# CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

## CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

**Proving MM's Model**

On the ATTENTION board above we seemed to be fairly agreed on what are essential elements of Miles' model. Below I show my rating of each element. You all are welcome to add your ratings, if you like. I think the list and ratings can help show what needs to be addressed to help prove the model.

**List of Parts to Prove**

Do you guys agree with this to-do list?

1. photon mass or mass equivalence & photon radius;

2. stacked spins & mass increase;

3. electrons & protons as high-level stacked-spin photons;

4. atoms, ions & molecules as particles with charge streams;

5. gravity as expansion, or expansion equivalence, or universal spin;

6. electricity & magnetism;

7. heat as IR photons.

**If yous agree that these are some of the main parts to prove, do yous have suggestions which MM papers & other sources help most to prove any of those parts?**

--------------------------------------------------------------

This list below is from http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=151

**Rate this theory (the elements of the theory) & give reasons for I-ratings (in parentheses).**

RATING: 21P, 13M, 1I

I (improbable) = under 30% probability

M (maybe) = 30-70% probability

P (probable) = over 70% probability

P Photon: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or multiple thereof,

M >>according to the number of (gyroscope-gimbal-like) layers of spin,

P >>detected as visible light, or so-called electromagnetic radiation;

P >>also, the building block of subatomic particles (all matter in the universe)

M >>with additional layers of spin (Regarding layers of spin, see e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...ration.gif )

P Spin: the rotation of a photon, or revolution of any spin-layer of a photon or subatomic particle, where the layer's tangential velocity is c

P Antiphoton: a photon spins clockwise or counterclockwise; whichever is predominant at Earth is a photon; and the opposite is an antiphoton

P Electricity: work done on a load by photon translational forces

M Magnetism: work done on a load by coherent photon surface spins

I Gravity: photon & space expansion;

(There's no mechanism for expansion or for equal rates of expansion for photons & space)

M >>or equivalence to photon & space expansion (such as by acceleration being from rotation, not expansion);

M >>or universal spin;

M >>or other

P Heat: infrared photons

P Charge: photon pressure (equivalent to mass), ie emission of photons from subatomic particles (neutrons emit very little)

M Charge Channel: path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleons of an ion, atom, or molecule, usually parallel or orthogonal to the nuclear axis and/or carousel

M Atomic Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon radiation due to electrons in the shells blocking radiation from the nuclei

P Charge Recycling: in subatomic particles, polar photon intake and equatorial or polar emission

P Spin Axis: center line of- and around-which- a photon, subatomic particle, atom, or ion spins

P Pole: two points on the subatomic particle surface on the spin axis,

M >>where ambient field photons enter (because of minimal rotational velocity)

P >>and sometimes exit

P Equator: circumference of the subatomic particle surface 90 degrees from each pole,

P where photons largely exit from protons and electrons due to maximal tangential velocity

P Electron: smallest subatomic particle, too large (having too many spin layers) to reach the speed of light;

M >>in atoms it orbits the pole of a proton and neutralizes (partly blocks) charge

P Proton: primary subatomic particle responsible for charge,

M >>4 spin layers larger than an electron

P Neutron: a nearly neutral subatomic particle,

M >>due to its reverse outer spin to that of the proton blocking its equatorial emission;

M >>free neutrons decay because of lesser emission which exposes them to ambient field photon collisions

P Alpha: alpha particle having two each of protons, neutrons and electrons;

P >>it forms the core of larger atoms, either single or up to five combined

P Carousel: opposing pair/s of protons in one equatorial plane around the axis of a nucleus

P Math, Physics & Quantum Mechanics Errors: flawed calculations for the microcosm based on zero diameter of electrons and photons, zero mass of photons, flawed logic, etc

**LloydK**- Posts : 442

Join date : 2014-08-10

## MM Review

Bruce emailed me his review of Miles' Theory. I was hoping he'd evaluate my list of essential elements of Miles' theoy, but instead he did this. I'll try to read it soon.

Bruce Nappi

“What we want, I think, is a definition that describes time as something that we measure. Only that. One might call it an operational definition. This definition is not an explanation of what time means (or has come to mean) philosophically or epistemologically. It is an explanation of what time is in our experimental or everyday use of it.”

This would be useful if a philosophical description could not be found. And lacking a handy philosophical description, it would also be useful,

“I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement…”

This is more profound than it first appears. I generally with this statement. In fact, this was close to the realization I came to when I wrote my Critical Wiki on Clocks. ( I’ve attached it to the related email.) But, being very precise, the statement is not correct. I should say: Time is simply a measurement of the

“In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement… Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.”

This misses the concept of time completely. And as he continues his discussion, he gets into serious problems. He claims because time is a measure of distance, it is measured in length units (for example meters). He then puts this idea into a simple equation: d = vt or v = d / t . From this he deduces that the units of velocity do not exist. The units of v are then d (meters) / t (meters) = unit-less. (This is discussed in more detail below.) The irony of his paper is that, as he goes on, he completely forgets this concept and starts to talk about time as if it is a duration again.

“In this way you can see that there never was an idea of "absolute time … Every measurement of time is a relative measurement, in this sense. It is relative to a standard clock, defined as standard. Time is also a relative measurement in the sense that it is dependent upon a measurement of distance. The time concept is relative to the distance concept.”

Now that he is back to using time as a duration, this whole paragraph is not supportable. He says, “In this way…” as if his next observation is derived from his first observation, “…there never was an idea of "absolute time… Every measurement of time is a

In my Clock Wiki, I also associate time with movement. But it is NOT a measurement of distance. It is a measurement of the “duration” of a repeated motion. These are different concepts.

“The measurement of time is necessary to the measurement of velocity… “

He says this, but immediately contradicts himself.

Velocity is the measurement of the change in position of one thing (the object in question) relative to the change in position of another thing (the cesium atom, or the pendulum, etc.)… “

This doesn’t work. If I walk 6 paces, and you walk 10 paces, we comply with his rule, but don’t achieve anything. For his statement to work, additional rules are also needed for simultaneity, limitations on path motion geometry, uniformity of motion etc.

“Once you have conceived of the idea of velocity in this way, you realize that it can be measured in only one way: Compare the unknown movement to a known movement… find something in your world that moves

To see how mixed up his reasoning is here, read the following:

“how can I know that something moves "as uniformly as possible" without already having an idea of time?

So he makes a statement about establishing a clock, and then says it can’t be done. The next paragraphs give his time formula:

“

These are logical flaws. The first paragraph proposes a model: find something with uniform movement. The second states it is not possible. If time has the units of distance over distance, then it is unit less, which by definition, cannot be the basis of a measured unit.

A

“you cannot assign a counting number to a real point. A real point is dimensionless; it therefore has no extension in any direction. You can apply an ordinal number to it, but you cannot assign a cardinal number to it. Since mathematics and physics concern cardinal or counting numbers, the point cannot enter their equations.”

This is an illogical explanation because he fails to consistently use adjectives with his use of the noun “point” to clarify its use. Math is a tool for quantitative analysis. Different equations are required for different physics because different models are needed to describe different physics. The equations that apply to “real points” may not apply to ordinal points.

“This is of fundamental contemporary importance, since it means that the point cannot enter calculus equations.”

This statement is a perfect example. It is ambiguous because it is imprecise about the type of point presented. Calculus primarily uses the concept of points as ordinals to identify boundaries for summation. He doesn’t understand that.

“I will show that Newton’s famous gravitational equation is a compound equation that expresses both the gravitational field and the E/M field.”

His proof is based on, and gets lost from the beginning, by erroneously chasing small gravitational anomalies (Vening Meinesz showed that gravity is very slightly stronger over deep oceans). His analysis turns to mistaken explanations for simple physics.

He says, “F = GMm/R2 . Neither the numerator nor the denominator were chosen for theoretical reasons. They were chosen because they work.”

This shows a poor understanding of how science really works. There are many cases where measurements were made and the data plotted. If the data falls along some known curves, like 1 over r2 , and it does so over a wide range of r, then it can immediately be used as a “functional” theory. Further analysis may then give theoretical reasons. He doesn’t acknowledge this. But he then uses bad examples to support his point.

“But it is true with the mass variables, too. Newton

This is clearly a false observation. There are simple geometric and logical arguments to support Newton’s choice. For example, if we are using weights and the earth to determine if M and m in the gravity equation should be added, multiplied, subtracted or divided, the mathematical operator can be resolved through simple logic. We start with a group of equal weights, let’s say 1 kg each, where 1 kg is the force of gravity, measured by a spring scale, pulling the weight down. If the scale reads 1, with one weight, how much will it read with 2 weights? 3 weights? If m is replaced by 2m, and then 3m in an equation where the operator between M and m is each of the 4 Miles presents (+ - * / ), there is only one that will produce F, 2F and 3F.

He goes on:

“This was experimental science in the old way: run the experiments and try some equations until you found one that worked.”

So, is this statement made to criticize empirical curve fitting? OK. What does he say next?

“Science still works that way, to a large extent,

Again, he contradicts himself right off.

“But in this case, the fact that a heuristic equation so quickly became dogma was very bad for physics and the theory of gravity. The equation became the theory and no one ever felt it necessary to create a real theory—one that could tell us why the masses were multiplied or why the exponent of R was 2, for example. Most felt unqualified to do so, and those with the confidence apparently couldn’t sort through the math and mechanics at the same time.”

This comments actually addresses and ignores multiple viewpoints. Newton, from the start, said his equation was only a “measurement tool”. He admitted from the start that it wasn’t a physics explanation. But, much of the scientific community has made that confusion, and still does, confusing an equation that predicts a measurement, with a physics explanation.

The

“Let us say that you are an electron and I am an electron. We are both

OK. He can set this out as a supposition. But he can’t also imply that it is a possibility just because he supposed it. Two electrons moving together will repel each other and move apart unless there is a specific property holding them in alignment.

“Let us also say that we believe in Einstein's theory of equivalence. That is, mathematically, a gravitational acceleration down is equivalent to a normal acceleration up.”

This is not at all what Einstein’s theory of equivalence states. There are multiple other criteria needed to define this situation. The gravity has to have parallel field lines. It can’t come from an object, because the lines would radiate from the center of the object. The test object could not have finite size like a person. If so, all of the atoms in the object would be pulled toward the gravitational object. If the person was in a box in space being accelerated by a rocket, the force on the person would all be applied at the person’s external surface. The two phenomenon would be easily distinguishable and NOT equivalent. Continuing:

“We don't have to talk about expansion or any of that here, we just need to believe in mathematical equivalence. Just as with Einstein's elevator car in space, we believe we can switch the vector and get the same answer either way. So, let us (the two electrons) do that. We each have a gravity vector, and we switch it, as a game. My vector points toward you and yours points toward me. What is the force? Given the vector reversal that Einstein allows us,

So look at what he has done. He starts with the

“But what is the equivalent of this force? Another way of putting it is, what would be the force required to prevent us from moving toward each other? That would have to be a force exactly the same size as the force impelling us toward each other, if that force existed. Newton gives us that equation, and it is F = ma. If I am the little variables and you are the big, then the force to keep both of us from moving would be F = ma + MA “

What he has just done is create a new formula and concept for gravity, that has equal and opposite electrical and gravitational components. But it is all based on his initial false assumption that two electrons would ever stay equally spaced. In the physics we observe, they never would. So a whole section of his theory is based on a totally false mental experiment. And any later uses of this formula will also have false results.

The

The quantum 'wave' equations include both the particle and wave characteristics of quanta, but the

What’s wrong with his discussion about this is that he never pins anything down with a true explanation. His first use, at this point, of the term “quantum” is related to ‘wave equations’. He says these “

“These wave characteristics are not equivalent to field wave characteristics.” You see, the mainstream hasn't yet discovered that we have two sorts of wave equations: field wave equations, and spin equations. The spin equations mirror wave equations in many ways, since the spins create waves, but fundamentally they aren't the same. A wave created by spin will not travel exactly like a wave created by a field disturbance. This is because a spin is NOT just a field disturbance. Spin is the motion of a real particle, and so it travels with the particle. A field wave does not travel with the particle, so the paths of the two waves will not be the same. In short, the spin wave will diminish slightly faster than the field wave, and this is due to the nature of collisions in the field. Both waves propagate via collisions in the field, but they propagate in fundamentally different ways.”

The

“The truth is, it only took a few moments on the calculator to discover that

But, he never explains the major characteristics of photons that are observed.

“The neutrino came from beta decay experiments, and it was proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to fill energy gaps there… it is caused by magnetic or spin change to the surrounding charge field, which causes a small energy change. This change is localized, and therefore it acts somewhat like a particle, but it is a field wave, like sound. Again, a field wave, like sound; not the spin of a particle, like light. This localized field change can then travel through the charge field at the speed of light, still acting somewhat like a photon. But it isn't either a photon or a neutrino. It isn't a particle at all. It is a wave like sound, which exists only as a pattern on a background.”

**Review of Miles Mathis physics**(early June 2017)Bruce Nappi

__http://milesmathis.com/__**Time**“What we want, I think, is a definition that describes time as something that we measure. Only that. One might call it an operational definition. This definition is not an explanation of what time means (or has come to mean) philosophically or epistemologically. It is an explanation of what time is in our experimental or everyday use of it.”

This would be useful if a philosophical description could not be found. And lacking a handy philosophical description, it would also be useful,

**as long as**it was consistent with the philosophical version. So, this is a good start.“I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement…”

This is more profound than it first appears. I generally with this statement. In fact, this was close to the realization I came to when I wrote my Critical Wiki on Clocks. ( I’ve attached it to the related email.) But, being very precise, the statement is not correct. I should say: Time is simply a measurement of the

**duration**of movement. That is, time is a property of the universe. It allows events to occur, without all occurring simultaneously. Miles’ following words make this clear.“In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement… Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.”

This misses the concept of time completely. And as he continues his discussion, he gets into serious problems. He claims because time is a measure of distance, it is measured in length units (for example meters). He then puts this idea into a simple equation: d = vt or v = d / t . From this he deduces that the units of velocity do not exist. The units of v are then d (meters) / t (meters) = unit-less. (This is discussed in more detail below.) The irony of his paper is that, as he goes on, he completely forgets this concept and starts to talk about time as if it is a duration again.

“In this way you can see that there never was an idea of "absolute time … Every measurement of time is a relative measurement, in this sense. It is relative to a standard clock, defined as standard. Time is also a relative measurement in the sense that it is dependent upon a measurement of distance. The time concept is relative to the distance concept.”

Now that he is back to using time as a duration, this whole paragraph is not supportable. He says, “In this way…” as if his next observation is derived from his first observation, “…there never was an idea of "absolute time… Every measurement of time is a

**relative**measurement.” This is not at all new with Miles. Many measurements are relative: distance is measured relative to the “standard meter”, volume is measured relative to the “standard cc” etc. But he then falls into a second trap. The use of the term “relative” that I put in bold, is not just the English word, but sets up a link to Relativity, that he uses later. This is misleading, because the concept of time and relative measurements can be explained completely without Relativity.In my Clock Wiki, I also associate time with movement. But it is NOT a measurement of distance. It is a measurement of the “duration” of a repeated motion. These are different concepts.

**Velocity**“The measurement of time is necessary to the measurement of velocity… “

He says this, but immediately contradicts himself.

Velocity is the measurement of the change in position of one thing (the object in question) relative to the change in position of another thing (the cesium atom, or the pendulum, etc.)… “

This doesn’t work. If I walk 6 paces, and you walk 10 paces, we comply with his rule, but don’t achieve anything. For his statement to work, additional rules are also needed for simultaneity, limitations on path motion geometry, uniformity of motion etc.

“Once you have conceived of the idea of velocity in this way, you realize that it can be measured in only one way: Compare the unknown movement to a known movement… find something in your world that moves

**as uniformly as possible**, and let that be your clock.”To see how mixed up his reasoning is here, read the following:

“how can I know that something moves "as uniformly as possible" without already having an idea of time?

**You cannot**. But I maintain that this idea of time—as simply a commonsense idea of uniformity of movement—is the only operational idea of time we have ever had.”So he makes a statement about establishing a clock, and then says it can’t be done. The next paragraphs give his time formula:

“

**velocity**is a relative measurement. It is the change in position of an object relative to the change in position of (the internal workings of) a clock. We usually write this as distance-over-time. d/t. I maintain that this is exactly the same as**distance-over-distance**.”These are logical flaws. The first paragraph proposes a model: find something with uniform movement. The second states it is not possible. If time has the units of distance over distance, then it is unit less, which by definition, cannot be the basis of a measured unit.

A

**Point**(as a mathematical entity)“you cannot assign a counting number to a real point. A real point is dimensionless; it therefore has no extension in any direction. You can apply an ordinal number to it, but you cannot assign a cardinal number to it. Since mathematics and physics concern cardinal or counting numbers, the point cannot enter their equations.”

This is an illogical explanation because he fails to consistently use adjectives with his use of the noun “point” to clarify its use. Math is a tool for quantitative analysis. Different equations are required for different physics because different models are needed to describe different physics. The equations that apply to “real points” may not apply to ordinal points.

“This is of fundamental contemporary importance, since it means that the point cannot enter calculus equations.”

This statement is a perfect example. It is ambiguous because it is imprecise about the type of point presented. Calculus primarily uses the concept of points as ordinals to identify boundaries for summation. He doesn’t understand that.

**Gravity**(From Mathis’ ‘The Unified Field Theory’):“I will show that Newton’s famous gravitational equation is a compound equation that expresses both the gravitational field and the E/M field.”

His proof is based on, and gets lost from the beginning, by erroneously chasing small gravitational anomalies (Vening Meinesz showed that gravity is very slightly stronger over deep oceans). His analysis turns to mistaken explanations for simple physics.

He says, “F = GMm/R2 . Neither the numerator nor the denominator were chosen for theoretical reasons. They were chosen because they work.”

This shows a poor understanding of how science really works. There are many cases where measurements were made and the data plotted. If the data falls along some known curves, like 1 over r2 , and it does so over a wide range of r, then it can immediately be used as a “functional” theory. Further analysis may then give theoretical reasons. He doesn’t acknowledge this. But he then uses bad examples to support his point.

“But it is true with the mass variables, too. Newton

**chose to multiply them instead of add, subtract, or divide them, simply because multiplying got the right answer**.”This is clearly a false observation. There are simple geometric and logical arguments to support Newton’s choice. For example, if we are using weights and the earth to determine if M and m in the gravity equation should be added, multiplied, subtracted or divided, the mathematical operator can be resolved through simple logic. We start with a group of equal weights, let’s say 1 kg each, where 1 kg is the force of gravity, measured by a spring scale, pulling the weight down. If the scale reads 1, with one weight, how much will it read with 2 weights? 3 weights? If m is replaced by 2m, and then 3m in an equation where the operator between M and m is each of the 4 Miles presents (+ - * / ), there is only one that will produce F, 2F and 3F.

He goes on:

“This was experimental science in the old way: run the experiments and try some equations until you found one that worked.”

So, is this statement made to criticize empirical curve fitting? OK. What does he say next?

“Science still works that way, to a large extent,

**and no harm done**.”Again, he contradicts himself right off.

“But in this case, the fact that a heuristic equation so quickly became dogma was very bad for physics and the theory of gravity. The equation became the theory and no one ever felt it necessary to create a real theory—one that could tell us why the masses were multiplied or why the exponent of R was 2, for example. Most felt unqualified to do so, and those with the confidence apparently couldn’t sort through the math and mechanics at the same time.”

This comments actually addresses and ignores multiple viewpoints. Newton, from the start, said his equation was only a “measurement tool”. He admitted from the start that it wasn’t a physics explanation. But, much of the scientific community has made that confusion, and still does, confusing an equation that predicts a measurement, with a physics explanation.

The

**Electron**“Let us say that you are an electron and I am an electron. We are both

**trapped in some field**, so that although we may be moving very fast relative to other things,**relative to each other we are not moving**.”OK. He can set this out as a supposition. But he can’t also imply that it is a possibility just because he supposed it. Two electrons moving together will repel each other and move apart unless there is a specific property holding them in alignment.

“Let us also say that we believe in Einstein's theory of equivalence. That is, mathematically, a gravitational acceleration down is equivalent to a normal acceleration up.”

This is not at all what Einstein’s theory of equivalence states. There are multiple other criteria needed to define this situation. The gravity has to have parallel field lines. It can’t come from an object, because the lines would radiate from the center of the object. The test object could not have finite size like a person. If so, all of the atoms in the object would be pulled toward the gravitational object. If the person was in a box in space being accelerated by a rocket, the force on the person would all be applied at the person’s external surface. The two phenomenon would be easily distinguishable and NOT equivalent. Continuing:

“We don't have to talk about expansion or any of that here, we just need to believe in mathematical equivalence. Just as with Einstein's elevator car in space, we believe we can switch the vector and get the same answer either way. So, let us (the two electrons) do that. We each have a gravity vector, and we switch it, as a game. My vector points toward you and yours points toward me. What is the force? Given the vector reversal that Einstein allows us,

**there is no force of attraction.**”So look at what he has done. He starts with the

**assumption**that the two electrons are**trapped**(which carries the hidden assumption of maintaining equal spacing), in some field (which isn’t defined). We are all aware of the electrical repulsion of the like charges. So, to justify them maintaining equal spacing, he needs an opposing force. Gravity would be the likely candidate, but we know it is too weak. So he brings in Einstein’s gravity / acceleration equivalence to allow vectors to appear in opposing directions. To achieve**no force of attraction**, the force opposing the electro-static force has to be high. He goes on:“But what is the equivalent of this force? Another way of putting it is, what would be the force required to prevent us from moving toward each other? That would have to be a force exactly the same size as the force impelling us toward each other, if that force existed. Newton gives us that equation, and it is F = ma. If I am the little variables and you are the big, then the force to keep both of us from moving would be F = ma + MA “

What he has just done is create a new formula and concept for gravity, that has equal and opposite electrical and gravitational components. But it is all based on his initial false assumption that two electrons would ever stay equally spaced. In the physics we observe, they never would. So a whole section of his theory is based on a totally false mental experiment. And any later uses of this formula will also have false results.

The

**Quantum**The quantum 'wave' equations include both the particle and wave characteristics of quanta, but the

**wave characteristics**of quanta are actually**spin characteristics**of real particles.”What’s wrong with his discussion about this is that he never pins anything down with a true explanation. His first use, at this point, of the term “quantum” is related to ‘wave equations’. He says these “

**include both the particle and wave characteristics of quanta.**” “Quanta” is used here in a different way, as if it was a thing. He relates the “wave characteristics” to**spin**. But in mainstream theory, “spin” is**not**an actual rotation of a particle. There is no precedent for**particle spin**to create a real wave. Spin was just a poorly given name to explain observations sub atomic combinations. Just like “quantum waves” were just a mathematical method to quantify atom smasher results. Particles are not really expected to move like waves.“These wave characteristics are not equivalent to field wave characteristics.” You see, the mainstream hasn't yet discovered that we have two sorts of wave equations: field wave equations, and spin equations. The spin equations mirror wave equations in many ways, since the spins create waves, but fundamentally they aren't the same. A wave created by spin will not travel exactly like a wave created by a field disturbance. This is because a spin is NOT just a field disturbance. Spin is the motion of a real particle, and so it travels with the particle. A field wave does not travel with the particle, so the paths of the two waves will not be the same. In short, the spin wave will diminish slightly faster than the field wave, and this is due to the nature of collisions in the field. Both waves propagate via collisions in the field, but they propagate in fundamentally different ways.”

The

**Photon**“The truth is, it only took a few moments on the calculator to discover that

**the photon is simply another energy level of the quantum**. Notice I said quantum, since we appear to have only one now. I have already unified the electron, positron, proton, anti-proton, neutron, all the neutrinos and all the mesons. I have shown that they are all spin levels or multiples of the same particle.”But, he never explains the major characteristics of photons that are observed.

**Neutrino**“The neutrino came from beta decay experiments, and it was proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to fill energy gaps there… it is caused by magnetic or spin change to the surrounding charge field, which causes a small energy change. This change is localized, and therefore it acts somewhat like a particle, but it is a field wave, like sound. Again, a field wave, like sound; not the spin of a particle, like light. This localized field change can then travel through the charge field at the speed of light, still acting somewhat like a photon. But it isn't either a photon or a neutrino. It isn't a particle at all. It is a wave like sound, which exists only as a pattern on a background.”

**LloydK**- Posts : 442

Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

**Critique Miles' Essential Elements.**

To Bruce (on CNPS forum): Above, you critiqued some of Mathis' quotes on time, velocity, point, gravity, electron, quantum and photon. You also quoted him on neutrino, but you didn't comment about that. Steve Smith, Airman and I agreed that the essential ideas of Mathis' theory are at least those listed in the OP above. They do not include time, velocity, quantum, or neutrino. Also, gravity isn't essential either; he has merely done a lot of thinking about it on paper and is open to other ideas, I believe. He has mentioned 2 different ideas for gravity.

So his ideas on point, electron and photon, that you critiqued, may be essential elements, which I'll discuss below. I haven't asked Mathis what he'd say are his essential elements, but I think the three of us, Steve, Airman and I, probably have a good idea what most readers would regard as the essentials.

**Point.**

You said: The equations that apply to “real points” may not apply to ordinal points.

You quoted Mathis: “This is of fundamental contemporary importance, since it means that the point cannot enter calculus equations.”

You replied: This statement ... is ambiguous because it is imprecise about the type of point presented. Calculus primarily uses the concept of points as ordinals to identify boundaries for summation. He doesn’t understand that.

First, I don't know that "real points" exist, except as an idea, so I don't know if it's reasonable to use them in equations. Second, I think he, Nevyn, maybe Airman, and others can judge much better than I if you're right about points. Advanced math is too hard for me. But my understanding of Mathis' reasoning has been that Quantum Mechanics is based on photons having zero radius and zero mass and electrons having zero radius, which makes the conclusions of QM erroneous. I can ask Nevyn and Airman [& Cr6] if they want to comment, if you like. To me, it makes sense that photons have radius and mass, or they wouldn't seem to be able to have any effect on matter.

**Electron.**

You said: What he has just done is create a new formula and concept for gravity, that has equal and opposite electrical and gravitational components. But it is all based on his initial false assumption that two electrons would ever stay equally spaced. In the physics we observe, they never would. So a whole section of his theory is based on a totally false mental experiment. And any later uses of this formula will also have false results.

To me, what you quoted of Mathis on electrons don't seem to be essential elements of his theory. What I stated in the OP as essential is: "Electron: smallest subatomic particle, too large ... to reach the speed of light; in atoms it orbits the pole of a proton and neutralizes ... charge". I also stated there "Charge: photon pressure (equivalent to mass), ie emission of photons from subatomic particles (neutrons emit very little)". Are these ideas implausible to you?

**Photon.**

You said: he never explains the major characteristics of photons that are observed.

He didn't explain them in what you quoted, but here's what I stated are his theory's essential ideas about photons.

Photon: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or multiple thereof, ...

. detected as visible light, or so-called electromagnetic radiation;

. also, the building block of subatomic particles (all matter in the universe)

I also stated above that he regards heat as IR photons.

He explains EM waves of photons as sinusoidal motion of photons. To me that's not plausible unless the photon is a double sphere so it could make a double sinewave path as it travels. I'm not confident of that either, but I only like some aspects of his theory, not all of it so far, unless simulations etc can back it all up.

**LloydK**- Posts : 442

Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

**Point.**

Bruce replied as follows.

Now look at definition 3: a particular spot, place, or position in an area or on a map, object, or surface. This definition is what I meant by using a point as a boundary. This spot has zero size or extent. Another entry for 3: (in geometry) something having position but not spatial extent, magnitude, dimension, or direction; for example the intersection of two lines. This is what Mathis is talking about. But he is wrong about it's use in calculus. In an integral of surface area taken from the "limits" x=0 to x=5, both 0 and 5 have no dimension. But they are critical elements of integral calculus. For the derivative of velocity dx / dt , where x2 = 7 meters, and x1 = 2 meters, the values 7 and 2 have no dimensions. Yet they are critical "limit" elements for differential calculus.

As facilitator of this discussion, please lead those involved to agree on a working definition of "point", and get opinions on its impact on Mathis' theory.

You then say, "But my understanding of Mathis' reasoning has been that Quantum Mechanics is based on photons having zero radius and zero mass and electrons having zero radius, which makes the conclusions of QM erroneous." This is a very important challenge to clear up. Because if Mathis can be shown to be wrong on this, or to have misinterpreted it, then the parts of his theory that are based on this view are also wrong.

I'll start with some observations.

1. "Quantum Mechanics" is an ambiguous term. I just posted the section from Space Lattice Theory describing the problem of using the term "quantum mechanics" without a lot of qualifications.

2. So, it is not possible for Mathis to say 'Quantum Mechanics is based on photons having zero radius and zero mass' without first qualifying what he means by "quantum mechanics". What quantum theory is he using?

**Photon.**

3. Since no accepted explanation of photons even exists in science, Mathis doesn't need to bring quantum mechanics into his theory. If photons are simply believed to be "free energy" in space, then zero radius and zero mass is easy to accept. Even the "energy" of waves in water have zero mass.

4. HOWEVER, But saying A photon has zero "radius" is misleading because it creates the hidden assumption that photons have spherical symmetry. We get a different viewpoint altogether if we ask, do photons have "volume"? Does the "energy" of a water wave have "volume"? Water does. Photons also must. If not they must be singularities where all of their energy is collected into zero volume.

**LloydK**- Posts : 442

Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

**Point.**

L: Is everyone okay with this as the definition of a point?

A point in geometry is a location with no width, length, or depth, represented by a dot or other small mark.

Here's what Bruce posted about QM.

**Quantum Mechanics.**

_This is a discussion of Quantum Mechanics from a paper by Bruce Nappi titled Space Lattice Theory

13.3 Quantum Mechanics

_In his Scientific American article {Smolin 2004}, Smolin states, “The equations of quantum mechanics require that certain quantities, such as the energy of an atom, can come only in specific, discrete units. Quantum theory successfully predicts the properties and behavior of atoms and the elementary particles and forces that compose them. No theory in the history of science has been more successful than quantum theory.”

_While Quantum Mechanics (QM) has been valuable for predicting measured observations in physics and chemistry, the term “quantum mechanics” is frequently misused and misunderstood in science because it is applied to multiple unrelated phenomenon which include at least the following variations:

1. The initial discovery that launched QM was the quantization of discrete wavelengths of light emitted by atoms. This property is related to the allowed electron states and state transitions of atoms, which quantify the photoelectric effect.

2. QM was then used as a label to capture the discussion of the particle-wave duality model for photons, which is not related to the photoelectric interaction of photons.

3. QM was then associated with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which claims a limit, not a physical structure, which is placed on the accuracy with which observations of position and momentum can be made simultaneously on particle momentum. This principle, however, is dependent on the assumption that particles are “wave“ systems, or that measurements are made using “wave“ based tools, i.e. light. The uncertainty principle therefore describes a limitation of the analytical mathematics, not a fundamental limit of physics. SLT does not accept these assumptions.

4. QM was then associated with the second law of thermodynamics, which describes the effect of molecular motions in gases and liquids used in heat engines.

5. QM, using second law “concepts”, was claimed to describe the necessary “loss of information” in data communication and storage applications.

6. QM was again reapplied from communications to particles crossing the event horizon of a black hole.

7. Recently, QM has added “Quantum Entanglement” under the same banner. Referring back to Smolin’s statement, it appears that claiming the superior success of “quantum mechanics” is misleading because it is summing the individual successes of multiple analysis methods for unrelated physical principles, rather than for a single phenomena.

...

**LloydK**- Posts : 442

Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

Interesting discussion. The guy isn't really reading/critiquing other then trying to find "one-offs" which seems like typical forum "drive-by" criticisms (aka as crying... "crackpottery"). They will take a random shot...but won't stay for the long battle.

The only thing I might add to the "Point" criticism is this old link on the "Infinitesimal"...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15194&p=102820#p102820

Calculus without Limits (critique of John Gabriel):

http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/02/25/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-calculus-101-convergence-and-derivatives/

Gabriel- The 13 fallacies that form the foundation of mythmatics (mainstream mathematics):

http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com/

Also:

http://milesmathis.com/central.html

That oldest mistake is one that Euclid made. It concerns the definition of the point. Entire library shelves have been filled commenting on Euclid's definitions, but neither he nor anyone since has appeared to notice the gaping hole in that definition. Euclid declined to inform us whether his point was a real point or a diagrammed point. Most will say that it is a geometric point, and that a geometric point is either both real and diagrammed or it is neither. But all the arguments in that line have been philosophical misdirection. The problem that has to be solved mathematically concerns the dimensions created by the definition. That is, Euclid's hole is not a philosophical or metaphysical one, it is a mechanical and mathematical one. Geometry is mathematics, and mathematics concerns numbers. So the operational question is, can you assign a number to a point, and if you do, what mathematical outcome must there be to that assignment? I have exhaustively shown that you cannot assign a counting number to a real point. A real point is dimensionless; it therefore has no extension in any direction. You can apply an ordinal number to it, but you cannot assign a cardinal number to it. Since mathematics and physics concern cardinal or counting numbers, the point cannot enter their equations.

Now, it is true that diagrammed points may be used in mathematics and physics. You can easily assign a number to a diagrammed point. Descartes gave us a very useful graph to use when diagramming them. But these diagrammed points are not physical points and cannot stand for physical points. A physical point has no dimensions, by definition. A diagrammed point must have at least one dimension. In a Cartesian graph, a diagrammed point has two dimensions: it has an x-dimension and a y-dimension. What people have not remembered is that if you enter a series of equations with a certain number of dimensions, you must exit that series of equations with the same number of dimensions. If you assign a variable to a parameter, then that variable must have at least one dimension. It must have at least one dimension because you intend to assign a number to it. That is what a variable is—a potential number. This means that all your variables and all your solutions must have at least one dimension at all times. If they didn't, you couldn't assign numbers to them.

This critical finding of mine has thousands of implications in physics, but I will mention only a couple. It has huge implications in Quantum Electro-Dynamics, since the entire problem of renormalization is caused by this hole in Euclid's definition. Because neither Descartes nor Newton nor Schrodinger nor Feynman saw this hole for what it was, QED has inherited the entire false foundation of the calculus. Many of the problems of QED, including all the problems of renormalization, come about from infinities and zeroes appearing in equations in strange ways. All these problems are caused by mis-defining variables. The variables in QED start acting strangely when they have one or more dimensions, but the scientists mistakenly assign them zero dimensions. In short, the scientists and mathematicians have insisted on inserting physical points into their equations, and these equations are rebelling. Mathematical equations of all kinds cannot absorb physical points. They can express intervals only. The calculus is at root a differential calculus, and zero is not a differential. The reason for all of this is not mystical or esoteric; it is simply the one I have stated above—you cannot assign a number to a point. It is logical and definitional.

This finding is not only useful in physics, it is useful to calculus itself, since it has allowed me to show that modern derivatives are often wrong. I have shown that the derivatives of ln(x) and 1/x are wrong, for instance. I have also shown that many problems are solved incorrectly with calculus, including very simple problems of acceleration.

The only thing I might add to the "Point" criticism is this old link on the "Infinitesimal"...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15194&p=102820#p102820

Calculus without Limits (critique of John Gabriel):

http://blog.logicalphalluses.net/2017/02/25/math-crankery-with-john-gabriel-calculus-101-convergence-and-derivatives/

Gabriel- The 13 fallacies that form the foundation of mythmatics (mainstream mathematics):

http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com/

Also:

http://milesmathis.com/central.html

**The Central Discoveries of this Book**That oldest mistake is one that Euclid made. It concerns the definition of the point. Entire library shelves have been filled commenting on Euclid's definitions, but neither he nor anyone since has appeared to notice the gaping hole in that definition. Euclid declined to inform us whether his point was a real point or a diagrammed point. Most will say that it is a geometric point, and that a geometric point is either both real and diagrammed or it is neither. But all the arguments in that line have been philosophical misdirection. The problem that has to be solved mathematically concerns the dimensions created by the definition. That is, Euclid's hole is not a philosophical or metaphysical one, it is a mechanical and mathematical one. Geometry is mathematics, and mathematics concerns numbers. So the operational question is, can you assign a number to a point, and if you do, what mathematical outcome must there be to that assignment? I have exhaustively shown that you cannot assign a counting number to a real point. A real point is dimensionless; it therefore has no extension in any direction. You can apply an ordinal number to it, but you cannot assign a cardinal number to it. Since mathematics and physics concern cardinal or counting numbers, the point cannot enter their equations.

**This is of fundamental contemporary importance, since it means that the point cannot enter calculus equations. It also cannot exit calculus equations. Meaning that you cannot find points as the solutions to any differential or integral problems. There is simply no such thing as a solution at an instant or a point, including a solution that claims to be a velocity, a time, a distance, or an acceleration. Whenever mathematics is applied to physics, the point is not a possible solution or a possible question or axiom. It is not part of the math.**Now, it is true that diagrammed points may be used in mathematics and physics. You can easily assign a number to a diagrammed point. Descartes gave us a very useful graph to use when diagramming them. But these diagrammed points are not physical points and cannot stand for physical points. A physical point has no dimensions, by definition. A diagrammed point must have at least one dimension. In a Cartesian graph, a diagrammed point has two dimensions: it has an x-dimension and a y-dimension. What people have not remembered is that if you enter a series of equations with a certain number of dimensions, you must exit that series of equations with the same number of dimensions. If you assign a variable to a parameter, then that variable must have at least one dimension. It must have at least one dimension because you intend to assign a number to it. That is what a variable is—a potential number. This means that all your variables and all your solutions must have at least one dimension at all times. If they didn't, you couldn't assign numbers to them.

This critical finding of mine has thousands of implications in physics, but I will mention only a couple. It has huge implications in Quantum Electro-Dynamics, since the entire problem of renormalization is caused by this hole in Euclid's definition. Because neither Descartes nor Newton nor Schrodinger nor Feynman saw this hole for what it was, QED has inherited the entire false foundation of the calculus. Many of the problems of QED, including all the problems of renormalization, come about from infinities and zeroes appearing in equations in strange ways. All these problems are caused by mis-defining variables. The variables in QED start acting strangely when they have one or more dimensions, but the scientists mistakenly assign them zero dimensions. In short, the scientists and mathematicians have insisted on inserting physical points into their equations, and these equations are rebelling. Mathematical equations of all kinds cannot absorb physical points. They can express intervals only. The calculus is at root a differential calculus, and zero is not a differential. The reason for all of this is not mystical or esoteric; it is simply the one I have stated above—you cannot assign a number to a point. It is logical and definitional.

This finding is not only useful in physics, it is useful to calculus itself, since it has allowed me to show that modern derivatives are often wrong. I have shown that the derivatives of ln(x) and 1/x are wrong, for instance. I have also shown that many problems are solved incorrectly with calculus, including very simple problems of acceleration.

**Cr6**- Admin
- Posts : 689

Join date : 2014-08-09

## Re: CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

Thanks, Cr6. I copied your references and some of your quotes to the CNPS forum.

On the Attention board at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t317p25-cnps-science-improvement-wiki#2696

I listed yesterday 8 parts of MM's theory for MM supporters to prove at CNPS. Now I'm thinking of adding errors in calculus and physics formulas as #9 on that list.

On the Attention board at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t317p25-cnps-science-improvement-wiki#2696

I listed yesterday 8 parts of MM's theory for MM supporters to prove at CNPS. Now I'm thinking of adding errors in calculus and physics formulas as #9 on that list.

**LloydK**- Posts : 442

Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

I contacted John Gabriel and he expressed interest in discussing math errors on the CNPS forum, so I started a thread called "Prove & correct errors in Math & Physics formulas" at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=207

That's the 9th part of MM's theory to prove. I mentioned at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t317p25-cnps-science-improvement-wiki#2696 the other 8 parts we need to prove too, for which I started threads on the CNPS forum.

That's the 9th part of MM's theory to prove. I mentioned at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t317p25-cnps-science-improvement-wiki#2696 the other 8 parts we need to prove too, for which I started threads on the CNPS forum.

**LloydK**- Posts : 442

Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: CNPS Photonic Universe Forum Project

LloydK wrote:I contacted John Gabriel and he expressed interest in discussing math errors on the CNPS forum, so I started a thread called "Prove & correct errors in Math & Physics formulas" at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=207

That's the 9th part of MM's theory to prove. I mentioned at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t317p25-cnps-science-improvement-wiki#2696 the other 8 parts we need to prove too, for which I started threads on the CNPS forum.

Cool....he's a fighter and he does tie to Miles in many ways.

**Cr6**- Admin
- Posts : 689

Join date : 2014-08-09

Page

**1**of**1****Permissions in this forum:**

**cannot**reply to topics in this forum