vicinity of matter. Since the Earth and Moon are creating their charge fields by recycling this ambient field, their emitted fields cannot be stronger than the ambient field. Their emitted fields must be weaker, especially at any distance from their surfaces. Therefore, the charge fields of these bodies, although perfectly capable of transmitting large forces, are not capable of trumping the ambient charge field. Think of it like this: you are quite strong and are capable of transmitting forces to anything you touch. But the wall in your room outweighs you by many times. If you push on it as hard as you can, you cannot move it. But that does not mean that you have not transmitted a force. You have. You have applied the force and the wall has matched it exactly, in reverse. So you have large forces with no movement. That is what we have here with the Moon. The Earth has applied a large force, and the Moon, held by the ambient charge field, has matched it. Forces without motion.

You will say, “Good grief, if the charge field is that strong, how does the Moon ever move in its orbit?” Well, I never said the charge field was thatstrong. I said the ambient charge field was stronger than the Earth’s charge field at the distance of the Moon, that’s all. But relative to the forces that cause the Moon to orbit, the ambient charge field is very small. The ambient charge field is 19 times more massive than normal matter, but by normal matter I mean things like protons, not things like satellites. The ambient charge field can resist a weaker charge field, but it cannot resist (much) the Moon travelling at over 1km/s. Besides, if you are asking this, you need to remind yourself that I am explaining a golden ratio in the density of the Moon, not in its position. If you want to read about the orbital motion of the Moon in the unified field, you need to go to one of my other papers.

“OK,” you will say, “But we are drifting into mud here. You still haven’t explained why the Moon and Earth are in a golden ratio. The Earth and Moon could be any size at all relative to one another, and all you have said would still be true. If the Moon and Earth were the same size, the charge field from the universe would still match the charge field from Earth to Moon and maintain equilibrium, according to your mechanics. CB would equal AX, but nothing would be in golden ratio. It is not enough that CB = AX. You haven’t shown why the angle is bisected for one thing.”

Well, we aren’t in mud, we are just answering questions that must be answered. But yes, we do still have some loose strings to tie up. To do this, we go back to the golden triangle. To achieve the golden triangle, not only must CB=AX, but the angle at C must be bisected. Only when both these requirements are fulfilled do we achieve the golden triangle. If CB=AX and the angle at C is bisected, then we must have a golden triangle. Those are the pure math constraints, and they have long been known.

Before we move on to the equal angles, we must finish explaining the importance of CB=AX. This entire paper hinges on understanding that constraint, and that equality. If the Moon and Earth were the same size, as my critic says, then CB could not equal AX. Consult the triangle again. If AX=XB, and if C is not on the line AB, then CB cannot equal AX. This is not to say that equal partners are disallowed in close systems like this, it is just to say that there is a constraint. The ambient field “likes” for CB to equal AX, because then the system is in a lowest energy state: the ambient field is resisting AX as little as possible, you see. The ambient field cannot resist AX with a lesser force, since the ambient field is fundametally greater. The ambient field can resist AX with a greater force, but it doesn’t like to, since that is not efficient. So the two forces tend to balance, naturally creating the golden ratio.

Think of you pushing against a wall. The wall, being larger, could resist you with an equal force or a greater force, but it couldn’t resist you with a lesser force. Simply because it is larger, it must resist with a force at least equal to yours. But it would be inefficient for the wall to resist you with a greater force: it would have to create internal pressure to do so. So the wall “prefers” to match your force exactly, in any situation it can. Likewise with the charge field resisting a force on the Moon by the Earth. The field, being the largest force present, can answer the Earth’s force with a greater or equal force. If the Earth and Moon were the same size, the field wouldhave to answer with a greater force, as we see from the triangle. But, given the choice, the field will prefer to answer the force with an equal force. Since the system of the Earth/Moon has give (like all systems), the charge field will push the system to the lowest energy state. The charge field will prefer to be lazy. If the Moon is anywhere near the golden ratio, the charge field will try to push it to that lowest energy state. Since the Moon has give in its density (is compressible), the charge field works preferentially on that parameter in this case.

So I have shown why CB=AX, but I haven’t shown why the angle is bisected. As a useful visualization, you may think of the angle as representing the way the force from the universe arrives, and the line segments CA and CB as how the force from the universe is felt. I have already shown above that the Moon and Earth are the same distance from the universe. The force therefore arrives equally to both Moon and Earth. But I have also shown that the force is felt unequally, since the Moon and Earth are different sizes. So the two angles at C are equal because the field itself is equal to itself. The field at the Earth is the same as the field at the Moon. The angles represent the field itself. But the unequal segments CA and CB represent how the Moon and Earth experience the same force. From the point of view of the universe, the forces applied are equal. From the point of view of the bodies, the forces are not equal. Our math and diagram must represent this fact, and the way they represent it is by making the angles equal and the segments unequal, you see. The only way to make the angles equal, the segments unequal, and CB=AX, is with the golden triangle. In this way, the number 1.618 is forced to appear by the requirements of the field.

I don’t need to prove these mathematical requirements, since they are already known. It has already been proved by others before me that these requirements necessarily produce the golden triangle. Rigorously, it was proved in the other direction, meaning that it was proved that the golden triangle necessarily produced the bisection and the equality CB=AX. But, as I have shown, in physics it is the reverse that is true. It is the field that causes the triangle, not the triangle that causes the field. We are not given a golden ratio, achieving the bisected angle. We are given the bisected angle, and we show that it must build a golden triangle.

My tough reader will say, “Fine, but all that would still apply if the Earth and Moon were equal. Are you saying that the charge field would push a Moon as big as the Earth down to its present size?” No, that is not what I am saying. Nor am I saying that only bodies near the golden ratio can orbit, or pair up, or anything else. All I am saying is that there exists a mechanism in the charge field to push bodies that are near the ratio into the ratio, over long periods of time. I am saying that the charge field provides a constraint, and that this constraint tends to push bodies into certain ratios, one of them being the golden ratio. In future papers, I will show how other ratios may be “privileged” by the charge field. In two body systems, this would include the ratio phi/2 and so on. With multi-body systems, the ratios would be more complex.

One of the many reasons this was not seen before is that the golden triangle has been mislabelled and misanalyzed. You can see this from Wikipedia’s labels, where CB is labelled as phi. That is not wrong, but it is mechanically useless. What I have done is let AB stand for our original line segment ab, then take C as a point off the segment that can influence the segment. In this way, we create the same golden triangle, but the point C is now assignable to a real field. In the Wiki diagram, C is not assigned to anything. It is just a mysterious third point, floating in undefined space. In my diagram, C becomes a representation of the field at ab, and this allows us to solve the problem mechanically.

To say it another way, I started off (way above) by proposing that the line beyond ab should be included in the analysis of ab. I stated that the line beyond ab should be capable of influencing ab, since this problem was physics, not pure math. But in that case, everything was linear. All we had was a number line. It was not especially clear how the line beyond ab could affect ab, even after I showed that it could be represented by 1 rather than infinity. To make this more clear, I brought in the third dimension. A line has two dimensions, but a triangle has three dimensions. Rather than influence the segment ab from along the original line, I moved the influence off the line, and influenced ab from a point C. This created a triangle. Although this clarified the mechanics a bit, it still created a compression of reality, since the universe is not really affecting ab, the Earth/Moon, or anthing else from a point. In reality, the universe is affecting ab from all points. But that would be impossible to represent in a diagram, for obvious reasons. So we compress the variables, letting some be represented by angles and others by lines, in order to draw them.

If you are still having trouble, study the triangle as it is created from the point of view of point C. Put your eyeball at C, and pretend you are the universe affecting some given system. Let AX be the Earth and XB be the Moon. From point C, the field is emitted the same to both bodies. That is what the equal angles represent. The field as emitted from point C is the same for the Earth and Moon. Because the Earth and Moon are equal distances from C, the total field, we let the field split into two equal parts, hence the equal angles. But then we have to represent the unequal sizes of the Earth and Moon relative to the field. We do this by drawing AB at a slant to C. So although the field left C in equal parts, it arrives at AB in unequal parts. Do you see it now?

We may now return to our original statement of the golden ratio, for more analysis. I began this paper by stating the golden ratio in one of its commoner ways: small is to large as large is to sum. But since I have shown that CB = AX, and since AX is “large,” we may make a substitution. CB is the force of the universal field upon the Moon, the Moon being “small.” So the statement of the golden rule becomes “small is to the force upon it as the force upon it is to the sum.” Or, a variation: “the force of the Moon upon the Earth is to the force of universe upon the Moon, as the force of the universe upon the Moon is to the combined force of Moon and Earth.” Using my variables above, this would be

a = db
b/db = db/(a+b)

Then we go back to the other expression of the equality:
1/φ = φ – 1
b/a = (a/b) – b/b
b/db = (db – b)/b

combining the two, we get
(db – b) /b = a/(db+ b)
ab = (db – b)(db+ b)

This is a useful equation, because if you can visual that equation, you can visualize why the Moon is pushed toward a golden ratio by the ambient charge field. The product ab is the Earth/Moon system, or the total force between Earth and Moon. The variable db is the ambient force upon the Moon, and b is the force of the Moon back upon the field. So you can see how the ambient field acts as the constraint that pushes the other variables into golden ratio.

Finally, I will be asked why the golden ratio shows itself in the density and not in some other parameter, like mass, radius, or orbit. This itself is proof of the theory, because density is the logical place for the unified field to show itself. I have shown that the constraint that causes the golden ratio is provided by the unified field, especially by the charge part of the unified field. Well, as those know who have read my other unified field papers, density is the most important unified field number for any body. It is the most important because it contains both fields, and expresses both fields. To calculate in the unified field, mass isn’t enough. You need to know how much mass in how much space. I showed this most clearly when I exploded Newton’s gravity equation. Newton’s gravity equation actually contains both density and volume, since mass can be written that way. However, his equation, without my expansion, has no way to plug in all the variables. You can only put masses into his equation, and that isn’t enough information for the equation. The equation, to work properly, needs to know how much mass in how much space. That is a matter of density. Density is the primary variable in the unified field, so we should not be surprised to find that when the unified field is providing a mathematical constraint, we find it is constraining density. That would be the first place to look.

Of course there is much more to be said on this problem, but I think I have shown that phi in nature is not a coincidence. There are numerical coincidences in Nature to be sure, but most of the number relations that have been passed off as coincidence or numerology are, I believe, simply mechanical phenomena yet to be explained. This paper stands as a first attempt in that direction.

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    I read it through fully for the third time, and finally, I got it completely. Taking the time to learn the meaning of the variables so you can understand the meaning of the triangle segments and the equations as you read them to yourself is worth the effort.

  2. oldbrew says:

    If you’re finding Miles Mathis a bit tricky to follow, here’s a simple explanation of Earth, Moon and Phi with a graphic too. The 1.272 figure is the square root of Phi.

    http://www.goldennumber.net/solar-system/

    Don’t take the bit below it about orbital periods too seriously 😉

  3. If you are convinced by any part of Miles Mathis’s exposition above, then you are probably not ready to accept the following (nor should you be deluding yourself and others that you are discussing physical science, for you should be able to see many holes in his “physical” reasoning):

    Phi is a mathematical expression of simple laws of growth and reproduction in living things–as implied in the Fibonacci series, and its many applications to living, growing organisms–and an aesthetic element deliberately chosen in constructions by men and women expressly trained in its history and usage. For example, the “triangle visualization of phi” discussed by Mathis in the above is not so, but is instead expressly a “triangle visualization” of phi-squared in relation to phi; it should be understood, just as successive terms in the Fibonacci series are understood, as a simple law of growth or reproduction, with each successive layer, or generation, greater by the factor phi (=1.618…)–or the ratio of successive Fibonacci terms–than the previous such (see the Chambered Nautilus, one of the most famous examples). Primarily, its presence in the geometry of a thing in the so-called “natural” world is a clue to the fact that the thing was deliberately designed, it is not an emergent property of an undirected (that is, not intelligently directed) universal field in action. Phi is present, both precisely and approximately, in the DNA molecule, whose double-helix structure literally shouts out “this was designed” by its artistic perfection of overall and detailed form. As such, it is the simplest, clearest clue today to the fact that all the life on Earth was deliberately designed.

    And my scientific research (as opposed to the false pretense of science above) has already shown the further fact, that not just the surface of the Earth and all that lives on it, but also the entire solar system, was subjected to wholesale re-formation, to enable a great design–and that design, like the DNA molecule, was made to be learned and known as such by mankind.

    You might be interested in my short article, The Clockwork Moon Science Ignores, for just how obvious it should be that the Moon’s orbit was designed.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Harry, sorry our karma ran over your dogma.

    You could choose to think about it another way of course. maybe the grand Designer (who was designed by, who?) is cleverer and lazier than wanting to go to the trouble of individually designing sundry numbers of creatures, plants, planetary systems & etc to conform to the golden ratio. Maybe the Designer (does the designer need a capital ‘D’?) designed a universe with a background field of ‘dark matter’ or ‘fundamental E/M photons’ such that it *causes* the golden section to be an ’emergent property’ of the sub-systems which evolve in it.

    How should we go about choosing between the possibilities? Clearly, scientific investigation is not an option which will help here. In my own search for understanding, tracing back through complexity to generalisable principles towards a monad of principle cause involves parsimony, and preferably, brevity. That’s so it won’t take me too long to explain my ideas to someone else, and there’ll be time for lounging around in the sun speculating too. 😉

  5. ren says:

    Is this a good example?

  6. tallbloke says:

    ren: To understand my interest in the golden ratio, have a look at the discovery I made in February this year here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-remarkable-discovery-all-solar-system-periods-fit-the-fibonacci-series-and-the-golden-ratio/

  7. tjfolkerts says:

    Sorry … I just couldn’t get past :

    “We can see this if we remember that all bodies are emitting a charge field, and that they are emitting based on their size. More rigorously, they are emitting based on their mass and their surface area.”

    and

    ” Two questions come to mind: is it [the moon] doing that [trying to achieve a certain density], and why would it be doing that?”

    The “charge field” (E-field???) would be related to the charge, not the mass. I searched for “charge field” through the whole paper, and found no definition — just lots of hand-waving. If the “charge field” can’t be defined in an equation, then it is ‘not ready for prime time’.

    The moon has the mass it does due to the coincidence of a particular rock hitting the proto-earth at a particular angle and a particular time. An inanimate object can’t ‘try’ to reach a particular ratio. Equally as damning .. what are the density ratios for other moons and their planets? Are they ALL trying to reach a ratio of 1.618:1?

  8. dp says:

    Doesn’t this explanation (Earth/Moon) depend on the happy coincidence of initial size of the two bodies at the time of the pairing? This doesn’t seem like it can scale.

  9. Roger Andrews says:

    tjfolkerts:

    “what are the density ratios for other moons and their planets? Are they ALL trying to reach a ratio of 1.618:1?”

    Here’s Jupiter and its moons:

    Jupiter …….. 1.33 g/cc
    Io ……………. 3.55 g/cc
    Europa ……. 3.04 g/cc
    Ganymede.. 1.94 g/cc
    Callisto ……. 1.81 g/cc

  10. kuhnkat says:

    tjfolkerts,

    maybe this paper might give you what you are looking for. It is easiest to begin reading Miles from his earliest papers as he builds on them, but, does not necessarily repeat every foundational equation or interpretation/idea in every paper dealing with them.

    http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

  11. kuhnkat says:

    harryd,

    you might want to ignore Miles’ Fibonacci paper also:

    Click to access phi2.pdf

    I agree that it was designed, but, the designer had a clear logical way of building it.

  12. Brian H says:

    Only read it through once, and this may not be critical, but you say, “A line has two dimensions, but a triangle has three dimensions.”
    Wrong. By definition, a line has one dimension, and a triangle two. The third would be depth, above and below the triangle.

  13. Brian H says:

    Roger;
    He states that if two bodies happen to be near the golden ratio, the charge field will, over long periods of time, tend to bring them closer. Otherwise, not so much. There are others (of which I know nothing, per his system). So Jupiter’s moons are not pertinent.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: what are the density ratios for other moons and their planets? Are they ALL trying to reach a ratio of 1.618:1?

    Miles Mathis: In future papers, I will show how other ratios may be “privileged” by the charge field. In two body systems, this would include the ratio phi/2 and so on. With multi-body systems, the ratios would be more complex.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Tim F: I searched for “charge field” through the whole paper, and found no definition — just lots of hand-waving. If the “charge field” can’t be defined in an equation, then it is ‘not ready for prime time’.

    Miles Mathis: I have shown that the charge field exists prominently in the field equations of Einstein and Newton, and has all along.

    http://milesmathis.com/g.html

  16. tallbloke says:

    dp says:
    August 27, 2013 at 1:32 am
    Doesn’t this explanation (Earth/Moon) depend on the happy coincidence of initial size of the two bodies at the time of the pairing? This doesn’t seem like it can scale.

    Miles Mathis says: All I am saying is that there exists a mechanism in the charge field to push bodies that are near the ratio into the ratio, over long periods of time.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Roger Andrews says:
    August 27, 2013 at 4:14 am
    tjfolkerts:

    “what are the density ratios for other moons and their planets? Are they ALL trying to reach a ratio of 1.618:1?”

    Here’s Jupiter and its moons:

    Jupiter …….. 1.33 g/cc
    Io ……………. 3.55 g/cc
    Europa ……. 3.04 g/cc
    Ganymede.. 1.94 g/cc
    Callisto ……. 1.81 g/cc

    The precise phi relationship between Jupiter and it’s moons is in their orbital periods. Post on this soon. For a first approximation the orbital radii are in a φ3456 relationship
    http://lunaf.com/english/live-data/jupiter-moons-position/

    Regarding densities, it’s worth noting that:

    (1/3.55)+0.11=1-Φ
    (1/3.04)+0.053=1-Φ
    (1/1.94)+0.1003=Φ
    (1/1.81)+0.0655=Φ

    Oldbrew can add more interesting observations to this.

  18. tjfolkerts says:

    “maybe this paper might give you what you are looking for …

    No, it didn’t help. I found it confused and confusing, filled with obvious errors. One quick example:

    ε0 = 1/c2μ0 = 8.8541878176 × 10-12 C2/Jm
    Permittivity ε0 is the ratio D/E in vacuum.
    μ0 is the permeability of vacuum, and has the value 4π×10-7 N/A2.
    N/A2 turns out to be m2/N, so that
    ε0 = 8.85 × 10-12kg/m3
    Or, if we express mass in terms of length and time, then
    ε0 = 8.85 × 10-12 /s2

    He gives three different variations of the units of ε0
    * C^2/ (J*m) [correct in the first line, which he clearly quoted from somewhere else]
    * kg/m^3 [incorrect, based on his derivation]
    * s^-2 [incorrect, based on his derivation]
    He also claims that 1 N/A^2 = 1 m^2/N, which also is clearly incorrect.

    For correct units, look to wikipedia, foe example:
    ε0 ≈ 8.854187817620 × 10−12 F·m−1 (or A2·s4·kg−1·m−3 in SI base units, or C2·N−1·m−2 or C·V−1·m−1 using other SI coherent units).

    [Reply] You would have to read more of Mathis’ work to understand his rationale for recalculating these theoretical values. I doubt you will, and even if you did, you’d still try to refute him on a paper by paper basis instead of understanding his work as a whole, because you’re pre-disposed to knock him down. Given his disparaging comments regarding the myopia of the current crop of physicists, I understand why.

  19. tjfolkerts says:

    @ Roger Andrews

    I was looking for the ratios of the densities. It is claimed that there is some cosmic significance to the ratio:

    (density planet) / (density moon) = phi

    [Moderation note] This is incorrect. The author made no such claim. Besides which, your equation (and it is your equation, not Miles Mathis’), represent an identity, (which you falsely claim he proposes), not a ratio.

    for planet earth and our moon.

    [Reply] Ah, so now you acknowledge he’s only writing about the Earth and our Moon, not about planets and moons in general. So why the stupid generalising equation?

    Well, if this is any sort of universal truth, then if should work for ANY planet and ANY moon. So (density Jupiter) / (density Io) should be about 1.618, and (density Saturn) / (density titan) should be about 1.618, (density Pluto) / (density Charon) should be about 1.618.

    Unless there is such a pattern (there isn’t!), then this is simply one coincidence with many counterexamples to show that there is no such pattern in nature.

    [Reply]This is a straw man argument leading to a false conclusion. You’ve made out the author made a claim he didn’t. Then you’ve tried to make him look foolish by pointing out nature doesn’t conform to the claim you say he made which he didn’t. You don’t get to blatantly ignore what the author says, make up your own version and project it onto the author, and continue to participate in the thread. Especially when I already pointed this out to you and provided the relevant quote, and you’ve blatantly ignored that response too.
    Mathis:
    “In future papers, I will show how other ratios may be “privileged” by the charge field. In two body systems, this would include the ratio phi/2 and so on. With multi-body systems, the ratios would be more complex.”
    “All I am saying is that there exists a mechanism in the charge field to push bodies that are near the ratio into the ratio, over long periods of time.”

  20. suricat says:

    TB.

    Sorry, but I’ve given up on reading through this article. 😦

    How can an ‘E-field’ (electrical field) relate as the ‘main’ attractor to an orbit maintained by gravity and an inertial kinetic vector?

    [Reply]Mathis isn’t discussing orbits here.

    This smacks of ‘Electric Universe’. It seems to miss-describe known engineering formulae into ‘other’ media.

    The ‘phi’ triangle description that mentions a ‘bisection’ reminds me of the ‘force vector diagrams’ I encountered in my early engineering education. It seems obvious to me that if the angle isn’t ‘dissected’ at the ‘bisection’ angle, the system isn’t in ‘equilibrium’ and is, perhaps, falling towards ‘the same’ (equilibrium [harmonic unity]), or moving towards a more ‘chaotic state’ (evolution [harmonic discord]).

    I see that there’s a ‘following’ article to this one. I’ll take a look.

    Best regards, Ray.

    [Reply] You can find out what Mathis thinks of the ‘Electric universe’ theory here: http://milesmathis.com/venus2.pdf it might also help you understand the difference between an ‘electrical field’ and his ‘charge field’

  21. tallbloke says:

    This illustration might help us understand what is going on:

    “The idea is to try to fill a right-angled triangle with an infinite number of maximally-sized squares.
    Although you can try this with any right-angled triangle, there are certain critical proportions at which the dimensions of the filling-squares snap into simple quantised relationships.
    The first quantised solution happens with a triangle with angles of 90°, 45°, 45°. For that ratio, the squares form a cascading series where each square is exactly half the size of the last, and the quantity of squares in each size goes up in factors of two (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, … etc.).
    The next solution doesn’t turn up until we use the proportions above, which turn out to be those of the Golden Section.
    For this solution, the sizes of the squares form a Golden-Section series, and their quantities form a familiar pattern. There’s one large square in the corner, another single square one size down alongside it, then two identical copies of the next square (alongside #2 and above #1), three of the next, then five, then eight ….
    This series runs 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144 … It’s the Fibonacci Series!
    So while it’s already well-appreciated that the ratios between consecutive Fibonacci Series numbers converges on the Golden Ratio (as do an infinite number of other similar series), it’s less well appreciated that if you start with the Golden Section, you can generate the Fibonacci series from it by quantisation.
    As we make the shape of the triangle “sharper”, we hit an infinite number of further solutions

  22. tallbloke says:

    Tim Folkerts appears to be under the mistaken impression that Mathis is trying to generalise something about planets and moons in this paper. He isn’t. In fact he explicitly states that he isn’t. Tim Folkerts hasn’t read the paper, or he is deliberately misconstruing it to put Mathis in a bad light.

    Mathis is proposing that the reason nature tends to put things in the real world into a Golden Ratio won’t be worked out by looking only at the two things in the ratio, but by understanding the relationship not just of the two things to each other, but also their relationships to the world around them.

    Physicists like Tim Folkerts hate this kind of thinking, because it threatens their narrow world of discrete and unrelated heuristics, fossilised in textbooks like so many butterflys pinned to a board..

  23. kuhnkat says:

    tjfolkerts,

    you have just asserted that MM is wrong and the only support for your position you offer is Wikipedia..

    Pardon me if I am not impressed.

  24. kuhnkat says:

    tjfolkerts,

    you appear to be confused by the modern Feynman curse which does not allow mechanics.

    If you bothered to read MM you would discover that he bases everything on mechanics. What this means is that when he makes a statement such as this one with the Golden Ratio, there must be an underlying PHYSICAL explanation rather than Feynman mysticism. The answer to why the Golden ration cannot work the way you attempt to assert is simple and very physical. With the earth and moon there are primarily two bodies emitting charge to interact. In the Jupiter system there are many more as with Saturn.

    Obviously with multiple bodies emitting charge it will not be that simple as they must all be accounted for rather than using some vacuum fudge or pushed equations.

    Sad that you cannot even pick up such simple concepts yet can do math I cannot. If you really want to destroy MM you must learn his ideas to know where to attack them. You are failing pitifully so far.

  25. tjfolkerts says:

    ” And if we look at the known densities of the Earth and Moon, we find the numbers 5.515 and 3.3464. The ratio there is 1.648….
    For if we study the densities, we see that the Moon needs to increase its density to about 3.4 to reach the golden ratio. Two questions come to mind: is it doing that, and why would it be doing that? A third question is, how would it be doing that?…
    Therefore, the Moon would be expected to be gaining density …”

    So, yes, he is expecting the moon to be gaining density (and the earth as well for some reason, but more slowly) in such a way that it will approach the golden ratio. Unless you postulate the the earth & moon should be special, then this hypothesis should extend to other plant/moon combos.

    [Reply] This is incorrect too. You haven’t read the paper thoroughly. Mathis says that the ambient forces will tend to push bodies already near the ratio, into the ratio. i.e. it looks like it is a quantisation effect, as I pointed out above. He also says that in multi-body problems, the ratios will be more complex. This is the third time I’ve pointed this out to you, and if you continue to blank me, and fail to acknowledge your errors, I’ll kick you off the thread, because we don’t need people who operate with deliberate deception here. TB

    ******************************************************************************

    Kuhnkat: “you have just asserted that MM is wrong and the only support for your position you offer is Wikipedia..”
    No, I gave one very specific example of a mistake using SI units. This is a mistake no one should make. It is as if he had said “Newtons and Watts are the same thing”. The fact that I gave a reference — even to a weak source for the units for permeability — doesn’t change the conclusion.

    Rather than ducking behind a non-reply, show us yourself how his units are right. My source WAS right, as you could confirm by looking in ANY physics textbook.

    [Reply] Yes, your source correctly quoted physics which Mathis contends is incorrect. So you need to understand more of his framework to make a judgement about the validity or otherwise of his contention.

    ************************************

    Yes, the Fibonacci Series is cool. Yes it comes up in nature in some real ways. That does not mean that any number that happens to be near 1.62 or 0.62 is tied to this ratio.

    [Reply] Another straw man. Nobody said it was.

  26. oldbrew says:

    tallbloke says: August 27, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    ‘Oldbrew can add more interesting observations to this.’

    Since TB put me on the spot I’ll give it a brief go at least 😉

    Referring to the 4 moons as numbers, i.e. Io = 1, Europa = 2, Ganymede = 3, Callisto = 4
    in order of proximity to Jupiter:

    Mass ratio 1+4 : 2+3 = 1969 : 1962
    Radius ratio 1+4 : 2+3 = 4232 : 4192

    Can’t say much more as there could well be a fuller explanation somewhere in the TB pipeline…


    Re ‘trying to reach a ratio of 1.618:1’

    This can also mean ‘trying to reach a Fibonacci-based relationship’ especially with numbers below 13 or 21.

    I think that’s what Harry Huffmann was saying (quote): ‘greater by the factor phi (=1.618…) – or the ratio of successive Fibonacci terms’

  27. suricat says:

    TB commented to suricat, August 28, 2013 at 3:11 am

    “[Reply]Mathis isn’t discussing orbits here.”

    Then he uses a confusing analogue.

    “You can find out what Mathis thinks of the ‘Electric universe’ theory here:”

    Good man. I concur with the content that I’ve read so far, but don’t know that I’ll read it all.

    “it might also help you understand the difference between an ‘electrical field’ and his ‘charge field’”

    Aye, there’s the rub. With ‘what’ is his field ‘charged’??? Could this be a ‘masked’ reference to the Higgs field? It certainly isn’t the ‘aether’ that he refers to elsewhere (that’s an EM [not Earth Moon] product that propagates weak photonic quanta of energy). Is it?

    Guess I’ll need to put more time aside for this issue. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  28. tallbloke says:

    Ray: With ‘what’ is his field ‘charged’???

    It isn’t charged with anything. It is the field that creates charge from the stacked spins of photons. (Cue Folkerts telling us photons don’t spin)

  29. oldbrew says:

    Another interesting ‘moon’ if it is one, is Charon which is about half the size of its senior partner Pluto.

    ‘Charon and Pluto revolve about each other every 6.387 days. The two objects are gravitationally locked, so each keeps the same face towards the other…. It is now thought that Pluto and Charon may have been two bodies that collided before going into orbit about each other.’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charon_(moon)#Orbital_characteristics

    ‘The centre of mass (barycenter) of the Pluto–Charon system lies outside either body. Since neither object truly orbits the other, and Charon has 11.6% the mass of Pluto, it has been argued that Charon should be considered to be part of a binary system.’

    It can also be argued that 1:1 qualifies as a Fibonacci relationship.

  30. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: August 29, 2013 at 7:30 am

    “It isn’t charged with anything.”

    If a ‘field’ “isn’t charged with anything” and isn’t ‘quiescent’ (not doing anything at the time), it isn’t a ‘field’. It’s ‘nothing’, so this can’t be so. A ‘field’ interacts with ‘given’ energetic anomalies that generate a ‘flux charge’ to the ‘quiescent field’!

    “It is the field that creates charge from the stacked spins of photons. (Cue Folkerts telling us photons don’t spin)”

    Forget Folkerts because photons exhibit ‘polarity’, thus, ‘Ray-bans’ (polarised lenses). However, NO ‘field’ creates charge, a ‘field’ only enables/propagates transmission of ‘attracted’ energy to elsewhere. ‘Fields’ have a tendency to ‘attract’ energy within their region of interaction and are often seen as the inefficient side of energy put to work for a given process. ‘Fields’ DO NOT ‘create charge’ per se!!!

    Now, if you’d have previously said that the ‘field’ was ‘charged by the stacked spins of photons’, I’d have recognised the ‘field’ as the ‘aether’. That couldn’t be and isn’t the case though, is it.

    Perhaps these issues are best addressed to MM.

    Best regards, Ray.

  31. oldbrew says:

    The title of this MM paper is:

    ‘Black body radiation IS the charge field.’

    Click to access bbody.pdf

    Mathis concludes:

    ‘Mainstream theory has no fundamental particle of the charge field, no explanation of quantization in the charge field, and no mechanics in the charge field. For the mainstream, charge has remained an unassigned potential to the present day, and when pressed the mainstream takes the entire field underground, expressing it in terms of virtual particles and interactions. This mistake has caused the dark matter problem, the vacuum catastrophe, the failure of unification, and is the source of almost every other meltdown in current physics. None of these problems or any others are going to be solved until the charge field is defined in mechanical terms and brought out of the dark.’

  32. tallbloke says:

    Ray: “Now, if you’d have previously said that the ‘field’ was ‘charged by the stacked spins of photons’, I’d have recognised the ‘field’ as the ‘aether’. That couldn’t be and isn’t the case though, is it.”

    The idea that space, especially interplanetary space, is an empty vacuum, is deader than Dalton. It’s full of stuff whizzing about. Protons, electrons, and the photons they are composed of in Mathis theory. Call it an Aether and you invite ridicule. So he calls it the charge field, because it’s full of charged stuff. At the same time the Sun and the planets are supplying spinning photons to the field and absorbing photons from it. In at the poles, out from the equators

  33. w.w.wygart says:

    Well, I guess I should consider myself in good company if I didn’t get it all on the first reading.

    Miles’ theory itself is highly interesting, but the particular Earth-Moon example he is framing it all around is certainly what I would call a “hard swallow”. I’ll probably be able to follow the argument in its entirety eventually, but doubt I could ever spot an error in it if there was one. I’ll have to wait till people smarter than me come to some sort of agreement about the theory’s fitness.

    Miles is, however, going to have to be prepared for all of the Steve Moshers of this world to come rushing out of the woodwork and say something to the effect of how they use these equations every day in their engineering profession to solve real problems and that produce solutions that work, and that any tampering with them is unnecessary – it ain’t broke. I ain’t Steve Mosher, so I’ll let him comment for himself.

    Even though I personally cannot evaluate the theory mathematically or mechanically, it does fulfill certain intuitions I have about how things work. For instance if you take the idea of a ‘unified field’ seriously one ought to expect that all of the classical field equations will boil down to expressing the same thing in different terms and with different variables; that seems to be the way physics actually works – it makes good sense to me. I’ll even allow for the possibility some of the classical equations, such as Maxwell’s, need to be rewritten as unified equations by ‘correcting’ some of the ‘errant’ variables by rewriting them in terms of ‘g’ for instance – seems plausible even if I can’t evaluate it myself.

    I’m intrigued with Miles’ statements about Dark Matter and Dark Energy, I would love to see the whole trend towards ‘Dark This’ and ‘Dark That’ relegated to the dust bin of science – this seems like a language problem rather than physics solution – talk about possibly unwarranted, ad hoc, physicalist solutions to problems that may eventual be shown to be a problem with the theory! [which is why I am sympathetic to the concept of MOND-like theories]. It would also be great if Miles has really made some headway on the quantum gravity issue – that would be great.

    Still, I’m less than thrilled with Miles’ choice of examples.

    The choice of size ratios of the Earth-Moon system seems to me, and some others here, to be somewhat arbitrary or coincidental. For instance, what would happen if the situation was reversed and our Moon was a little bit smaller than the phi ratio? As I said, for me it’s a bit of a hard swallow. I’d prefer an example that I didn’t have to work so hard just to wrap my head around its plausibility. If the charge field effect is for real, its going to show up everywhere – measurably.

    Speaking of which, there should also be an experiment possible to test this hypothesis: put two charged bodies of approximately phi rations near to each other and watch what happens, measure them carefully over time. Seems to me like a kind of a slam dunk. A hundred meters of radius over a billion years on a body of 7.4×10^22kg, 1738km radius, and 240,000km distant from us across the vacuum of space? – fraught with difficulty – and implausibility.

    Not to nag, but it seems we should be concentrating on the growth and formation side of things to look for a phi tendency effect. Are two charged tungsten ball bearings going to change size just because they are carrying a charge – ever? How long are we expected to wait to find out?

    Myself, I would prefer an example out of the biological domain because as far as I have seen, this is where the golden mean is most evident in nature – as an effect of the limiting constraints of biological growth: the famous nautilus, conch shells, ibex horns, sunflowers and all of that. For some reason, and I think Miles wants to tell us why Nature, at a very deep level, has selected for systems, particularly biological self-forming processes that have growth limiting constraints that favor structures that produce phi ratios. Evolution selects for it so there must be some good reason for it. The types of biological systems that nature likes to select for in general are ones that produce fewer error modes, compensate for errors when they occur and lead to fewer errors in future generations – resilient and intelligent systems in other words. I suspect strongly that structures of phi ratios have these qualities, and obviously nature must have reliable ways of producing those ratios – or naturally produce growth limiting conditions that produce phi ratios.

    Most biological organisms’ structures grow as pneumatic tensile structures that may or may not mineralize and become rigid at the end of the growth phase; many of these same organisms are naturally constrained by growth limits that produce phi ratios in their structures. Charge-transfer complexes are one of natures tools for creating and regulating these processes, organic chemistry, and biological systems such as membranes, gells & etc. are full of these things. Any relation??

    The power of limits.

    W^3

  34. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: August 31, 2013 at 9:39 am

    Thanks for the link oldbrew, but in this paper MM confuses ‘particle radiation physics’ with ‘EM radiation physics’ (electromagnetic radiation physics). I got as far as the second paragraph.

    He claims that “The E/M field, rigorously defined, is ions.”. No it isn’t! This is the ‘electrostatic field’ that he intimates!

    If his definition of “E/M field” is an ‘electromagnetic’ one then this is initiated by particle ‘spin’ (or other perturbation to the EM field) and the field ‘propagates’ through a ‘vacuum’ (unobserved/unobservable medium) to cause particle ‘spin’ elsewhere. The ‘field’ is the ‘energy transfer medium’ (attractor) that connects ‘spin’ events and can, as can other fields, hold an energy capacity/quantum within its ‘flux’ that’s generated by the energy difference between the input and output energy potentials. This is ‘the electromagnetic spectrum’ and just ‘mentioning’ “light” detracts from the ‘full’ electromagnetic spectra which ranges from L/W radio, and frequencies below, to gamma radiation (non of which are ‘particle radiation’).

    Perhaps MM is confounding ‘ions’ in ‘motion’ which display EM characteristics?

    Best regards, Ray.

  35. kuhnkat says:

    Ray,

    why do you think some E/M radiation is particle based and some isn’t??

  36. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: August 31, 2013 at 10:51 am

    “The idea that space, especially interplanetary space, is an empty vacuum, is deader than Dalton.”

    Yes it is, but the ‘quantum’ explanation doesn’t throw much light (pardon the pun) on the mechanics that lead to EM ‘propagation’ (energy transfer) either. We can’t observe/explain the medium involved.

    “Protons, electrons, and the photons they are composed of in Mathis theory.”

    ??? Protons and electrons are ‘massive’ particles. Photons are without mass. I don’t understand your statement. 😦

    “Call it an Aether and you invite ridicule.”

    Perhaps, but something that can’t be defined must exist as ‘ethereal’, so ‘aether’ seems a good noun whatever other people say. 😉

    “So he calls it the charge field, because it’s full of charged stuff.”

    Time to ‘man up’ MM. I annotate your ‘charge field’ with many pseudonyms depending on the ‘attractor’ in question.

    “At the same time the Sun and the planets are supplying spinning photons to the field and absorbing photons from it. In at the poles, out from the equators”

    ??? What? One ‘can’t generalise’ on the EM spectra. Please elucidate. Earth only exhibits a ‘single’ equator. Do you elude to Sol’s entire system? If so, this is too generalised.

    Best regards, Ray.

  37. Kuhnkat says:

    Ray,

    If you wish to attack MM’s other theories I would suggest you actually read them and what he presents as evidence to support them.

    eg. Photons are particles with mass not imaginary points that somehow are measurable due to energy they somehow convey or are.

    http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
    http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

    Click to access photon3.pdf


    Click to access photonspin.pdf

    You may find his mechanical explanation of magnetism of interest also:

    http://milesmathis.com/Mirror/milesmathis_com/magnet.html

    Most of his work is available here:

    http://milesmathis.com/

  38. tallbloke says:

    Ray says: the ‘quantum’ explanation doesn’t throw much light (pardon the pun) on the mechanics that lead to EM ‘propagation’ (energy transfer) either. We can’t observe/explain the medium involved.

    Is this the Royal ‘we’ Ray? We don’t yet have a full explanation for the observations, but that doesn’t invalidate the observations. Observations come first. Explanation of underlying mechanism and the way it propagates through the medium comes afterwards. Mathis believes he’s well on the way to finding it.

    “Protons, electrons, and the photons they are composed of in Mathis theory.”
    ??? Protons and electrons are ‘massive’ particles. Photons are without mass. I don’t understand your statement.

    That’s because you haven’t read and understood his theory. Along with Mathis, I’m very sceptical of the various paradoxical myths ‘modern physics’ has accreted over the last few hundred years. Mathis has made the effort to shake the dead fleas and elephants out of the carpet and taken a look at what we’ve actually got.

  39. suricat says:

    kuhnkat says: September 2, 2013 at 2:18 am

    “why do you think some E/M radiation is particle based and some isn’t??”

    I don’t, particles don’t actually ‘collide’. ‘Electromagnetic radiation isn’t ‘direct’ ‘particle energy transfer’ (collisional particle energy transfer incorporates the ‘electrostatic’ field), it’s energy transfer via another medium. There’s a difference. Even the ‘observation’ per se is made via ‘another medium’ within the EM spectrum.

    However, depending on your understanding of ‘energy transfer’, could this be a ‘collisional interaction’ (kinetic), or a ‘harmonic interaction’ (magnetohydrodynamical wave interaction) from the EM field? Whatever you come up with, MHD should help to explain it.

    Let’s ‘cut to the chase’. Particles ‘interact’ with one another at a ‘quantum’ level, but they also affect the ‘teleconnection’ supplied by their surroundings. The ‘teleconnection’ element is, as yet, undefined. However, MHD can explain many of these ‘teleconnection’ issues, but MM seems to be defining a ‘wholeness’ issue that encompasses ‘all interactions’. To be blunt, scepticism should be applied to ensure an adequate distinction is made between a ‘car crash’ and a ‘pilot wave’, as the ‘media’ differ between ‘electrostatic’ and ‘electromagnetic’ respectively in analogy. We’ve not even touched on the ‘gravity’ field here.

    On reflection, I may have misunderstood your query. Cosmic rays at the gamma radiation level, for example, usually include ‘HE particle radiation’ along with the ‘EM extreme short wave radiation’ that’s implied by convention. However, all EM radiation is initialised by charged particles, but doesn’t/shouldn’t include particles at all within its energy transmission process.

    Best regards, Ray.

  40. kuhnkat says:

    Ray,

    we aren’t gonna get along. You believe in magic and I don’t.

  41. tallbloke says:

    Ray and Kuhncat: There are two opposing emphases here which both have merits and failings. As I see it, Mathis’ determination to have a mehcanical explanation which doesn’t fall back on imponderables is good. His subatomic scheme, accounting for the various species of particles by simple additions and subtraction of spins from the stacking of a single basic particle makes more logical sense than the variously flavoured and coloured quarks for example. However, there is at least some validity to the observational and instrumental work undertaken by the mainstream over the last 80 years since the Copenhagen interpretation and we shouldn’t throw out babies with bathwater.

    So the best way to proceed is to collaborate on discussion of lacunae in both paradigms and avoid hurling the word ‘magic’ around as it just aggravates people. This requires goodwill and a suspension of the desire to make sweeping assumptions and judgements. Regarding particle interactions, Mathis has no problem with electrostatic ‘buffering’ of ‘collisions’. Getting bogged down in such considerations is to lose sight of the forest in the trees.

    The prize is a better understanding of why the old paradigm is failing us. Mathis’ papers on the specific C19th mistakes which have become entrenched an accreted with so much ad hockery the resulting physics can’t be salvaged are worth re-reading and thinking about several times.

  42. suricat says:

    tallbloke says:September 3, 2013 at 9:18 am

    Any misunderstanding between kuhnkat and I is probably due to my lack of attention to reading links. I’ve recently got back to Essex from Durham where I made final arrangements for Mum’s memorial stone. I’ll try harder.

    You mention ‘two camps’ of old and new theories. The ‘old camp’ continues to survive under the heading of ‘A De-trained Aether’, which also ‘seems’ to project into ‘relativity’ where the aether is de-trained by a mass (may be similar to ‘refraction’ [or not]):

    http://www.orgonelab.org/energyinspace.htm

    I’m probably OT, but I’ve often puzzled on the ‘double slit experiment’. Does photon pressure cause lateral movement into the ‘masked region’ of the ‘wave front’ like a ‘Pilot wave’ does on the sea?

    For the record, I accept the possibility of the use of ‘subterfuge’ and know that ‘sleight of hand’ may confound, but ‘magic’ is myth. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  43. suricat says:

    Kuhnkat says: September 2, 2013 at 4:28 am

    “If you wish to attack MM’s other theories I would suggest you actually read them and what he presents as evidence to support them.”

    I’m not ‘attacking’ anything k. Just commenting from a previously acquired understanding and, ‘yes’, I’ve not read much because my free time has been short of late.

    “eg. Photons are particles with mass not imaginary points that somehow are measurable due to energy they somehow convey or are.”

    Yes and no. Photons are ‘photons’ and not ‘particles’. However, the ‘energy’ in a photon may well ‘sum’ to the same ‘energy quantum’ as a mass particle with the local speed velocity of ‘~c’. Thus, the confusing convention for Cosmic Rays.

    I do concede this point. However, the ‘mass component’ of ‘a photon’ is so small as to make its measurement almost impossible to measure. SI units use W/m^2 for ‘photon absorption each second’, but uses ergs for mass kinetic (I think that’s correct, but then I’m ‘old school’).

    Best regards, Ray.

  44. Chaeremon says:

    surikat wrote: However, the ‘mass component’ of ‘a photon’ is so small as to make its measurement almost impossible to measure. SI units use W/m^2 for ‘photon absorption each second’, but uses ergs for mass kinetic …

    Aha. Surfaces which are razed with laser beams do not experience the mass component of photons, because SI units have been conceived which do or cannot measure this. Or what did you say?

  45. kuhnkat says:

    Suricat,

    apologies for my rude and combative approach. I need to do something about that.

    Here is MM’s take on the double slit experiment. The very short explanation is that all particles recycle his charge photons. This means that the atoms making up the slits in the wall are emitting his charge photons and create the interference field that affects the photon as it passes through the slit.

    His explanation for the effect of the detector is that the detector must emit a field to detect the photon. This field will be stronger than his charge field and disrupt the interference patterns created by it in the slits.

    Better read his paper on it as I may have garbled it too much. He also makes a prediction or two that could support or destroy his hypothesis.

    Oh, and under MM’s hypothesis photons are physical particles with diameter, mass, and spin(s).
    It is basic to a lot of his work. It both simplifies and gets rid of a lot of the mystical garbage in QM/QED as seen in the double slit fun.

    http://milesmathis.com/double.html

  46. kuhnkat says:

    Chaeremon,

    “Aha. Surfaces which are razed with laser beams do not experience the mass component of photons, because SI units have been conceived which do or cannot measure this. Or what did you say?”

    It were the matrix mechanics wot dunnit!!

  47. suricat says:

    Chaeremon says: September 6, 2013 at 3:47 am

    “surikat wrote:”

    Do you address me??? If so, your assumption seems correct. However, your point of “which do or cannot measure this” is puzzling.

    Particle bombardment of a target depletes the target by way of kinetic collision fractionating the atomic bonds of the target mass, as with a MASER device. Tuned electromagnetic bombardment of a target depletes the target by way of energetic absorption fractionating the atomic bonds of the target mass, as with a LASER device.

    MASER breaks it apart and LASER shakes it apart. Does this help?

    The ‘SI problem’ seems to be one of ‘which effect is greater to associate with the observation’. The ‘ISI’ (International Standards Institute) has decreed what we have to work with when linking properties to observations. They provide the ‘canvas’ and we ‘draw’ upon it. Who am I to dispute this? 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  48. suricat says:

    kuhnkat says: September 6, 2013 at 3:52 am

    “apologies for my rude and combative approach. I need to do something about that.”

    Don’t. Combat is a tool that discloses strengths and weaknesses in proponents and is an important principle of ‘scepticism’.

    “Here is MM’s take on the double slit experiment.”

    I’ve ignored ‘your take’ on your link, but, honestly, I gave up on your ‘link’ when I read ” Using the photon-as-particle theory that Einstein proved and Feynman confirmed, we expect no wave interference, since the photon must go through one slit or the other.”. It’s either a ‘misquote’, or ‘bull’.

    “Using the photon-as-particle theory that Einstein proved and Feynman confirmed” confounds/obfuscates ‘particulate’ and ‘electromagnetic’ activity.

    Just because EM activity adds up to the ‘quantum’ of a ‘particulate’ isn’t to say that the ‘particulate’ is actually ‘extant’ within the EM medium. To coin a phrase, ‘God doesn’t play dice’. 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  49. oldbrew says:

    A footnote to the discussion…

    Miles Mathis said: ‘And if we look at the known densities of the Earth and Moon, we find the numbers 5.515 and 3.3464. The ratio there is 1.648, which an astute reader was kind enough to point out is very near the golden ratio.’

    The actual ratio in whole numbers is 54:89 (89/54 = 1.648148~).
    A true Phi ratio is 55:89 (89/55 = 1.6181818~)

    Recent investigation has shown this type of ‘one away from the ideal’ result can often be found in certain planetary relationships. For example Jupiter:Saturn orbits = 149:60 (150:60 = 5:2).

  50. oldbrew says:

    Is there any relationship between the density of a planet or moon and its orbit?

    With Earth:Moon density ratio being 54:89, the difference is 35.
    35 Moon orbits = 2.618 Earth orbits (years)

    If it’s just a coincidence, so be it.

    PS: why is the Moon bright when its albedo is only 0.11?
    And how does it warm up to 100C when it has no atmosphere to hold the heat?
    Another MM paper discussion: http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf

  51. tallbloke says:

    Miles: Like Enceladus, the Moon is moving extremely quickly through the charge field. The Moon’s motion
    is an integration of its motion about the Earth and the Earth’s motion about the Sun.

    SO given that for half the month the Moon is moving in the opposite direction to the Earth’s orbital motion, it should get dimmer – right?

    No sale Miles. 🙂

    Maybe the Earthshine people could help with their data.

  52. tallbloke says:

    More on planetary atmospheres. Water found in the atmospheres of 5 ‘hot jupiters’
    http://www.linksapien.com/s/space/hubble-discovers-water-on-5-exo-planets/visit

  53. Chaeremon says:

    @tallbloke: there is indeed a charge field phenomenon related to the opposite position of the moon but it has been explained away in concordance with mainstream “physics” (tiny little surface craters “know” their direction to the sun and therefore “must” have been created by impacts which all came from the very same direction). Needless to add that the moon is never facing the sun, isn’t it, when it has as yet not arrived in opposition as seen by Tellurians.

  54. oldbrew says:

    TB: ‘SO given that for half the month the Moon is moving in the opposite direction to the Earth’s orbital motion, it should get dimmer – right?’

    Not sure that is right. It’s still moving with the Earth’s orbit and orbiting the Earth at the same speed, whatever direction it looks to be going in from our point of view.

  55. tallbloke says:

    Draw yourself a vector diagram. The Moon has it’s own orbital velocity plus Earth’s approaching full Moon. It has Earth’s orbital velocity minus it’s own around new Moon.

  56. oldbrew says:

    According to this the Moon’s orbit speed varies +/- 5% from the mean, so ‘same speed’ is not correct but there’s not that much variation?

    http://www.neoprogrammics.com/moon/orbital_speed_of_the_moon.html

  57. tallbloke says:

    Right. But it’s Miles who is saying the Moons orbital motion round the Earth in addition to the Earth-Moon system’s’s orbital motion round the Sun is what gives the Moon the extra glow. I’m not buying at the moment. No sale.

  58. Bill says:

    Tallbloke… wouldn’t we need to position a satellite in the Moons orbit, to monitor the Moon’s fully lit face, on each pass, to measure any change in brightness accurately? It’s something we can never do from Earth!

  59. oldbrew says:

    Here’s another theory but it sounds a bit iffy to me:

    ‘However, the Moon’s albedo is actually very low – similar to that of coal. Its bright glow is instead the result of something called the opposition effect. You may have come across this when seeing a car’s headlights shine on a dark road: the road appears brighter than it would if light were not incident upon it. The Sun plays the part of the headlight in this case, directly shining on the Moon and leading to its bright glow. The large amount of debris on the surface of the Moon also contributes to its reflectivity.’

    http://www.howitworksdaily.com/space/why-does-the-moon-shine/

  60. Bill says:

    …cont’d… It’s just that I wouldn’t think that the Apollo missions would have been in orbit long enough to monitor it for a full month, so wouldn’t have an accurate record…

  61. tallbloke says:

    Bill: Yes, you’re right.

  62. tallbloke says:

    OB: the road appears brighter than it would if light were not incident upon it.

    No shit. 🙂

  63. oldbrew says:

    ‘Oldbrew can add more interesting observations to this.’

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/miles-mathis-the-physics-behind-the-golden-ratio/comment-page-1/#comment-58293

    It’s taken a while but I just noticed that Jupiter:Io density ratio is 8:3.

    The other three big moons of Jupiter show density ratios close to this:
    J:Europa 9:4
    J:Ganymede 3:2
    J:Callisto 4:3

  64. Chaeremon says:

    @oldbrew: you’re lucky with “a while”, my “while’s” sometimes take years 😉 to recognize somethin’ in plain sight.

    B.t.w. I’m more and more worried that we cannot replicate the basis (=assumptions made so many decades ago in original research), the numbers look so very good. Anyways.

  65. oldbrew says:

    @ Chaeremon: it seems to me that resonance in various forms is fairly fundamental but what little I know is mostly self-taught.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance#Types_of_resonance

    Miles Mathis says, maybe a bit harshly:
    ‘Celestial mechanics could not work like it does, with resonances and perturbations and so on, if it were a single field. This should have been clear to Kepler and Newton and Laplace and everyone else, but they preferred to look away.’

    Note that 2 pairs of the four major Galilean moons also have a 1:1 mass ratio (99.63~% true):
    Io (moon 1) + Callisto (moon 4) = Europa (moon 2) + Ganymede (moon 3)