return to homepage
return to updates

The Moon
Gives up a Secret

by Miles Mathis

First posted September 29, 2005

To my mind our physical theories have recently traveled too far from home. Theories on black holes and other exotics, theories of the first seconds in the universe, theories of strings vibrating below the Planck limit. These may be interesting, but to me they are not as interesting as objects in our nearer environs, things we know a bit more intimately. It is from these things that we are likely to learn the next secrets of the cosmos.
      As proof of this rather non-modern assertion, I will offer in this paper some basic data from the Moon and show that it contains an astonishing secret that has so far lain unheard.

Let us start with three basic measurements of the Moon: its vital stats, if you will. Its mass is 1/81 that of the Earth. Its radius is 1/3.67 that of the Earth. And its gravity at the surface is about 1/6 that of the Earth. I have given all these numbers relative to the Earth for a reason. I looked hard at this very limited data and the thought occurred to me that the gravity ratio and the radius ratio were rather close. Much closer than the mass ratio, at any rate. Might there be a direct link?
      I don’t know that anyone has ever considered this. If they had considered that gravity might vary directly with radius, then this data from the Moon would have been the first thing to put them off the idea. Data from the rest of the solar system, and indeed the universe, would be the second thing to put them off it. The ratios from the Moon are close, but they are far enough apart to deter all but the most eccentric from following up any idea that they might be related. If they were related, shouldn’t the gravity of the Moon be 1/3.67 that of the Earth? It is not and that is all there is to it. Once we get to the Sun, and then to exotics like black holes and neutron stars, the idea that gravity is simply a function of radius is ludicrous. Why even do any math on the Moon to pursue it one way or another?
      Without a very strong lead, none but a fool would pursue the idea. After all, what could possibly cause the variance in the Moon? What could make up the difference between 1/3.67 and 1/6? Whatever it was would have to make up much greater differences for the Sun and exotics. Well, it turns out that there is a very strong lead, and it is called the E/M field. Quantum physicists think that at their level the E/M field totally swamps the gravitational field (they are wrong), but at the macro-level the E/M field has been pretty much ignored. As I will show, the strength of the E/M field of the Earth at its surface is not sufficient to effect g until the third decimal point, so it is not surprising that terrestrial scientists would get used to ignoring it. If they ignore it concerning g, it is not surprising that they would also ignore it concerning the field of the Moon. They would assume that the Moon’s field is proportionally weaker than the Earth’s, since the Moon is known to be almost non-magnetic, as a whole.
      This ignoring of the E/M field has been a grave error, however. An E/M field continues to exist even in the absence of the expression of its magnetic component, as we now know. Venus and Mars exclude the Solar Wind just as if they had powerful magnetospheres, even though they do not. In fact, I will show with a few very simple postulates and some even simpler math that the E/M field of the Moon is quite sufficient to make up the difference between 1/3.67 and 1/6. I will go even further and show that the E/M field of the Moon is
exactly sufficient to make up that difference. This will prove that the total weight-causing fields of both the Earth and the Moon are sums of the gravitational field and the E/M field, and that the solo gravitational fields can be shown to vary exactly as the radius of the object.

My proof relies on only two postulates. The first is that the E/M field is an exclusionary field created by bombardment or an equivalent mechanism. This postulate is orthodox, since most physicists accept that the field must be mediated by particles, probably photons of some sort. Some quantum physicists now prefer the concept of the messenger photon, a photon that is capable of giving different messages to negative charges and positive charges; but a simpler mechanical explanation is that the field is a straight bombardment of photons, either as a sort of fluid or as a sort of hail of tiny bullets.
      It is not necessary for me to finalize a mechanical description of the E/M field at the quantum level here. All that is necessary is that you accept that physical objects are affected by a large E/M field by feeling an exclusionary force. There is nothing revolutionary in this postulate, since we already accept that meteors are affected not only by the atmosphere of the Earth, but by its E/M field. The Solar Wind is also excluded by the E/M field, as I have already stated. Plasma research has provided lots of new data in this direction, but we have always had data that showed the basic exclusionary nature of the field.
      The second postulate concerns the variance of an E/M field when it is created by a spherical object. We know that in a non-spherical E/M field the field varies with the inverse square law. But this is the electrical field created by electrons, not the foundational field I am talking about. The foundational field, as a field of photons emitted by protons and electrons and so on, must be spherical at that level, since it is emitted by spheres. Conversely, in large flat objects, this emission field would be expected to sum in a normal way, without the inverse square law, due mostly to Huygens Principle. Conversely again, in large spherical objects, the summation would once more create an inverse square law, due to the decreasing density of the field at greater distances from the center. The field lines emitted by a sphere will not be even nearly parallel. They will spread out as the radius increases. This means that the field must become less dense at greater radii: the distance between photons must increase. Since the surface area of a sphere is given by 4πr
2, the density of the field will drop off with the inverse square law. But to this we must add another inverse square effect, that of relativity. In small nearby objects, we would not have to consider this, but the Moon is large enough and far enough away that relativity cannot be ignored. If we compare the Earth and the Moon, we cannot ignore relativity. To understand how relativity creates an inverse square effect, consult part 3 of my Third Wave papers. For this reason, a large spherical E/M field will vary as 1/r4, if measured from a distance.
      Some will say that if the gravitational field is expressed by the graviton, the same consideration must apply to it. But this is false. Even if the graviton existed (it doesn't), the gravitational field was always spherical, and the inverse square law always applied to the spherical field. This has been known empirically for centuries, so that we do not need to figure a special case for the gravitational field. There is no rectilinear gravitational field, like the E/M field, where the inverse square law also applies. Therefore we do not have to add effects. Besides, as I have shown more recently, the gravitational field
doesn't actually change as the inverse square of the distance. Only Newton's equation changes as the inverse square, and Newton's equation is a compound equation, one that includes both the gravitional field and the foundational E/M field. The inverse square effect enters Newton's equation through the E/M part of it, not the gravitational part of it. That is precisely why gravity can vary as the radius, as I am proving in this paper. Gravity varies ONLY as the radius of the object, and no longer as the distance of separation.

Given these two postulates we can proceed directly to the math. Let us first make a prediction, using the postulates above. I am claiming that that I can show that the gravitational fields of the Moon and the Earth are directly proportional to their radii. Let us do the math to show what the Moon’s gravitational field would have to be if that were true.
E / gM = 3.672
9.8 m/s
2 / gM = 3.672
M = 2.669 m/s2
      But the current number for g
M is 1.62 m/s2. That seems like a huge amount of acceleration to make up, and I can understand your doubts. When I first did the math I thought there was little chance the numbers would work, to be honest. I was just following an idea. But watch closely:

We know that the total field of the Earth at its surface creates an acceleration of 9.8 m/s
2 and we hypothesize that this is the gravitational field minus the E/M field [the gravitational field is an attractive field and the E/M field is a repulsive field]. And we know the same for the Moon.
E - EE = 9.8 m/s2
M - EM = 1.62 m/s2
      I have also postulated that the gravitational part of this acceleration should be proportional to the radii.
E / gM = 3.672
M = .2723 gE
      And I have just postulated that the E/M field is proportional to 1/r
E /EM = 1/3.6724 = .0055
M = 181.81 EE
      But that last equation is assuming that the Earth and Moon have the same density. So I must now correct for density.
E /DM = 5.52/3.344 = 1.6507 = 1/.6057
M = 110.12 EE
      So, we just substitute:
.2723 g
E - 110.12 EE = 1.62 m/s2
E - EE = 9.8 m/s2
E - .2723EE = 2.6685 m/s2       [subtract the two equations]
E = -1.0485 m/s2
E = .009545 m/s2
M = 1.051 m/s2
M - EM = 1.62 m/s2
gM = 2.671 m/s2

You can see that the math bore out my prediction exactly. Once we correct for the presence of the E/M field, the Earth and the Moon have gravitational fields that are exactly proportional to their radii.
      We did not get an exact match in the third decimal place only because we used 9.8 m/s
2 for gE in the first equation. We must now add .009545 to that, and if we do we get 2.671 m/s2 in the first equation as well.

[In a subsequent paper I have confirmed this number .009545 m/s
2 for the charge field of the earth, in an unrelated problem with unrelated math. In my paper on atmospheric pressure, I calculated an effective weight of the atmosphere, as a percentage of the gravity field. Using novel but very simple math and diagrams, I found that the force down on any gas semi-contained in the curved field of the Earth would be .00958 m/s2. Since this matches the force up, the atmosphere is effectively weightless. That these two numbers match with such simple math and postulates is one of the outstanding outcomes of my unified field theory, and I highly recommend you take the link, if you haven't already read that paper.]

At first the series of equations above appears to be circular, but it isn't. If you postulate a different variation for the E/M field, the numbers don't work out. It only works with 1/R
4. Notice that the number I have arrived at for the E/M acceleration at the surface of the Earth is quite small. This explains why it has always been neglected. Physicists have correctly assumed that it was negligible in most cases, and they went on to assume the same for the Moon. Why, they thought, would the Moon have an E/M field that was more active at the surface of the Moon than the Earth’s E/M field is at its surface? The idea was counterintuitive, so no one has ever done any math to show it one way or another. I have just shown, using postulates that are hardly revolutionary, that the Moon’s E/M field should be expected to offset its gravitational field quite strongly.
      You will say that we have tested the fields on the Moon already and found them to be quite small. There are two problems here. One, our tests were designed to measure local fluctuations in the E/M field, and especially the magnetic component of that field. This is not the same thing as measuring the strength of the entire field at a distance. Two, the tests of the E/M field are compromised just like all our tests of the gravitational field have been. In neither case have we been successful in separating the effects of the two fields. Whether we are measuring a gravitational field or an E/M field, we must measure a force on a body. But the force on the body is a composite of the two. A differential. If we do not take this into account (and we don't) there is no way we can know what the strength of each field is alone. We would have to block one field or the other in our measurements, and we have never done this. According to my theory, you cannot block the field of gravity, since it just a real acceleration. You cannot block an acceleration. The E/M field should also be unblockable, for a different reason. You would try to block with some dense substance, like lead, but this lead will be emitting the field, too. In fact, lead would emit a denser field, giving you the opposite effect. Dropping ball bearings above a very thick sheet of lead would be likely to yield an acceleration measurably
below 9.8 m/s2, and I recommend experiments in this line.*
      The math above also implies that all celestial bodies, including exotics like black holes and neutron stars, have gravitational fields that vary as their radii vary. It suggests in the strongest possible way that the huge additional forces hypothesized for exotics are either wrong or are mainly a function of a super-strong E/M field, solar winds, or other as yet unknown interactions, interactions that have nothing to do with gravity
per se. This means we must reconsider all our theories for exotics, and indeed for non-exotics. Our theory has existed with a very large hole in it and now we must re-calculate many things.
      The implications of this paper are beyond number. I could not begin to address them here, even as a list. I begin to address them in other papers, but it will take physics decades to come to terms with the full import of this discovery. Those who have claimed that physics is nearly over will be glad to discover that they have something left to do.

December 2008: I have now discovered well-known proof for my predictions here. My number for the foundational E/M field of the Earth, .009545 m/s
2, is .1% of the total field, 9.8 m/s2. In my paper on the Bohr magneton, I remind my reader that 80 years of experiments have shown a .1% error in the magneton. This is direct proof of the existence of the charge field at the macro-level, as I predict in this paper. I not only have found the field, I have found the right number for it.

June 2009: More proof of this number now comes from my paper on Atmospheric Pressure, where I develop the number .009545 by completely independent means, in an astonishing demonstration with diagram.

*Some data already exists on this. I have reminded my readers in my Unified Field paper that in the 1940’s the Dutch geophysicist and ocean explorer F. A. Vening Meinesz showed that gravity is very slightly stronger over deep oceans. According to my theory outlined in this paper, this is not due to blocking, but the reverse. Oceans are less dense than land masses, creating less summed emission of the E/M field. A weaker E/M field creates a stronger Unified or compound field, and thereby greater weight.

[March 25, 2008: Go to
An Update on Weight for more on this topic.]

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.