DailyBriefs.info PODCAST
Review of the Physics of Miles Mathis
Atmospheric pressure and the charge field by Miles Mathis *https://milesmathis.com/atmosp.pdf
•
How my Unified Field solves the Galactic Rotation Problem and how the dark matter math is fudged by Miles Mathis *https://milesmathis.com/rotation.pdf
•
How to Solve General Relativity Problems without the Tensor Calculus (In about 1/100th the time) by Miles Mathis *https://milesmathis.com/grwtt.pdf
•
Pasted Text (This source does not explicitly state a title or a single overarching author. It contains excerpts attributed to Miles Mathis.)
•
Unified Fields in Disguise by Miles Mathis *https://milesmathis.com/uft2.pdf
•
Pasted Text (This source does not explicitly state a title or a single overarching author. It contains excerpts attributed to Miles Mathis.)
•
Relativity Demystified by Miles Mathis *https://milesmathis.com/relat.pdf
•
Unified fields in disguise by Miles Mathis *https://milesmathis.com/uft2.pdf (This appears to be a duplicate of a previous entry.)
•
https://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf (The content of this source indicates the title is Maxwell's Equations are also Unified Field Equations by Miles Mathis)
•
https://milesmathis.com/guth.pdf (The content of this source indicates the title is Gravity Waves of Propaganda by Miles Mathis)
•
https://milesmathis.com/lag3.pdf (The content of this source indicates the title is UNLOCKING the LAGRANGIAN by Miles Mathis)
•
https://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf (The content of this source indicates the title is LIFT on a Wing by Miles Mathis)
•
https://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf (The content of this source indicates the title is Nuclear Diagrams by Miles Mathis)
•
https://milesmathis.com/orbiton2.pdf (The content of this source indicates the title is The Charge Profile of Sr2CuO3 by Miles Mathis)
•
https://milesmathis.com/quark2.pdf (The content of this source indicates the title is Hadronization by Miles Mathis)
•
superposition explained by Miles Williams Mathis *https://milesmathis.com/superp.pdf
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Critique of Atmospheric Pressure and Weight: Mathis vehemently rejects the standard explanation that atmospheric pressure is caused by the weight of the air column above. He argues that the atmosphere, in fact, weighs nothing on a scale.
Flawed Explanations: He criticizes NASA's explanation of internal air balancing external pressure as "misleading" and an "outright lie." He also questions why bathroom scales, with a significant surface area exposed to atmospheric pressure, do not register the supposed weight of the air above them.
Pressure vs. Weight: Mathis asserts that "pressure and weight are two different things." Pressure is a vector in all directions, while weight is a vector downwards. Measuring pressure does not equate to measuring weight, especially for a gas.
Miscalculation of Atmospheric Weight: He claims that the accepted weight of the atmosphere (e.g., 11 tons per square meter) is derived by incorrectly equating pressure to weight and using it in calculations, as demonstrated by Dr. Heckert's method.
The Role of the Charge Field: Mathis proposes that the atmosphere's zero weight is due to the Earth's "charge field," a repulsive field mediated by photons that directly levitates air molecules. He states, "the air is being levitated directly by the charge field, by a bombardment of photons."
Ionosphere Formation: He suggests that the charge field explains the existence and stratification of the ionosphere, as ions, being charged and emitting photons, experience a greater repulsion from the Earth's charge field and are thus driven to higher altitudes.
Challenging the Galactic Rotation Problem and Dark Matter: Mathis dissects the dark matter hypothesis as the explanation for the flat rotation curves of galaxies.
Mathematical Flaws: He argues that simply adding mass to a galactic halo cannot increase orbital velocity according to Newtonian physics (v² = GM/r, where M is the central mass). He accuses mainstream scientists of "gigantic fudge" by misinterpreting M as the mass within the stellar orbit rather than the central mass.
Invisibility and Density Issues: Mathis questions how a halo comprising 95% of a galaxy's mass could remain virtually undetectable in our own galaxy. He dismisses the concept of "heavy ghost particles" (WIMPs, axions) as illogical.
Critique of MOND: He contends that Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) also inherits the flawed definition of mass from the dark matter proponents, rendering its equation (v = √(GMa₀)) unable to correctly explain flat rotation curves.
Unified Field Solution: Mathis presents his own velocity equation for galactic rotation: v = √[(GM₀/r) – (Gmr/r)], which includes a drag term related to the charge field density at a given radius. He claims this equation provides different slopes for galaxies and solar systems and is a form of his relativistic unified field equation.
Simplifying General Relativity: Mathis proposes a shortcut to solving General Relativity problems without tensor calculus by utilizing Einstein's equivalence principle.
Vector Reversal: He describes a method of reversing the gravity/acceleration vector, which transforms the field into a rectilinear Euclidean space where simple math can be used.
Application to Key Problems: He demonstrates this method by solving the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and the bending of starlight by the Sun, achieving results close to Einstein's. He emphasizes that this is a mathematical manipulation confirming Einstein's postulates.
Fundamental Errors in Mathematical Foundations: Mathis identifies what he believes are critical flaws in foundational mathematical concepts used in physics.
The Definition of a Point: He argues that Euclid's definition of a point lacks mathematical rigor. A real point is dimensionless and cannot be assigned a cardinal (counting) number, thus making it unusable in mathematical equations and calculus. He states, "you cannot assign a number to a point."
Implications for Calculus and QED: This critique has significant implications, suggesting that calculus equations cannot have points as solutions and that the renormalization problems in Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED) arise from the misuse of zero-dimensional points in equations.
Misunderstanding of Circular Motion: He claims Newton's analysis of a diminishing arc of a circle is flawed, leading to misunderstandings in trigonometry and the dynamics of circular motion, including the equation a = v²/r. He argues that the 'v' in this equation cannot be a simple velocity vector, as a velocity cannot inherently curve.
The Unified Field in Disguise: Mathis asserts that correct unified field equations have existed for centuries, hidden within Newton's law of gravitation and the Lagrangian.
Density and Volume Separation: He proposes rewriting Newton's equation in terms of density (D, d) and volume (V, v) instead of mass (m, M). He assigns volume to the gravitational field and density to the electromagnetic (E/M) field.
Gravity Dependent on Radius: This separation implies that gravity, in its isolated form, is dependent only on radius (volume for a sphere) and not on mass. Mass becomes a characteristic of the unified field.
Lagrangian as Unified Field: He interprets the Lagrangian (L = T - V) not as a subtraction within a single field but as a unification of the gravitational field (represented in potential energy V) and the charge field (influencing kinetic energy T).
Relativity as Apparent, Not Real: Mathis argues that the length contraction and time dilation in Special Relativity (SR) are only apparent effects of measurement from a distance, not real physical changes experienced by the object itself.
Local Equality: He states that "all local time and length is equal." This is a logical consequence of the constant speed of light (c = x/t).
Curved Math in GR: He suggests that the curved math in General Relativity (GR) was primarily to express the acceleration of the gravity field (which was already an acceleration in Newton's framework) and that adding SR results in a "doubly curved" field. He proposes an alternative math using radius and time to keep the spatial dimensions rectilinear.
Reinterpreting Lift, Buoyancy, and Nuclear Physics through the Charge Field: Mathis applies his charge field concept to explain phenomena that he believes are poorly understood by mainstream science.
Lift on a Wing: He rejects current explanations based on pressure differentials and Bernoulli's principle, suggesting that lift is primarily due to the upward force exerted by the Earth's charge field. Thrust helps by increasing the amount of charge encountered per second.
Buoyancy: He argues that the standard explanation of buoyancy based on pressure differences due to fluid weight is contradictory. He suggests that buoyancy, like lift, is related to the interaction with the charge field.
Nuclear Structure and Stability: Mathis proposes a model of the nucleus built from alpha particles and protons arranged in specific geometric configurations. He attributes nuclear binding energy to gravity plus a loss of charge and uses his model to explain the stability (or instability) of various elements and isotopes, including noble gases and radioactive elements like Radon and Technetium. He critiques the concept of electron shells as misleading, suggesting electrons reside within the nucleus and their behavior is linked to charge minima.
Critique of Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics: Mathis expresses strong skepticism towards aspects of modern particle physics and quantum mechanics.
Hadronization: He finds the definition and explanation of hadronization (the formation of hadrons from quarks and gluons) to be nonsensical and self-contradictory.
Superposition: He argues that the concept of an electron having simultaneous orthogonal spins (e.g., x and y) about its center is physically impossible due to gyroscopic precession. He proposes an "end over end" spin as a solution and suggests that superposition in measurement arises from the observer's frame of reference relative to the electron's changing spin.
Lambda CDM: He dismisses the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model of cosmology as being based on poorly defined and uncertain components (Dark Matter and Lambda).
mportant:1 ...
•
The discovery that Newton's gravitational equation is a compound equation that already includes the foundational E/M field or charge field is at the heart of Mathis's Unified Field Theory (UFT)1 .... This includes showing that G is a scaling constant between gravity and charge and that Einstein's field equations are also compound1 . The UFT allows for a new understanding of various phenomena, including solving the dark matter problem by showing that the charge field outweighs normal matter by 19 to 11 . Coulomb's equation is also presented as another unified field equation2 . This is a recurring and emphasized theme throughout multiple sources and is presented as a major breakthrough.2
•
The claim that you cannot assign a cardinal number to a point begins a revolution in both physics and mathematics, leading to the jettisoning of the point and the instant from physics and requiring a redefinition of math and science since Euclid2 . This foundational critique impacts the very basis of how physics and mathematics are conceived according to Mathis.4
•
The charge field is a real, bombarding field of photons emitted by charged particles4 .... Mathis calculates the density of this charge field based on the charge of a proton and the mainstream definition of an Ampere, suggesting that the charge field outweighs baryonic matter by a significant factor4 . This uncontained field cannot be directly weighed but must be included in all totals4 . The nature and significance of the charge field are crucial to understanding Mathis's alternative explanations.6 ...
•
Mathis presents a mechanical explanation of the Periodic Table by diagramming the nucleus as a complex channeler of charge, built from alpha particles, which also explains the varying energies of electrons that are not orbiting the nucleus but circling the holes in protons6 .... This approach aims to replace electron bonding theory and the strong force6 .... This offers a fundamental reinterpretation of atomic structure and chemical bonding.14 ...
•
Superposition in quantum mechanics can be explained mechanically through the concept of spin, specifically the relationship between x-spin and y-spin, where y-spin must be about an external axis relative to x-spin, creating the observed wave motion and statistical outcomes14 .... This challenges the Copenhagen interpretation's assertion that quantum phenomena cannot be explained logically or mechanically.5 ...
•
Atmospheric pressure is related to the charge field, which may "levitate" a percentage of an object's weight5 . Mathis proposes that not all the mass of the atmosphere is expressed as weight due to its containment and lateral freedom, and suggests the charge field plays a role in the placement of the ionosphere5 . This offers an alternative perspective on a fundamental atmospheric phenomenon.17 ...
•
The Lagrangian in physics, L = T – V, is interpreted by Mathis not as a subtraction of potential from kinetic energy, but as a unified field correction where the kinetic energy term (T) acts as a correction to the potential energy term (V), implicitly including the interplay between gravity and the charge field18 .... This reinterprets a cornerstone of classical and quantum mechanics.20 ...
•
Aerodynamic lift is primarily caused by the charge field, acting as a form of buoyancy enhanced by thrust, rather than solely by pressure differences due to airfoil shape or angle of attack20 .... The increased air speed above a wing is an effect of the lift, not the primary cause23 . This provides a different mechanism for a well-studied phenomenon.1 ...
•
Many current equations in physics, including those of Newton, Bohr, and Schrödinger, contain errors such as illegal substitutions between angular and linear equations or between the momentum of the electron and the photon1 .... Correcting these errors is a crucial step in overhauling quantum mechanics24 . This highlights Mathis's critical approach to established theories.25
•
Newton's analysis of diminishing differentials applied to the arc of a circle, used to establish the basis of calculus with infinitesimals and limits, is flawed because he monitored the wrong angle, leading to an incorrect conclusion about the relationship between the arc, chord, and tangent at the limit25 . This challenges a foundational concept in mathematics and its application in physics.26 ...
•
Mass is not a fundamental characteristic but rather a composite of density and volume, both of which can be measured with length. Therefore, mass is a more abstract concept26 .... This suggests a re-evaluation of fundamental physical quantities.28 ...
•
Maxwell's early work on the magnetic field, while somewhat logical, fudges certain aspects by trying to represent a dipolar force with an isotropic stress, indicating a lack of full understanding of the underlying mechanics involving linear motion and real spin of particles28 .... This critiques a historical figure in electromagnetism.31 ...
•
The announcement of gravity wave detection by BICEP2 is likely a "fake claim" and "propaganda," as the data is misinterpreted, ignores contradictory evidence from the PLANCK probe, and suffers from a lack of proper scientific rigor and peer review31 .... Gravity itself is not a particle field and cannot produce waves in the way claimed38 . This exemplifies Mathis's skepticism towards mainstream physics announcements.39 ...
•
The mainstream theory of hadronization, describing the formation of hadrons from quarks and gluons, is incoherent, lacks empirical evidence for intermediate steps like QCD and fragmentation, and relies on "conjured" concepts like "virtualities"39 .... The existence of free quarks has never been observed41 . This is a critical take on a specific area of particle physics.42 ...
•
Length contraction in special relativity, where apparent length compresses with recession, is opposite to the compression of sound due to the different ways these phenomena are measured and processed as data42 .... Time is also affected by motion and distance43 . This addresses a specific aspect of relativity.44 ...
•
The standard explanation of superposition, as presented by David Albert, is flawed from a logical perspective, as an electron cannot simultaneously spin about orthogonal axes through its center44 . The act of measurement itself involves applying fields or forces over a duration (dt) that influences the observed outcome46 . This critiques a common pedagogical approach to quantum mechanics.47 ...
•
Mathis acknowledges that his extensive work, often presented in book form, might seem anomalous and anachronistic in an era of specialized, limited publications47 .... He prioritizes certain findings as more fundamental and inventive than his algebraic analysis of special relativity49 . Peer review in mainstream physics is often ineffective due to institutional pressures51 .... These points reflect on the nature of Mathis's work and its reception.53 ...
•
Anecdotal evidence and observations from pilots, such as wood and copper influencing lift, support the idea of charge field interaction in aerodynamics53 .... This provides supporting observations for his theory of lift.58 ...
•
Analysis of experimental data, such as that from RIXS on Sr2CuO3, reveals discrepancies with mainstream theories of electron orbitals and spinons/orbitons58 .... Mathis offers an alternative interpretation of this data based on the charge channel signatures of the constituent elements63 .... This demonstrates his application of his theories to specific experimental results.67 ...
•
Mainstream explanations of nuclear binding energy, mass defect, and the energy release in fusion and fission are contradictory and lack a consistent field mechanics, particularly an understanding of the role of the charge field67 .... Fusion appears to generate power by tapping into the pre-existing energy of the charge field70 . This critiques the standard model's explanation of nuclear processes.24 ...
•
Using cleaner variables and definitions in physics equations can avoid many problems, such as replacing orbital velocity with orbital acceleration in equations like ma = mv²/r24 . This points to specific improvements in physics notation and understanding.72
•
The concept of protons having "holes" at their poles through which photons enter and exit is a deduction based on the behavior of the charge field and the relative sizes of protons, photons, and electrons72 . This is a specific element of his model of particle structure.
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Mathis argues that the standard model falsely equates atmospheric pressure with the weight of the atmosphere. He points out that if the atmosphere truly weighed tons per square meter, ordinary scales would register this weight, and the human body would be crushed. He claims the atmosphere weighs nothing because the upward force from the Earth's charge field balances the downward force due to mass.
Mathis argues that adding mass to a galactic halo (dark matter) cannot increase orbital velocity according to Newton's equations, which state that orbital velocity depends only on the distance from the center and the central mass. His alternative explanation involves a unified field equation that includes a charge field drag term, which becomes significant at larger galactic radii, causing the velocity to remain relatively flat.
Mathis's shortcut for General Relativity problems involves using Einstein's equivalence postulate (gravity and acceleration are mathematically equivalent) and reversing the acceleration vector in specific scenarios. This transforms the curved spacetime into a rectilinear or Euclidean field where simpler math can be applied to achieve the same results as Einstein's tensor calculus.
According to Mathis, Euclid's mistake was not defining whether a point is real (dimensionless) or diagrammed (with dimensions). He argues that a real point, being dimensionless, cannot have a counting number assigned to it and therefore cannot enter or exit mathematical equations used in physics, including calculus. This has implications for infinities and zeroes in QED equations, which he believes arise from mis-defining variables with zero dimensions.
Mathis claims Newton incorrectly analyzed a diminishing differential on a circle by monitoring the wrong angle. Mathis asserts that another angle reaches its limit first, ensuring the tangent remains longer than the arc and chord even at the limit. This means Newton's infinitesimal is a real interval, and his understanding of circular motion, including the equation a = v²/r, is flawed because a true velocity (a linear vector) cannot curve.
Mathis reinterprets Newton's F=GMm/r² by replacing each mass (M and m) with density (D or d) times volume (V or v). He assigns volume to the gravitational field and density to the electromagnetic field. This separation implies that gravity is primarily a function of volume (and thus radius for a sphere), not mass, while the unified field (Newton's original equation) is a function of mass.
Mathis argues that length contraction and time dilation in Special Relativity are not real but only apparent, representing how objects look from a distance due to the constant speed of light. He states that all local time and length are equal by definition, supported by the fact that if c (x/t) is constant, then local x and t must also be constant.
Mathis proposes a nuclear model where nuclei are constructed from tightly packed alpha particles (helium nuclei). He explains Neon's stability as a configuration of five alpha particles with ten neutrons in a balanced arrangement. Instability in Technetium arises from an inability to achieve charge balance when filling inner holes with protons, requiring a jump in atomic number. Radon's radioactivity is attributed to an imbalanced structure with too much mass in the outer level relative to the inner mass, leading to centrifugal forces overcoming cohesion.
Mathis argues that an electron cannot simultaneously spin about orthogonal axes (x and y) through its center because this would require the electron to warp, which its rigid structure resists. He suggests that what is interpreted as simultaneous x and y spins is likely an axis spin combined with an "end over end" tumbling motion of the electron, which does not involve two simultaneous rotations about the same center.
Mathis critiques the mainstream explanation of hadronization as the formation of hadrons from quarks and gluons as being ill-defined and contradictory. He points out the logical inconsistency of the "hadronization of a single quark" and questions the nature of the "jet" of particles supposedly formed. He characterizes the reliance on particles popping out of the void (as in Quantum Chromodynamics) as nonsensical and lacking scientific rigor.
Glossary of Key Terms
Charge Field: According to Mathis, a foundational electromagnetic field mediated by photons, distinct from but underlying electric and magnetic fields. He posits it as a real emission field of photons that exerts a repulsive force, opposing gravity.
Density (in Mathis's context): In his reinterpretation of Newton's law, density is associated with the electromagnetic field and is considered a more fundamental property than mass.
Volume (in Mathis's context): In his reinterpretation of Newton's law, volume is associated with the gravitational field and is considered a more fundamental property than mass. Gravity, for a sphere, becomes primarily a function of radius (related to volume).
Equivalence Postulate: Einstein's principle stating that gravity and acceleration are mathematically equivalent, a key concept Mathis utilizes in his simplified approach to General Relativity.
Euclidean Field: A flat, rectilinear space where the rules of Euclidean geometry apply, which Mathis believes can be used for many physics problems by reversing acceleration vectors.
Non-Euclidean Math/Curved Math: Mathematical frameworks, such as those used in General Relativity, that describe curved spaces. Mathis attempts to solve these problems using simpler Euclidean math.
Point (Critique of Euclid's definition): Mathis argues that a real point is dimensionless and cannot be assigned a counting number, making it problematic for mathematical equations in physics.
Unified Field Theory (Mathis's version): Mathis believes that standard physics has had unified field equations in disguise (like Newton's law and the Lagrangian) which inherently include both gravity and electromagnetism (or his charge field). His work aims to separate and correctly interpret these unified fields.
Orbital Velocity (Critique): Mathis distinguishes between tangential velocity (a linear vector) and orbital velocity (which involves curvature). He argues that standard physics often incorrectly uses orbital velocity in equations where only tangential velocity is mathematically valid.
Alpha Particle (in Nuclear Model): A helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons) which Mathis proposes as the fundamental building block for his model of atomic nuclei. He diagrams nuclei as configurations of these alpha particles.
convert_to_textConvert to source
•
Atmospheric Pressure: The pressure exerted by the atmosphere. Mathis argues it is primarily due to air density and the charge field, not just the weight of the air above1 .
•
Charge Field: A fundamental field proposed by Mathis, distinct from gravity, responsible for various phenomena including atmospheric support, planetary axial tilts, and potentially "dark matter" effects1 ....
•
Unified Field Theory (UFT): Mathis's theoretical framework aiming to unify gravity and electromagnetism (via the charge field) into a single, comprehensive description of fundamental forces4 ....
•
Photon Drag: The resistance experienced by photons as they move through a medium, particularly the charge field, according to Mathis2 ....
•
Baryonic Matter: Ordinary matter composed of protons and neutrons, as distinguished from "dark matter"3 .
•
Dark Matter/Energy: Hypothetical components of the universe in mainstream cosmology; Mathis contends these are manifestations of his charge field3 ....
•
Displacement Field: A concept in Maxwell's electromagnetism that Mathis identifies as equivalent to his charge field7 ....
•
Spin Wave: Mathis's description of light and particle behavior, where the wave-like properties arise from the physical spin of individual photons or particles, not from undulations in a field10 ....
•
Point (in Math/Physics): Mathis argues that a dimensionless physical point is non-existent, which has implications for the foundations of mathematics and physics4 ....
•
Electron Bonding Theory: The standard model's explanation of chemical bonds; Mathis proposes an alternative based on charge channeling within atomic nuclei13 ....
•
Strong Force: The fundamental force in the standard model that binds quarks and nucleons; Mathis argues it is unnecessary, with the charge field and nuclear structure providing stability13 ....
•
Bohr Radius/Energy: Fundamental quantities in atomic physics; Mathis claims Niels Bohr made errors in their derivation due to flawed substitutions16 .
•
Schrödinger Equation: A central equation in quantum mechanics; Mathis asserts he has corrected it by addressing substitution errors16 .
•
Superposition: A principle in quantum mechanics where a system exists in multiple states simultaneously; Mathis offers a mechanical explanation using a gyroscope analogy11 ....
•
Copenhagen Interpretation: The dominant interpretation of quantum mechanics, which often posits inherent unsolvability in quantum phenomena; Mathis rejects this view11 ....
•
Relativity (Special and General): Einstein's theories of spacetime and gravity; Mathis offers simplified explanations and suggests his UFT provides a more transparent understanding18 ....
•
G (Gravitational Constant): In Mathis's analysis, the gravitational constant acts as a transform or scaling factor between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic (charge) field21 ....
•
Newton's Gravitational Equation: Mathis believes this equation is not solely about gravity but is already a unified field equation in disguise4 ....
•
Double Slit Experiment: A key experiment in quantum mechanics; Mathis proposes the interference pattern is created by the charge field emanating from the apparatus itself4 .
•
Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM): The standard cosmological model; Mathis critiques its reliance on hypothetical entities like dark matter and the cosmological constant (Lambda)24 ....
•
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB): Residual radiation from the Big Bang in mainstream cosmology; Mathis suggests that what is observed is misinterpreted and shows local imprints26 .
•
Gravity Waves: Ripples in spacetime predicted by General Relativity; Mathis argues against their existence based on theoretical and observational grounds27 ....
•
Lagrangian: A function in physics that describes the state of a dynamical system; Mathis interprets it as a veiled form of his unified field equation23 ....
•
Lift (on a Wing): The aerodynamic force that opposes weight, allowing aircraft to fly; Mathis explains it primarily through the interaction of the wing with the Earth's rising charge field30 ....
•
Buoyancy: The upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object; Mathis offers an alternative explanation based on the charge field30 ....
•
Angle of Attack: The angle between a wing and the relative wind; Mathis believes its role in explaining lift, especially level flight, is overemphasized in current theories34 ....
•
Bernoulli's Principle: A principle in fluid dynamics relating fluid speed to pressure; while part of some lift explanations, Mathis suggests it doesn't fully account for the phenomenon32 ....
•
Nuclear Diagramming: Mathis's method of visually representing atomic nuclei as structured arrangements of alpha particles and protons that channel the charge field13 ....
•
Alpha Particle: The nucleus of a helium atom (two protons and two neutrons); Mathis proposes it as a fundamental building block for all atomic nuclei15 .
•
Noble Gases: A group of chemically inert elements; Mathis sees their atomic numbers following a mathematical sequence relevant to nuclear structure based on alpha particles15 .
•
Charge Channel: In Mathis's nuclear model, specific pathways or orientations within the nucleus that guide the flow of the charge field13 ....
•
Technetium: A radioactive element with no stable isotopes; Mathis offers a mechanical explanation for its instability based on its nuclear configuration41 ....
•
Mass Defect: The difference between the mass of a nucleus and the sum of the masses of its constituent nucleons; Mathis interprets this in the context of energy binding and release during nuclear processes43 .
•
Nuclear Binding Energy: The energy required to separate the nucleons of an atomic nucleus; Mathis has a nuanced view of its role in nuclear fusion and fission, linking it to the charge field43 ....
•
Hadronization: The process by which quarks and gluons are thought to form hadrons in particle physics; Mathis critiques the standard model's description as illogical and lacking direct evidence46 ....
•
Quarks: Fundamental constituents of matter in the standard model; Mathis argues they have never been observed in isolation and are theoretical constructs with weak evidence17 ....
•
Gluons: The force carriers of the strong force in the standard model; Mathis, rejecting the strong force as fundamental, also implicitly questions the role of gluons46 .
•
Partons: A general term for the constituents of hadrons (including quarks and gluons); Mathis suggests this term adds confusion to the already problematic quark theory51 .
•
Virtual Particles: Off-shell particles that appear in Feynman diagrams and quantum field theory calculations; Mathis views them as mathematical tools that mask a lack of real mechanical explanations52 .
•
Standard Model (of Particle Physics): The dominant theoretical framework describing elementary particles and their interactions; Mathis is highly critical of its foundations and interpretations3 ....
•
Gauge Math: Mathematical formalisms used in the standard model; Mathis believes these are sometimes protected by misleading claims in physics3 .
•
Denitrification: A microbial process in the nitrogen cycle; Mathis suggests our understanding is incomplete and that the Earth itself "exhales" nitrogen1 .
•
Bode's Law: An empirical rule that approximately predicts the spacing of planets in the Solar System; Mathis suggests deviations from it are influenced by the charge field2 .
•
Magnetosphere: The region around a planet dominated by its magnetic field; Mathis attributes its formation and dynamics to the influence of the charge field2 .
•
Aether (implied): While not explicitly endorsed, Mathis's concept of a pervasive and mechanically active charge field shares some conceptual overlap with historical aether theories7 ....
•
Kinetic Energy: The energy of motion; Mathis clarifies his use of this term in the context of orbital mechanics and avoids conflating it with other forms of energy in fundamental equations16 .
•
Orbital Acceleration: Mathis advocates using orbital acceleration as a more fundamental variable than orbital velocity in certain physics equations16 .
•
Centripetal Acceleration: The acceleration required to keep an object moving in a circular path; Mathis uses this in his revised mechanical explanations16 .
•
Mass Equivalence of Charge/Energy: Mathis emphasizes that charge and energy have the same dimensional units as mass, implying a physical equivalence that is often overlooked8 .
•
Dark Flow (implied critique): Large-scale motions of galaxies not fully explained by standard cosmology; Mathis's emphasis on the charge field as influencing galactic dynamics offers an alternative perspective2 .
•
Vacuum Catastrophe (implied critique): The enormous discrepancy between the theoretical and observed vacuum energy density; Mathis's model, focusing on the charge field, provides a different framework53 .
•
Tunneling (critique): A quantum mechanical phenomenon where particles can pass through energy barriers; Mathis's revised quantum mechanics would likely offer a different explanation or challenge the standard one53 .
•
Entanglement (critique): A quantum mechanical phenomenon where particles become correlated; Mathis's critiques of standard QM suggest a different understanding of this non-local correlation53 .
•
Spontaneously Created from the Vacuum (critique): A concept in the standard model where particles appear from nothing; Mathis strongly criticizes this as lacking physical basis48 ....
•
Jets (in Particle Physics): Collimated sprays of particles produced in high-energy collisions; Mathis questions their direct link to unobserved quarks and gluons47 ....
•
Color Confinement (critique): The property that quarks and gluons cannot be isolated; Mathis views this as a justification for the lack of direct quark observation48 .
•
Perturbation Theory: A method for finding approximate solutions to complex problems; Mathis has analyzed historical uses of perturbation theory, including in Newton's work55 .
•
Charge Storage/Blockage: Mathis's explanation for certain material properties or effects based on how they interact with and channel the charge field56 .
•
MU-Metal: A magnetically permeable alloy; Mathis highlights its use in early aircraft as evidence for the importance of electromagnetic considerations (related to his charge field) in flight57 .
•
Airframe Noise: Radio frequency interference generated by aircraft structures in flight; Mathis suggests this phenomenon supports his view of electromagnetic forces acting on the airframe58 .
•
Coanda Effect: The tendency of a fluid jet to stay attached to a convex surface; a commenter links this to potential "impulse waves" and the broader idea of a charge field contributing to lift59 .
keep_pinSave to note
Frequently Asked Questions Based on the Provided Sources
Why does Miles Mathis argue that atmospheric pressure is not due to the weight of the air above?
Mathis contends that the common explanation of atmospheric pressure as the weight of the atmosphere is misleading and a cover-up. He points out that if the atmosphere truly weighed tons per square meter, we should feel this weight and scales should register it, which they do not. The standard model's explanation of internal body pressure or pressure under a scale counteracting this weight is deemed illogical. Mathis argues that pressure is a vector in all directions, while weight is a vector downwards. He believes atmospheric pressure is a measure of pressure, not weight, and the atmosphere, while having mass, effectively weighs nothing due to the charge field of the Earth.
What is the role of the "charge field" in Mathis's explanation of atmospheric phenomena?
Mathis proposes a real "charge field" of the Earth, mediated by photons and having a repulsive force opposing gravity. He argues this field directly levitates the atmosphere through bombardment, explaining why it doesn't register weight on scales. The charge field also explains the existence and stratification of the ionosphere. Ions, being charged and emitting photons, experience a greater repulsion from the Earth's charge field than neutral molecules, causing them to be driven to higher altitudes. This field strength is claimed to be about 0.1% of gravity and is, according to Mathis, already hidden within Newton's gravitational equation.
How does Miles Mathis challenge the mainstream explanation of galactic rotation curves and the concept of dark matter?
Mathis argues that the dark matter hypothesis, which posits vast amounts of unseen mass in galactic halos to explain flat rotation curves, is fundamentally flawed. He asserts that adding mass to a halo, according to Newtonian physics (which dark matter theory claims to uphold), cannot increase orbital velocities at a given distance; velocity is determined by the central mass and distance. The mainstream equation used ($v^2 = MG/r$) incorrectly applies the mass of the galactic core (M) and not the mass at the orbital radius. Furthermore, Mathis believes such a massive halo would be detectable in our own galaxy. He proposes an alternative explanation using his unified field equation, which incorporates a charge field drag that becomes significant at larger galactic radii, naturally leading to flattened rotation curves without the need for undetectable "heavy ghost particles."
What is Mathis's simplified method for solving General Relativity problems, and what is the key postulate behind it?
Mathis introduces a shortcut to solving General Relativity problems by taking Einstein's equivalence postulate literally. This postulate states the mathematical equivalence of gravity and acceleration. Mathis's method involves reversing the acceleration vector in famous GR scenarios (like the precession of Mercury's perihelion and the bending of starlight). This "turns the field equations inside out," resulting in a rectilinear or Euclidean field where simple math can be applied. After calculation, the vector is flipped back, yielding results comparable to Einstein's without the need for tensor calculus.
What fundamental flaw does Mathis identify in Euclid's definition of a point, and what are its implications for mathematics and physics?
Mathis argues that Euclid's failure to specify whether a point is real (dimensionless) or diagrammed (with dimensions) creates a critical mathematical problem. He asserts that a real point, being dimensionless, cannot be assigned a cardinal (counting) number and therefore cannot enter mathematical or physical equations that rely on such numbers, including calculus. Diagrammed points, while assignable numbers, are not physical. This has major implications for areas like Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), where the appearance of infinities and zeroes is attributed to the misuse of dimensionless "physical points" in equations that can only handle intervals with dimensions.
How does Miles Mathis reinterpret Newton's law of universal gravitation and its relation to other fundamental forces?
Mathis contends that Newton's gravity equation is not solely about gravity but is actually a disguised unified field equation encompassing both gravity and electromagnetism (specifically his charge field). He proposes rewriting mass in Newton's equation as density and volume. By assigning volume to the gravitational field and density to the electromagnetic field, he separates the two. In this separated view, gravity becomes dependent primarily on radius (through volume), not mass. The standard Newtonian equation, according to Mathis, works because it describes the compound or unified field.
What is Mathis's perspective on the nature of relativistic effects like length contraction and time dilation?
Mathis argues that length contraction and time dilation as described in Special Relativity are not real physical changes in objects or time itself, but rather apparent effects due to the act of measurement from a distance. He considers Relativity a theory of measurement, describing how things look to a moving observer, not how they fundamentally are. Locally, all time and length measurements are equal and constant, a point he believes is implicitly supported by the constancy of the speed of light, which underpins Einstein's theories.
How does Mathis's model of the atomic nucleus differ from the standard model, and what does it explain about the Periodic Table?
Mathis proposes a nuclear model where protons (represented as single or stacked "alpha particles" or fractions thereof) arrange themselves in specific geometric configurations with "holes" that influence charge channeling and stability. He suggests electrons reside within these nuclear structures, orbiting "holes" in protons rather than orbiting the entire nucleus. This model attempts to explain the stability of noble gases based on completed nuclear structures rather than filled electron shells, the instability of elements like Technetium due to charge imbalances, the existence of multiple stable isotopes in elements like Tin due to balanced charge channeling, and the reasons behind the "rules" and exceptions observed in the Periodic Table, such as why Radon is radioactive and why certain elements are gases. He critiques the standard model's reliance on "nuclear clouds" and rules that don't consistently fit the observed data.
convert_to_textConvert to source
PODCAST BRIEFS
physics of miles mathis.wav
button_magicSource guide
arrow_drop_up
Summary
This source is an excerpt from a podcast reviewing the work of Miles Matthysse, a thinker offering alternative perspectives on fundamental physics. The podcast delves into Matthysse's unconventional ideas across a wide range of topics, from atmospheric pressure and galactic rotation to general relativity and quantum mechanics. A central theme is Matthysse's concept of a dominant "charge field", which he posits is far more significant than currently understood and potentially explains phenomena like dark matter and dark energy. The hosts explore his reinterpretations of existing theories, including simplified approaches to general relativity and a challenge to the standard understanding of lift, nuclear structure, and even the detection of gravity waves. Ultimately, the podcast aims to unpack Matthysse's arguments, which often question core tenets of modern physics and propose simpler, though radical, explanations for complex phenomena.
Discuss Miles Matthysse physics.
Miles Mathis presents a wide-ranging critique of modern physics, offering his own alternative theories on various topics, with a central focus on the charge field as a fundamental force in the universe1 .... He argues that this charge field has been largely ignored or misinterpreted by mainstream science, leading to flawed explanations for phenomena ranging from atmospheric pressure to galactic rotation1 ....
Here's a breakdown of some of his key ideas:
•
The Charge Field: Mathis posits that the Earth and all matter emit a real field of photons he calls the charge field1 . He calculates its strength to be about 0.1% that of gravity and argues that it is repulsive, acting in direct opposition to gravity1 . He believes the charge field underlies both electric and magnetic fields1 . According to Mathis, the linear momentum of photons is charge, the linear momentum of ions is electricity, the angular momentum of photons is symmetry loss (related to neutrinos), and the angular momentum of ions is magnetism1 . He claims that this charge field is responsible for levitating the atmosphere through photon bombardment, explaining why the atmosphere doesn't register weight on a scale1 .... He also asserts that the charge field outweighs baryonic matter by a factor of 19 to 1, implying that dark matter is not non-baryonic but is instead photonic matter, or the charge field itself3 .... This ratio, he argues, arises from the time dependence inherent in the definition of charge5 ....
•
Unified Field Theory: Mathis contends that we have had unified field equations for centuries, disguised within existing frameworks9 .... He argues that Newton's gravitational equation is already a compound equation that includes the charge field, with the gravitational constant G acting as a scaling constant between gravity and charge1 .... He also proposes that Maxwell's equations and the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian are disguised unified field equations12 .... He believes the electric and magnetic fields, as well as gravity, are interconnected within this unified framework15 .
•
Galactic Rotation Problem: Mathis argues that the anomalous rotation curves of galaxies can be explained by the variation of the charge field from the center to the outer reaches of galaxies, rather than by invoking dark matter2 .... He believes that the higher density of matter near the galactic center leads to a stronger charge field there2 . He critiques Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and the dark matter hypothesis, claiming that the latter involves a "gigantic fudge" in its math2 ....
•
Critique of Relativity: Mathis is critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, arguing that Einstein skipped a "first degree of relativity" related to the moving frame itself17 . He rejects Minkowski's concept of spacetime and believes the standard interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is flawed due to the incorrect positioning of the observer relative to the ether (which he seems to believe in)18 .... He suggests that relativistic effects can be understood through simpler mechanical visualizations and that space is not curved22 ....
•
Lift on a Wing: Mathis challenges the standard explanations of aerodynamic lift based on Bernoulli's principle or the Coanda effect25 .... Instead, he proposes that lift is primarily caused by the momentum transfer from the rising charge field as the wing moves through it, analogous to running in the rain4 .... He attributes buoyancy to the upward acceleration of the charge field4 ... and reinterprets the Coanda effect as movement along the path of least resistance within the charge field32 ....
•
Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Structure: Mathis is critical of quantum mechanics and the quark model34 .... He argues that quantum equations should have been applied to the nucleus from the beginning, not the electron, and that electrons spin but do not orbit the nucleus in the traditional sense34 .... He proposes a mechanical explanation of the periodic table based on nuclear structure and the charge field39 .... He also offers an explanation for superposition based on stacked spins41 .... He views concepts like spinons, holons, and orbitons as unnecessary43 .
•
Methodological Criticisms: Mathis frequently criticizes mainstream physicists for relying on "fake math," "fudges," and "dodges" to support their theories1 .... He emphasizes the need for real, mechanical explanations over purely mathematical constructs6 .... He is skeptical of the interpretation of experimental results like those from BICEP2 regarding gravity waves, suggesting they are "propaganda" and misinterpretations of electromagnetic effects46 .... He also criticizes the immense computational resources used to model phenomena like spiral galaxies, arguing for simpler solutions based on the charge field6 ....
In summary, Miles Mathis presents a highly critical perspective on many areas of modern physics. He champions the charge field as a fundamental and dominant force, arguing that it provides simpler and more mechanical explanations for a wide range of phenomena that are currently attributed to gravity, dark matter, or complex quantum effects. He believes that mainstream science has been led astray by flawed assumptions, mathematical overcomplication, and a neglect of the real physical mechanisms at play49 ....
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Discuss Alternative physics perspectives.
Drawing on the sources and our conversation history, we can delve deeper into Miles Mathis' alternative physics perspectives. As previously discussed, a central theme in his work is the significance of the charge field as a fundamental force that has been overlooked or misinterpreted by mainstream physics1 ....
Here are some key aspects of his alternative views, supported by the new sources:
•
The Foundational Charge Field: Mathis posits that the universe is permeated by a real charge field composed of real photons that possess both linear and angular momentum3 . He argues this field is the "foundational E/M field" that underlies both electric and magnetic fields3 . He calculates the strength of the Earth's charge field to be approximately 0.1% of gravity and repulsive in nature3 . This charge field is, according to Mathis, responsible for a wide array of phenomena.
•
Atmospheric Pressure and Levitation: Contrary to the standard model's explanation based on air pressure, Mathis argues that the atmosphere is levitated by the bombardment of photons from the Earth's charge field, which explains why it doesn't register weight on a scale3 . He critiques the idea that lower atmospheric layers support upper layers via pressure, using an analogy with Atlas to highlight the perceived absurdity3 .
•
Reinterpreting Newton's Gravity: Mathis claims that Newton's gravitational equation is a "compound equation" that already incorporates the charge field, with the gravitational constant G acting as a scaling factor between gravity and charge3 .... He believes that variations attributed to dark matter are actually due to the varying strength of the charge field within galaxies5 .
•
Solving Galactic Rotation Without Dark Matter: Mathis argues that the flat rotation curves of galaxies can be explained by the variation in the charge field from the center to the outer arms, where less charge is emitted due to lower matter density5 . He critiques the dark matter hypothesis as relying on mathematically flawed assumptions and proposes that the observed velocity divergences are due to the charge field's influence, not unseen mass5 .... He even suggests that the 19:1 ratio of "dark matter/energy" to baryonic matter is actually the ratio of the charge field to baryonic matter4 ....
•
Lift as a Charge Field Effect: Mathis challenges standard aerodynamic explanations of lift, suggesting instead that it is caused by the momentum transfer from the rising charge field as a wing moves through it8 . He views buoyancy similarly, as an upward acceleration within the charge field9 .
•
Unified Field in Existing Equations: Mathis asserts that not only is Newton's equation unified, but so are Coulomb's equation, Maxwell's equations, and the Lagrangian4 .... He believes these equations have been "in disguise" and that their unified nature has been obscured by misunderstanding the fundamental roles of charge and gravity12 .... For example, he states that the T term in the Lagrangian, often interpreted as kinetic energy, is actually part of the unified field equation, representing variations due to the size incompatibility between the charge and matter fields16 ....
•
Critique of Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics: Mathis offers alternative mechanical explanations for quantum phenomena like superposition, using a model of stacked spins rather than relying on the Copenhagen interpretation's assertion of unsolvable mysteries18 .... He is also highly critical of the quark model and hadronization, viewing them as relying on "conjuring" particles from the vacuum rather than real physical mechanisms22 .... He proposes a nuclear model based on alpha particles and the charge field, aiming to explain nuclear structure and the periodic table without the strong force as conventionally understood25 ....
•
Skepticism Towards Mainstream Experimental Interpretations: Mathis expresses strong skepticism regarding the interpretation of experiments like the BICEP2 detection of purported gravity waves, labeling it as "propaganda" and suggesting the observed polarization twists in the cosmic microwave background are more likely due to electromagnetic effects or his charge field28 .... He also critiques the methodology and assumptions behind such claims33 .
•
Emphasis on Real, Mechanical Explanations: A consistent thread throughout Mathis' work is his insistence on real, mechanical explanations for physical phenomena, as opposed to what he perceives as abstract or mathematically convenient but physically unfounded theories in the mainstream1 .... He believes that many issues in modern physics arise from misdefined variables and the introduction of "virtual" entities that lack a tangible basis23 ....
In essence, Miles Mathis proposes a significant paradigm shift in physics, placing the charge field at the forefront of understanding a vast range of phenomena. He argues that by recognizing its fundamental role and reinterpreting existing equations through this lens, many of the current mysteries and complexities in physics can be resolved with simpler, more mechanical explanations. However, it is crucial to remember that these are alternative perspectives that stand in contrast to well-established mainstream theories.
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Discuss Charge field dominance.
Miles Mathis strongly asserts that the charge field is the dominant force in the universe, far more significant than currently understood by mainstream physics1 . He argues that this dominance is evident in several ways:
•
Magnitude relative to baryonic matter: Mathis claims that the charge field outweighs all regular matter (baryonic matter) by a factor of 19 to 11 .... He arrives at this ratio by examining the fundamental definition of charge, linking it to mass and time through the unit of the ampere3 .... By calculating the mass equivalent of the charge emitted by a proton per second, he concludes that protons are constantly shedding a significant amount of mass into the charge field3 .... When extrapolated to the universe as a whole, this leads to the 19:1 ratio3 ....
•
Explanation for dark matter and dark energy: Mathis proposes that this dominant charge field is the key to understanding dark matter and dark energy, which he believes constitute about 95% of the universe according to the standard model2 .... Instead of invoking new forms of matter or energy, he suggests that these phenomena are largely due to the unweighed and unaccounted-for mass and energy of the charge field photons2 .... He explicitly states that "Dark energy is mostly charge. It is charge photons"2 .
•
Driving force behind other phenomena: Mathis argues that the charge field, due to its dominance, is the underlying cause of many phenomena attributed to other forces. For instance:
◦
He explains the zero-weight of the atmosphere not by air pressure, but by the direct levitation through bombardment of photons from the charge field9 . This implies the charge field is strong enough to counteract gravity on a massive scale.
◦
He attributes the flat rotation curves of galaxies to the variation and strength of the charge field, rather than the gravitational pull of unseen dark matter2 . He suggests that the density of the charge field in the inner parts of the galaxy causes drag, contributing to the flat velocity line2 ....
◦
He posits that lift on an airplane wing is primarily due to the momentum transfer from the charge field, highlighting the field's ability to exert significant force11 .
◦
He contends that the Coriolis Effect and phenomena like ice ages and superconductivity are also caused by the charge field12 .
•
Foundational nature of the charge field: Mathis considers the charge field to be the "foundational E/M field," underlying both electric and magnetic fields9 . He states that the charge field is primary, and the E/M field (of ions) is secondary, with photons driving the ions13 .... He even suggests that light is the fundamental field (the charge field), and the motion of light sets all fields above it15 ....
•
Critique of mainstream physics: Mathis is highly critical of mainstream physics for its failure to recognize the dominance and significance of the charge field8 .... He believes that physicists have obscured the role of charge in their equations and models, leading to the need for hypothetical entities like dark matter and virtual photons18 .... He argues that acknowledging the charge field's true dominance would provide simpler and more mechanical explanations for many unresolved issues in physics21 ....
In essence, Miles Mathis presents a view where the charge field is not a minor player but the overwhelmingly dominant component of the universe, shaping everything from the behavior of atoms and galaxies to everyday phenomena like atmospheric pressure and flight. He believes that recognizing this dominance is crucial for a more accurate and complete understanding of physics.
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Discuss Rethinking general relativity.
Miles Mathis advocates for a significant rethinking of general relativity (GR), arguing that many of its complexities and abstract concepts are unnecessary and that simpler, more mechanical explanations exist when the role of the charge field is properly understood1 .... He contends that GR, as formulated by Einstein, is built upon some flawed assumptions and has led to unnecessary mathematical complexities5 ....
Here are the main points of Mathis' perspective on rethinking GR:
•
Unnecessary Tensor Calculus and Curved Space: Mathis asserts that the use of tensor calculus and the concept of curved space in GR are mathematical choices, not necessities5 .... He believes that GR problems can be solved using simple algebra by employing a different mathematical manipulation5 .... He states that Einstein was pressured by mathematicians to use curved space, even though a straight-field approach is possible and much simpler5 .
•
The Equivalence Principle and Vector Reversal: Mathis proposes using Einstein's equivalence principle (the mathematical equivalence of gravity and acceleration) in a literal way to simplify GR problems9 .... His method involves reversing the direction of the gravity vector, which mathematically transforms the field equations, allowing for calculations in a rectilinear or Euclidean field using basic algebra9 .... After performing the calculations, the vector is reversed back to represent the physical reality13 .... He demonstrates this by solving the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and the bending of starlight by the sun with simple algebra, achieving results close to Einstein's predictions9 ....
•
GR as Special Relativity Plus Gravity: Mathis views General Relativity as essentially Special Relativity (SR) with the addition of gravity19 . However, he believes that his simplified approach, based on the equivalence principle, allows for the incorporation of gravity without the need for the complex mathematical framework of curved spacetime10 .
•
Unified Field Already Present: Mathis argues that Einstein's field equations, like Newton's gravitational equation, are already "compound equations" that implicitly include the foundational charge field1 .... He suggests that the complexities of GR might be partly due to not recognizing this inherent unification4 .... He believes that a proper understanding of the charge field can provide a more fundamental basis for gravity and resolve many issues within GR1 ....
•
Critique of Gravity Waves and Gravitons: Mathis is skeptical about the existence of gravity waves, arguing that Einstein's theory, based on curvature, doesn't inherently require them21 . He also points out the lack of a consistent theory containing gravitons and questions what medium would be waving in the absence of the ether21 .... He viewed the BICEP2 purported detection of gravity waves as "propaganda"23 ....
•
Critique of Minkowski's Four-Vector Field: Mathis finds Minkowski's concept of spacetime and the four-vector field to be physically meaningless, asserting that time is a separate concept and that the underlying assumptions are flawed7 .... He points out that even according to Einstein, local measurements are equal at the limit, suggesting a homogeneity that contradicts the need for complex spacetime curvature12 .
•
The Role of the Charge Field in GR: Mathis posits that the E/M field (specifically his charge field) must "invade" general relativity, requiring a complete reassessment of compound forces3 .... He believes that at all levels of size, both gravity and the charge field are at work in vector opposition, and GR needs to account for this fundamental interaction3 .... He suggests that Einstein based his work on the motion of light, implicitly acknowledging the primacy of what Mathis calls the charge field27 .
In summary, Miles Mathis proposes a radical simplification of general relativity by leveraging the equivalence principle to avoid tensor calculus and curved space. He argues that a proper understanding of the charge field as a fundamental and already incorporated component of gravity is key to a more accurate and less complex picture of the universe. He critiques several core concepts of mainstream GR, suggesting that they arise from unnecessary mathematical abstractions and a failure to recognize the underlying unified nature of the fields involved6 .... He believes his approach offers not only mathematical shortcuts but also potentially reveals a deeper, simpler truth about gravity and its relationship with other fundamental forces28 ....
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Discuss Distorted relativistic images.
Miles Mathis explains that relativistic images appear distorted primarily due to the finite speed of light and the relative motion or distance between the observer and the observed object1 ....
•
Distance and Time Separation: When we observe objects at great distances, like stars, the light carrying the image takes a significant amount of time to reach us1 . This creates a time separation between the emission of light from the object and its reception by the observer, leading to a distorted image1 . Mathis suggests that to obtain a non-distorted image, a transform (a simple equation) is needed to account for this time separation1 .
•
Size and Differential Travel Times: Mathis points out that any object with size will have different parts of its image reaching an observer at slightly different times because light from different ends of the object has to travel slightly different distances2 . While this distortion is usually negligible for objects at rest, it becomes significant with motion3 .
•
Speed and Length Contraction: According to Mathis, great speed causes noticeable distortion, leading to phenomena like length contraction2 .... He explains that if an object is moving away from an observer at high speed, the light from the farther end of the object was emitted earlier when the object was closer. Since all the light arrives at the observer simultaneously to form an image, the farther end appears closer than it is at the moment of observation. Consequently, the object appears shorter in the direction of its motion4 .
•
Analogy to the Doppler Effect: Mathis draws an analogy between Special Relativity (SR) and the Doppler Effect, stating that SR is essentially the Doppler Effect applied to clocks and lightwaves5 . However, he notes that while a receding train's sound waves are stretched (lower pitch), making it sound different, a receding train's light waves are also stretched (redshifted), but it appears shorter, not longer4 . This is because length is determined by a single image (all light arriving at the same instant), whereas pitch is determined over a series of wave crests arriving over time4 ....
•
Time Dilation as Apparent Change: Mathis also discusses how motion or distance affects the apparent passage of time, leading to time dilation7 .... A clock receding from an observer will appear to tick slower8 . He clarifies that time and length changes are related but in opposite ways: as length appears to contract, time appears to dilate8 . However, Mathis later argues that time dilation is an increase in the period, not an increase in the ticks, and that approaching objects actually exhibit time compression9 ....
•
Relativity as a Theory of Measurement: Mathis emphasizes that Relativity is a theory of measurement from a distance, not an existential theory11 . He asserts that the contraction and dilation are only apparent, meaning the object itself does not actually experience different time or length locally11 . All local time and length are equal11 . The transforms of relativity are meant to un-distort the image we see, revealing the local field of the object, which is the same as our local field12 .
In essence, Miles Mathis views relativistic distortions as consequences of the finite speed of light and relative motion affecting how light from different parts of an object reaches a distant observer. These effects lead to apparent changes in length and time as perceived by the observer, but the local properties of the object remain unchanged. Relativity, according to Mathis, is the framework needed to understand and correct for these observational distortions1 .
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
PODCAST TRANSCRIPT
Welcome to the daily briefs.info Lenny and Maria deep dive podcast show review of articles by Miles Matthysse.
Okay, let's do it.
Today we're diving deep into a collection of articles by Miles Matthysse tackling some of the most perplexing topics in modern physics,
right?
Offering some um alternative perspectives.
Yeah, definitely alternative.
You share these sources because you're looking for a quick but thorough understanding of these complex ideas and you appreciate when insights challenge the status quo.
Absolutely. Love it. when someone shakes things up a bit.
So, our mission today is to unpack Matthysse's arguments on topics ranging from atmospheric pressure.
Wow.
To galactic rotation, general relativity, unified field theories, the nature of charge, quantum mechanics,
lots to cover,
nuclear structure, and even the physics of lift.
Yeah. How do planes stay up? It's a good question.
Get ready for some surprising connections and potential aha moments as we explore these unconventional viewpoints.
I'm ready. Let's go.
Okay, so right out of the gate, Matthysse has this idea about the charge field.
Yeah, the charge field
being the kind of the boss of the universe.
He really thinks it's the dominant force in the universe, much more so than we currently understand.
So, so what's he saying about the charge field?
Okay, so he claims that the charge field outweighs all the regular matter we see and interact with what physicists call berionic matter by a factor of 19 to1.
19 to1. That's that's huge.
It's a massive difference. Yeah. And this isn't just, you know, a random guess. It comes from how he looks at the very definition of charge.
Okay. So, he's redefining charge.
Well, he's taking a deeper look at how it's defined. Starting with the ampere, the unit of electric current.
Right. Right.
Now, the fundamental definition of the ampere actually links charge to mass and time.
Interesting.
It's defined in terms of kilograms per second.
Okay.
So, Matis takes this seriously. He starts with the elementary charge that of a single proton or electron, right?
Which is about 1.6 2 * 10 - 19 kum.
Okay.
Now using the standard conversion of 1 kum to 2 * 10 - 7 kg/s.
Right.
He calculates that this elementary charge is equivalent to roughly 3.204 * 10 - 26 kg/s.
So that's a lot of numbers. But what's what's the takeaway here? How does this lead to that 19:1 ratio?
Good question. So from that mass per second figure which represents the charge emission of a sing single proton. Okay.
Matthysse figures out that a proton just by having that charge is essentially losing mass.
Losing mass.
Yeah. It's shedding mass in the form of this charge field at an incredible rate. Okay. It's like 35,000 times its own mass every single second.
Every second. That's insane.
It is. And when you consider all the protons in the universe and factor in some other things, this leads him to that 19:1 ratio.
19 to1. So basically, there's way more charge field out there than regular matter.
Exactly.
And we can't even see it or easily measure it,
right? It's this constant emission radiating outwards at the speed of light, you can't just put it on a scale.
So, could this be where the whole mystery of dark matter and dark energy comes in?
Bingo. That's precisely what Matthysse proposes.
So, instead of needing completely new physics to explain dark matter and dark energy, maybe it's just this charge field that we haven't fully grasped.
That's the core of his argument. And it's a pretty elegant solution. Potentially,
it is elegant. And what I find really fascinating is how he connects this idea of the charge field to the very nature of time and mass.
Yeah. It's all connected in his view.
Because if the charge field is something that's constantly being emitted over time, then mass itself can't be static. Right.
Exactly. Mass becomes inherently linked to time.
Anything in motion involves both space and time.
That's right. And he argues that maybe our current understanding of physics with that 19 to1 ratio Yeah.
implicitly includes time, but we haven't explicitly recognized its fundamental role.
That's that's a profound shift in perspective. The idea that mass isn't just this fixed quantity.
It is. It's very thoughtprovoking.
Okay. So, let's move on to another area where Matthysse offers uh pretty radical alternative general relativity.
Oh, yes. Einstein's masterpiece.
But Matthysse says we can solve these problems without all that complicated tensor calculus.
He claims there's a shortcut.
How how does he even begin to do that?
Well, he leverages Einstein's equivalence principle. which states that gravity and acceleration are mathematically equivalent.
They're two sides of the same coin.
Exactly. And Matthysse takes this very literally.
Okay.
He proposes a mathematical trick in problems involving general relativity. You can essentially reverse the direction of the gravity or acceleration vector.
Reverse the vector. What does that actually do?
By flipping that vector, those super complicated field equations that usually govern general relativity get simplified.
Simplified. Yeah, they transform into a problem of uklitian geometry, the kind you learned in high school.
Wow. So instead of needing advanced math, you can use basic algebra.
That's the idea. It's like finding a secret door in a maze that leads straight to the exit.
That sounds almost too good to be true.
It does, but math shows how it can work.
So does it actually give results that match Einstein's predictions?
Remarkably, yes.
He applies this vector reversal to two classic tests of general relativity. The procession of Mercury ury's parihelion.
Right. That slight wobble in Mercury's orbiter.
Exactly. And the bending of starlight as it passes by the sun.
Another key prediction of general relativity.
Whereas for Mercury, he considers the time it takes for light from the sun to reach Mercury.
Okay.
And then uses Mercury's acceleration to calculate the curvature.
Then what does he get?
He gets a result for the procession that falls in the range of about 0.39 to 0.49 seconds of arc per year.
How close is that to Einstein's prediction? It's incredibly close. Einstein's prediction was 0.45 seconds of arc.
Wow, that's that's pretty amazing.
And he gets that with basic algebra.
So, what about the bending of starlight?
For that, he uses the Earth's acceleration as the light from a distant star bends around the sun and reaches us.
Okay.
And his calculation using the vector reversal gives a bending of about 1.68 seconds of arc.
And Einstein's prediction
1.7 seconds.
It's again incredibly close.
It is. And he argues that this method not provides a quicker way to get these solutions,
right?
But also suggests that our understanding of gravity might need a rethink.
A rethink in what way?
He thinks gravity might not be a pole, but more of an outward acceleration of matter, and our complex math tools have been obscuring that simpler reality.
So, it's a mathematical shortcut that also potentially reveals a deeper truth about gravity.
That's Matthysse's argument.
It's definitely a thought-provoking idea. So, let's talk about how relativity affects how things actually look to us because Matis talks about distorted images.
Ah yes, the visual effects of relativity.
So what's he getting at here?
Well, he emphasizes that because light has a finite speed, both the vast distances in space and the high speeds of objects can cause some strange visual distortions.
Distortions? How so?
Think about it. If an object has any size at all, light from its different parts takes different times to reach an observer
because the light has to travel different distances.
Exactly. So even though all Those light rays reach your eye at basically the same time to form an image. They were emitted at slightly different times.
Okay?
And this difference in emission times is what can cause the distortion.
So give me an example.
Imagine a spaceship moving away from you very quickly.
Okay?
The light coming from the back of the spaceship had to leave earlier
when it was closer to us.
Right. So your brain interprets this as the back of the spaceship being closer than it actually is at that moment.
So the spaceship appears shorter.
Exactly. It appears contracted in the direction of its motion.
It's like the opposite of what happens with sound, the Doppler effect.
You got it. With the Doppler effect, something moving away from you sounds lower in pitch because the sound waves are stretched out.
But with light, it's the opposite. The image is compressed.
Precisely. Because our eyes see a single image formed by all the light rays arriving at the same time, regardless of when they were emitted.
Our brain doesn't account for that difference in emission times,
right? It just interprets the image based on the simultaneous arrival of those light rays.
So what about mass? Matthysse talks about how mass might seem to change in these relativistic situations depending on length and time.
Yes. He uses the relationship between force, mass, acceleration, distance, and time.
Okay.
To argue that if an object appears longer because it's approaching us, its apparent mass will seem to increase. Right?
And if it's receding from us and time seems to be dilated, running slower for the object relative to us, it's apparent mass will seem to decrease.
But that seems to contradict what we see in particle accelerators where particles moving at high speeds gain mass.
You're right. There's a potential contradiction with the standard interpretation there.
So how does Matthysse try to resolve this?
He reinterprets time dilation.
Okay.
Instead of seeing it as time actually slowing down for the moving object. Yeah.
He suggests it's more like a compression of the time period of anything happening inside that object. Similar to how the wavelength of light can be compressed.
So like a squeezed spring
in a way. Yes. Imagine a quantum of light approaching a detector.
Okay.
Its time period, the time between wave crests, appears compressed to us.
We see more wave crests in a given time.
Exactly. So, it seems like its frequency has increased. But he argues this apparent speeding up is just a consequence of its motion towards us. Good.
Meaning its rate would seem slower if it weren't moving relative to us. So, over a certain duration on our clocks, we'd calculate that the approaching quantum has lived longer. It's like it's aging more slowly
in a way. Yes. And he proposes that the apparent increased lifespan of particles and accelerators isn't because time is truly slowing down for them,
but because of this time compression effect.
Precisely. It's because they're the ones moving towards our detectors. If they were receding, we wouldn't usually detect them in the same way.
That's a very subtle distinction.
It is, but he believes it resolves the apparent conflict with those observations in accelerators.
So, it's all about perspective and how we're measuring things. Now, Matthew is quite critical of the standard framework of relativity. He doesn't seem to buy into some of the fundamental ideas.
Oh, he's definitely not fry about his critiques.
So, what are some of his main issues?
Well, one of his core contentions is that Einstein in developing his theory of relativity supposedly skipped a crucial step.
A crucial step. What's he referring to?
What Matis calls the first degree of relativity.
First degree of relativity.
Yeah. He means that Einstein focused on how an observer in a moving frame perceives things in a stationary frame
like someone on a moving train seeing someone standing on a platform
right and vice versa but he didn't fully develop the mathematical transformations for the moving frame itself
for the train itself
exactly so while Einstein described how the person on the train sees the platform and how the person on the platform sees the train he didn't properly account for the changes in the train's own internal measurements due to its motion
okay
and Matthysse claims that he has developed these firstderee transforms
which account for those internal changes Yes. And he says they're equivalent to simple frequency shifts that we see in optics
like the Doppler effect for light.
Similar. Yes. And he believes the standard secondderee transforms of relativity, the ones with the famous gamma factor are unnecessary
and incorrect according to him.
Exactly. He thinks they're based on a misunderstanding of the underlying physics.
So what about Manowsk's concept of spaceime?
He's not a fan.
Not a fan at all.
Nope. He considers Manowsk's framework which combines space and time time into a four-dimensional spaceime to be fundamentally flawed.
Why is that?
He argues it's built on what he believes are Einstein's incorrect initial postulates about the constancy of the speed of light,
which he rejects.
Yes. And the relativity of simultaneity, which he also rejects.
Okay.
And he takes issue with the idea that time can be treated as a dimension that travels orthogonally to the spatial dimensions.
So the idea that time is a dimension like the three spatial dimensions,
right? He thinks that's physically meaningless and that time is a separate concept altogether.
So because he believes the underlying assumptions are wrong, he rejects the entire Manowski framework.
Exactly. Regardless of its mathematical elegance or its widespread use in physics, he thinks it's fundamentally misguided.
That's a pretty bold statement.
It is. And he also has issues with other mathematical tools used in physics like non- uklitian geometry
which deals with curved spaces,
right? He thinks it's sometimes used to artificially fix equations when a simpler uklidian explanation might exist.
Interesting.
He also questions the use of complex numbers, the ones with the imaginary unit, believing they hide the true nature of the electric field.
And what about gauge math, the framework used in quantum field theories?
He sees it as an unnecessary layer of abstraction that obscures the underlying physics.
So, he's all about simplifying things, getting back to the basics.
He definitely prefers simpler, more intuitive explanations.
Now, it sounds like he's not a fan of the standard interpretations of the Mickelson Moley experiment either.
That's another one he criticizes. He argues that the standard diagrams used to explain it incorrectly position the observer relative to the ether.
The ether, which mainstream physics doesn't even believe in anymore,
right? But he says the typical interpretation implicitly assumes the observer is stationary with respect to this ether while the experimental apparatus is moving through it.
And he thinks that's a flawed premise.
Exactly. He believes it leads to incorrect predictions about what should have been observed in the experiment.
So, he's basically questioning some of the most foundational concepts in modern physics.
He is he's taking on the establishment with his alternative interpretations.
It's definitely shaking things up. Let's shift gears a bit and talk about unified field theories because Matis suggests that maybe we've been looking at them without realizing it.
He does. He has a really interesting perspective on that.
So, what's his take?
He proposes that the equations we already have for electricity and gravity, Culum's law and Newton's law, of universal gravitation,
right? Two fundamental laws of physics
are actually two sides of the same coin, inverses of a single underlying unified field equation.
So, they're more connected than we think.
Exactly. He argues that their true relationship has been masked by the different constants they use, Kulum's constant K and Newton's gravitational constant G.
So, if those constants were somehow shown to be fundamentally related, this unity between electromagnetism and gravity would be more obvious.
That's his argument. And he thinks Maxwell's equations also fit into this unified picture.
Maxwell's equations which describe electricity and magnetism.
Right. And the Lrangeian that mathematical tool used in both classical and quantum mechanics.
So he sees all of these as disguised forms of a unified field theory.
He does. And he sees the electric and magnetic fields and gravity as being in a kind of vector opposition within this framework.
Okay.
And based on this he predicts that at very small scales, gravity is much stronger than we currently think. think
and at large scales
at large cosmological scales it might be weaker than current models suggest
so he's tweaking our understanding of gravity based on this unified view
he is he's proposing a different way of looking at the fundamental forces
now what about Maxwell's idea of magnetic lines of force as pressurized tubes that's a pretty common analogy
it is but Matthysse isn't a fan of that analogy
why not
he feels it lacks a fundamental homogeneous basis
okay
he compares it to string theory suggesting that both ideas introduce complexity without being rooted in a deeper simpler principle.
So instead of these tubes or strings, what does he propose?
The charge field. Remember, he sees the charge field composed of real spinning photons as the fundamental homogeneous field underlying both electromagnetism and gravity.
So those spinning photons are the key.
He thinks so. And he proposes that magnetic fields arise from the alignment of the spins of these charged photons.
Spin alignment. Interesting.
Yeah. And this alignment is influenced by the presence of matter.
So matter is kind of guiding the charge field
in a way. Yes. Matter acts as a channel or a conduit for this charge field.
Like a dance between matter and the charge field.
That's a good way to put it.
Now let's get to a really controversial topic. The detection of gravity waves and the theory of inflation.
Ah yes, the big bang and all that.
That thing is very skeptical here.
He's more than skeptical. He basically calls it scientific propaganda.
Propaganda. Wow.
Yeah. He compares it to the Higs Bzon announcement where he also felt the significance was overblown.
So what's his issue with the gravity wave detection?
Well, he thinks the announcement was premature and possibly driven by a desire to prop up the inflationary model of the universe.
Inflation, that period of rapid expansion in the early universe.
Exactly. And he points out that inflation has been facing some theoretical challenges.
So the gravity wave announcement was like a lifeline.
He thinks so. And his main contention is with the interpretation of those swirl patterns in the cosmic microwave background. radiation,
the CMBB, the afterglow of the Big Bang,
right? The BIC team claimed they detected a specific polarization pattern in the CMB called B modes.
Okay.
And they argued these could only have been caused by primordial gravity waves from inflation.
So those swirls were like the smoking gun for gravity waves.
That's how they presented it. But Matthysse strongly disagrees.
Why?
Well, he points out that microwaves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum and they interact with gravity very ly according to standard physics.
So he thinks those polarization patterns in the CMBB could be caused by something else.
Exactly. Potentially something related to his charge field theory,
not gravity waves at all.
He thinks it's a misinterpretation of the data. And he also has some concerns about the BICF2 data itself.
Like what?
Well, he says some analyses of the data show red circular patterns with blue cross-hatching.
Okay.
And he feels that the origin and orientation of these patterns aren't properly explained by the gravity wave theory.
So, he thinks the data doesn't actually support their claims.
He does. And he also brings up the CMBB map generated by the Plank satellite, which showed some strange features.
Strange features like what?
Well, they seem to correlate with our own solar system. Yeah. And he thinks this casts doubt on the idea that the CMB is purely a primordial signal from the Big Bang.
So, maybe the BICEP U2 results were picking up on something more local.
That's his argument. And he's also critical of how the BICP2 team ruled out other explanations for their findings.
Like what kind of explanations?
Well, there's stuff like emissions from our own galaxy, things like synretron radiation and polarized dust.
So, they had to make sure their signal wasn't just contamination from our own galaxy,
right? And Matthysse questions whether they did that effectively.
Why?
Well, he points out that there are other unexplained phenomena in astrophysics like the data from the Voyager 1 spacecraft and anomalies observed on other planets.
Okay?
And he thinks these suggest our understanding of these galactic emissions might not be as complete as we think.
So, we might be misinterpreting the BICP2 results because we don't fully understand everything else going on in our galaxy.
That's what he's saying. And he also questions whether they properly accounted for dust polarization.
Dust polarization. Why is that important?
Because dust can emit polarized light. And he points out that some of the models used to account for this were actually created by the BICP2 team themselves.
So, there's a potential conflict of interest there,
maybe. And he also says they didn't really address the question of what caused the dust to become polarized in the first place.
That seems like a pretty important question.
It does. And then there's the location of the bias pew experiment at the South Pole.
Why is the location an issue?
Well, the South Pole has strong and variable geomagnetic fields.
Right. Because of the Earth's magnetic field.
Exactly. And Matthysse thinks these magnetic fields could contaminate the measurements of the very faint polarization signals in the incoming microwaves.
So the swirls they saw might be due to these magnetic fields rather than gravity waves.
That's a possibility he raises. And finally, he even accuses them of potential digital manipulation of some of the images.
Digital manipulation. That's is a serious accusation.
It is. He points to what he sees as signs of editing in Photoshop or similar software.
Like what?
He mentions things like gray blurs around figures in some images, which he thinks could be remnants of editing.
And he sees this as a red flag.
Absolutely. He questions the overall trustworthiness of their presentation. That's a pretty damning critique.
It is. And he feels that even though the BISAP 2 team later acknowledged some uncertainties in their findings, they didn't address his more fundamental concerns about the interpretation and presentation of the data.
So he's not convinced at all.
Nope. He thinks the whole thing needs to be re-examined.
Okay. Let's move on to another area where Matthysse challenges the standard model. The lrangian and the Hamiltonian.
Those are cornerstones of theoretical physics.
So what does he have to say about them?
Well, the lrangian in its simplest form is the kinetic energy of a system minus its potential energy.
Right. The energy of motion minus the stored energy.
Exactly. And Matthysse argues that this formulation, while influential, might have led us down some misleading paths.
Misleading paths? How so?
He points out that in classical mechanics, especially with gravity and celestial mechanics, the gravitational field is considered to be the source of both the kinetic energy of orbiting bodies and their potential energy.
Okay.
So when we form the lrangian we're essentially subtracting something caused by the gravitational field from something else also caused by the gravitational field.
So it's like subtracting a future state from a present state as he puts it.
Right. Because potential energy is the energy a body would have if it were in a different position
while kinetic energy is the energy it has due to its current motion.
Exactly. And he questions the logical consistency of this.
It seems a bit circular.
He thinks so. And he extends this critique to quantum mechanics where the The electromagnetic field is often considered the source of both the kinetic and potential energies of particles.
Okay.
And he argues that the lrangian and its close relative the Hamiltonian
which is kinetic energy plus potential energy
right can be related to his own proposed unified field equations. But he says their standard application often involves improper mathematical steps
like what?
Well, things like inserting orbital velocities directly into kinetic energy terms in a way that doesn't reflect the underlying field. field interactions.
So he thinks we're kind of fudging the math to make things fit.
He does. And he even suggests that the kinetic energy term in the lrangeian might not always represent true kinetic energy,
but might be more of a mathematical correction factor.
That's his argument. He thinks we're missing the bigger picture by focusing on these somewhat arbitrary mathematical constructs.
So he's calling for a deeper understanding of the fundamental fields and how they interact.
Exactly. He wants to get back to the root of things.
Let's move on to something that might seem a bit more down to earth how an airplane wing generates lift.
Ah yes, the magic of flight.
But Matthysse has some pretty radical ideas about this as well.
Oh, he definitely does. He says the standard explanations are incomplete at best and disproven at worst.
The standard explanations like Boni's principle and the idea that air travels a longer distance over the curved upper surface of the wing,
right? He points out that even scientific American has admitted that there's no fully satisfactory explanation for why Our planes stay aloft.
Wow. So, even the mainstream is acknowledging the gaps in their understanding.
They are. And Matthysse is quick to point out the flaws in these explanations.
So, what are some of his specific criticisms?
Well, he says these explanations overemphasize the role of the angle of attack.
The angle between the wing and the oncoming air.
Right. And while angle of attack does play a role, he argues that these explanations fail to account for level flight
where the wing isn't tilted.
Exactly. And he points out that some craft can generate lift even when their wings are inverted
like in arerobatic maneuvers
right which completely contradicts the idea that the longer upper surface is the primary factor
so if it's not Berni's principle or the wing shape alone what does he propose is the main force behind lift
he believes it's all about momentum transfer from the charge field
the charge field again
yep he argues that as the wing moves through this charge field it collides with these charge photons and these collisions from blow create an upward force.
It's like running in the rain. The faster you run, the more raindrops hit you.
That's the analogy he uses. The faster the wing moves, the more charge photons hit it and the greater the lift.
Okay, but what about buoyancy? Why do things float in air or water?
He attributes buoyancy to the upward acceleration of the charge field itself.
The charge field is accelerating upwards.
He says it has a small but nonzero upward acceleration, which he calculates to be 0.009. five four or five meters/s squared.
Okay.
And he argues that this upward acceleration is what supports the atmosphere and lifts objects that are less dense than the surrounding medium.
So it's the charge field that's preventing us from all collapsing under gravity.
That's his view. And he sees atmospheric pressure not as the weight of the air above,
but as a result of these charged photons constantly bombarding air molecules.
Okay,
keeping them from collapsing into a more compressed state. Now, what about the Kanda effect? That tendency of fluids to stick to surface is that's often brought up in explanations of lift.
Matthysse has a different interpretation of the Kanda effect as well.
What's his take?
Instead of seeing it as air sticking to a surface due to pressure differences,
right,
he sees it as movement along the path of least resistance within the charge field.
So, the fluid is being guided by the charge field.
Exactly. It's flowing along the easiest channels within the charge field.
So, it's not really sticking. It's just following the natural flow.
That's his view. And he even brings in some unusual evidence to support this charge field explanation of lift
like what
he mentions things like a pilot's observation about the efficiency of multi-bladed propellers.
Okay.
And the apparent weight loss of helicopter rotor blades when their pitch is flattened.
Interesting.
And he points to the historical use of materials like copper clad metal and specific types of wood in early aircraft.
And he thinks these materials might have been chosen for their interactions with the charge field.
Yeah. He suggests that maybe inadvertently they found materials that enhanced lift by interacting with the charge field in specific ways.
So he's weaving together all sorts of observations and historical tidbits to support his theory.
He is he's trying to build a comprehensive picture.
Let's move on to the really small scale now. Nuclear structure and quantum mechanics.
Ah the realm of the very tiny
and Matthysse is quite critical of the standard models here as well.
He is he argues that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed.
Flawed? How so?
Well, he says it doesn't accurately predict the structure of the periodic table,
which is a pretty big deal.
It is. And he thinks the focus has been too much on the electron and not enough on the nucleus.
So, he wants to shift our attention to the nucleus.
He does. He thinks the principles of quantum mechanics should have been applied to the nucleus from the get-go.
Okay. So, what's his picture of the atom? How does he see the electrons in the nucleus arranged?
He says electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus in the traditional sense.
They don't.
Nope. He suggests they spin and reside within the alpha particle structures that he he believes make up the nucleus.
So the electrons are embedded in the nucleus
in a way. Yes. And he also says that the strong nuclear force, the one that supposedly holds the nucleus together, right,
is unnecessary in his model.
Unnecessary. How could he say that?
He believes that nuclear binding energy is primarily a result of gravity, which he thinks is much stronger at these tiny scales. Okay.
Combined with a loss of charge.
So gravity and charge are the key players in his model.
Exactly. And he also has an explanation. for the stability of the noble gases.
The noble gases which are notoriously unreactive,
right? He links their stability not just to having filled outer electron shells,
which is the standard explanation.
Yeah. But primarily to having completed and stable nuclear structures.
So the nucleus is the key to their stability.
That's what he argues. And he offers his own proposed nuclear structures for elements like argon, krypton, xenon, and radon
based on arrangements of alpha particles and their interactions with the charge field. Exactly. And he claims these structures better explain their observed stability and patterns of radioactivity.
So he's revising our understanding of the nucleus.
He is he's proposing a whole new way of looking at it.
And what about chemical bonds? How does he explain how atoms bond together to form molecules?
He uses the example of the compound SR2 Cuo3 strontium copper oxide.
Okay.
He suggests that bonding happens through a rearrangement of the outer protons in the nuclei of the atoms. Okay,
these protons shift their positions to align with the charge field channels of the larger element in the molecule, in this case, strontium.
Interesting.
And he proposes that smaller elements like oxygen act as charge boosters, helping to facilitate this fit between the charge field structures.
So, it's all about the charge field guiding these interactions.
Exactly. It's the underlying force that determines how atoms arrange themselves.
Now, Matthysse is also very critical of the idea of quirks.
Oh, he really doesn't like quirs.
Quirs, those fundamental particles. It's