BEST OF MILES MATHIS
The orbiter must retain its innate motion throughout the orbit, no matter the shape of the orbit. If it did not, then its innate motion would dissipate. If it dissipated, the orbit would not be stable. Therefore, the orbiter always retains its innate motion over each and every differential. If we take the two most important differentials, those at perihelion and aphelion, and compare them, we find something astonishing. The tangential velocities due to innate motion are equal, meaning that the velocity tangent to the ellipse is the same in both places. But the accelerations are vastly different, due to the gravitational field. And yet the ellipse shows the same curvature at both places. The ellipse is a symmetrical shape, just like the circle.
This is physically impossible. Using the given motions, the ellipse is impossible to explain.
The logical creation of an ellipse requires forces from both foci, but one of our foci is empty. It is a ghost. Every explanation I have seen of the elliptical orbit, including—perhaps most famously—Feynman’s explanation, uses the visualization of string and thumbtacks (see diagram above, below title). But this visualization requires two foci. It cannot work with an ellipse and only one focus.
This means that if the Earth were denser, you would weigh less, not more. You weigh less on the Moon not because it is less dense, or because it has less mass, but because its foundational E/M field is stronger. And its foundational E/M field is stronger because the Moon’s radius is smaller than the Earth’s.
Although the Moon’s body is less dense, as a whole, its E/M field is more dense, on the surface. And this is simply because it has so much less surface area than the Earth (13 times less). You can’t just look at mass or density, you have to look at field lines; and the density of those field lines at the surface determines the strength of the foundational E/M field.
But now to tell you what G is.
The current number for G is 6.67 x 10-11. That number is indeed a transform, and what it does is transform the size of one field to the size of the other, so that they can be compared directly. As I said, we have two fields in Newton’s equation, not one. The gravitational field, separated out from the compound field, is just the acceleration of a length. Therefore it has no mediating particle.
It is not even really a field, in that sense. There is no graviton or any other radiated particle. Therefore, when I speak of the gravitational field, I am talking about the field of atoms and free electrons and so on. The field of “material particles:” particles that make up or constitute physical objects.
The second field comprising Newton’s equation is the foundational E/M field, and this field does not constitute material physical objects. This field is radiated by protons and nuclei and electrons, and mediates basic forces, but it does not physically constitute macro-objects in the same way. Certainly it exists in all the regions of all material objects, but I think it is clear what I mean here nonetheless.
Since this foundational E/M field has energy, it must have materiality. Since I have jettisoned the idea of mass, materiality is now represented only by length. Specifically, materiality is represented by radius, in all the equations. In all gravitational or force equations, we have an accelerating radius of some sphere or spheres.
If we take Einstein’s equivalence postulate literally and simultaneously reverse all the gravitational acceleration vectors in the universe, we imply that all objects, macro and micro, are now expandin
g. In one sense they must be expanding at the same rate, since they all stay the same size relative to each other. We don’t see objects changing size relative to us, therefore they must be expanding at the same rate relative to us and to each other.
A GUT is currently defined as a theory that would combine the four existing fundamental forces, those being gravity, E/M, strong and weak. A successful GUT would combine not only the current theories, but the current maths. Well, I certainly can't claim to have done that, since I have shown that two of those forces don't even exist. I have ditched the strong force as unnecessary, since we have no data indicating that the E/M field exists in the nucleus in the way we have been told. The strong force was postulated to counteract E/M in the nucleus, but a better theory is that it does not exist there as a repulsive force. I have shown mechanically and logically why it wouldn't exist there in that way, so all the work done on the strong force has just been busywork. [Also see my new papers on nuclear charge channeling.] This works out well, since the strong force is the most tenuous of the four. The math and theory underlying the strong force are razor thin, and very little is lost in jettisoning it.
The same can be said for the weak force. Although something is going on with the weak force, and it hasn't been made up from whole cloth like the strong force, it turns out that current theory was right to backslide into electroweak theory. The weak force was initially sold as an independent force of nature, but after the Nobel Prizes were awarded, the theorists admitted that the weak force was probably just a comrade of E/M. They were right in that. The weak force isn't a force at all, it is just a fluctuation in the E/M field seen in certain collisions (beta “decay”, kaon decay and so on). It is a variation in the charge field, and of course the charge field is E/M. The charge field is photons, and the variation seen in so-called weak interactions is mediated by photons directly.
Furthermore, I can't and don't want to claim that I have unified the various mainstream maths. Rather, I have shown that most of them need to be swept out the door. I have no use for gauge math or tensor math or Hamiltonians or renormalization. All that is just a laser show to keep your eyes off the mess. I have kept a large part of Newton's and Einstein's and even Schrodinger's field equations, but I have shown that important parts of all three have to be excised or whipped into shape. With some major nudges here and there, I have been able to unify gravity and E/M. The biggest nudge was recognizing that G was a scaling constant in Newton's gravity equation, and that E/M had always been included in the classical field equations. This alone allowed me to rewrite all the basic field equations, and to correct literally hundreds of lesser equations in related problems and experiments. Another big nudge was the correction to the angular equations, which had been wrong from the beginning. This allowed for another round of important corrections. Finally, replacing quarks with spins allowed me to clean up the greater messes of QED and QCD, simplifying both. Giving the photon spin allowed me to explain magnetism, and giving the photon a radius and a mass allowed me to solve galactic and cosmic problems in a simple and straightforward way. I recently showed that dark matter is actually just the charge field.
So you can see that the long-sought-after GUT was achieved in a way no one predicted. The four forces were unified by throwing one out, redefining another, and realizing that the other two had been unified from the beginning. In the same way, the maths were unified by throwing most of them out and starting over from scratch. I didn't unify renormalized maths with tensor fields, I went back and reformulated a quantum math that was normal to begin with. I did this by throwing out the point and the point particle.
I will now show that Planck's constant is very easy to derive mechanically, which makes it astonishing that the derivation is not on the Wiki page or in any textbooks. Once you see how easy it is, you will agree that this information must be hidden on purpose. There is no way that a century of particle physicists could have been ignorant of what I am about to prove, so we must assume they were hiding it with full intent to deceive.
Everything in the atomic and quantum world—including the atom, the nucleus, the proton, and the electron—is about 100 times larger than you were taught.
In my first paper on G, I use 10-13m instead of 10-15m for the radius of the proton, and now I have finally told you why. That paper may now stand as confirmation or proof of this paper. In that paper, I use the number 10-13m to confirm the age of the universe as about 15 billion years, by a pretty transparent method. Since that number comes from observables and equations that have nothing to do with our observables or equations here, that number stands as experimental evidence in favor of this paper and this finding. In other words, I have shown that 15 billion years confirms 10-13m.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.