return to homepage
return to updates


by Miles Mathis

We get a constant line of bald propaganda from physics now, claiming a near-complete knowledge of the universe. This propaganda is not new: it has been building for over a century. Lord Kelvin claimed (around 1900) that there was nothing new to be learned in physics. Relativity and quantum mechanics shushed the Lord Kelvins for a few decades, but soon they were at it again. The Big Brag hit what one might call a new crescendo in 1988 with the release of Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time. There Hawking claimed that we would achieve physical omniscience within a decade, and physics would be finished. Now, over two decades later, we are no nearer omniscience; we are only nearer a perfect hubris. As I showed in my analysis of a recent NASA video on, most science releases meant for public consumption still lead with this claim of near-omniscience. We are told that we are close to complete understanding of physics, and that we need only a couple of small pieces to complete the puzzle.

I have compiled my website mainly to counter this very disgusting (and unscientific) attitude. Now I am writing this paper to compile some of the biggest cheats and fudges I have uncovered, so that you may have them all in one place to refer to whenever you come face to face with one of these promoters of the “near-perfect” knowledge of modern physics.

I say “standard model” in my title because although the standard model usually refers only to the status quo in particle physics, there is a standard model of physics in every sub-field. This standard model has ossified into dogma, into a set of beliefs one is not allowed to question. Anyone in academia who questions the standard model can expect to be set upon by the institutional jackals and marginalized into oblivion. He will find his papers refused for publication and his funding cut off. Those outside academia will simply be dismissed as cranks and crackpots.

As a fair debater myself, I will tell you the number one rule of debating, according to the current handbook: always keep your opponent on the defensive. It is not a device I use, since I prefer the more subtle and less used method of actually knowing what I am talking about. But the mainstream preferentially follows the number one rule, since in most cases it is so effective. They know that with most audiences, facts and truth mean almost nothing. Everything is judged on form, and if your opponent can be made to look awkward, you will have won more points than could ever be won by being right. For this reason, you are taught always to ask questions; never to answer them. Yes, this is the technique of the mainstream in dealing with any resistance. Always attack. Always go for blood. If there is a threat, do not address the substance of it. Attack the person.

Therefore, if you get into a debate with anyone over physics (or anything else), I suggest you remember what your opponent is up to at all times. Do not allow him or her to put you on the defensive. If your opponent is part of the status quo in physics, he or she should be able to answer questions. He is claiming near-omniscience, not you, so he should be able to answer all questions with ease, like the god he claims to be. The standard model is the one making the money and getting the attention and taking all the jobs, so they are the ones that should be answering questions, not you. They are the ones getting all the magazine and journal articles, all the book publishing, and all the government funding, so they are the ones that should be answering questions, not you. You are on the fringe, an independent researcher, a person just trying to help for free, so it is no surprise if your ideas are incomplete. No one should find that out of the ordinary. But what IS extraordinary is that mainstream physics, which has been gathered and culled by thousands of geniuses over centuries, and is defended by all the top people now, is full of huge awful holes and embarrassing fudges. Even more extraordinary is that these self-styled geniuses and top-of-the-field people do not have the intellectual honesty or the scientific acumen to see these holes and fudges for what they are, and to want to correct them. Remember that always.

None of that is to say that those of us in the margins should not try to answer questions, or that we have a free pass in proposing theories without putting them to tests. I answer questions gladly via email when they are proposed in a spirit of scientific goodwill. What bothers me is emails from mainstream people who skim my papers for about five minutes and then attack me for saying things that they don't understand. As a lead-in to my eleven questions you should have for the mainstream, I will share with you one of these recent emails. I do this so that you can see that the questions put to me are not nearly as interesting as the questions I put to the mainstream. The mainstream sicks these people on me, thinking to show me how superior they are, but all they end up doing is confirming my original thesis: the mainstream is built on little but bluster and propaganda, and the people who defend it are small people posing as large people.

Dear Mr. Mathis:

I found your website and have been looking over your writings. It's highly commendable and admirable the time and thought that have been put into this impressive quantity of work.

I have three questions if you don't mind:

1. In your article "A New Definition of Gravity Part 7," you write, "If I were more rigid, I would weigh more." So if you were dipped into liquid nitrogen, or just frozen solid in a way where no atoms of molecules left or entered your body, would that alone cause you to weigh more? For that matter, why do 10cc's of rigid ice melt to produce the same measured weight of liquid water (10 grams in both cases)? Can't an experiment be designed proving that structural rigidity creates weight, and if so, why aren't you performing it?

2. Regarding expansion theory of gravity: If two bowling balls, one 50% hollowed out, were placed 1 meter apart in space, surrounded by a frame of rulers, would they gravitationally meet at the midpoint (as measured by the rulers), or somewhere else? If at the midpoint, I would think that as a scientist you'd want to perform a version of this experiment and blow the roof off general relativity. And if not at the midpoint, how is this possible through expansion if both balls remain the same size?

3. Regarding the stacked-spin theory of wave/particle duality: In my experience, objects seem to only spin freely about their center of mass. Try as I might, I can't think of a way to get a ball to spin about an axis that does not pass through its center of mass (instead, intersecting its surface or a point outside its surface). Wouldn't a pitcher be interested in getting a baseball to spin that way, so that the batter is swinging at a wave? To put it another way, if QM is all about real-world mechanics, why can an electron move this way but not a baseball?

I won't give the name of this person, since I believe it was signed with a pseudonym anyway. But hopefully you can see how pathetic these questions are. Out of the 1,500 pages I have on my site, this is the best he could do? Let me answer the questions very quickly, to show how shallow they are. Concerning question 1, my claim that rigidity tied into weight was made concerning E/M rigidity, and I made that very clear in the paper. The rigidity is a rigidity of atomic and molecular bonds, caused by various E/M interactions. I never said that a frozen man would weigh more than a warm man, so this person has just created a frozen strawman to hit. Furthermore, I said that more quanta would create more bonds, so that my explanation is just a subtle variation of common knowledge. I was not stating anything extraordinary. If this person wished to truly debate me on this topic, he should have addressed the idea I actually had, instead of debating me about frozen men. Freezing doesn't strengthen any atomic bonds, or create more, so it couldn't be what I was talking about. I say that to weigh more, you would have to strengthen or increase these bonds; but you couldn't do that with a man without changing what he was made out of. You would have to make him out of lead or something, in which case I hardly think I need to create a man of lead in order to to prove my point.

Concerning question 2, I answer that in depth in my paper on weight. The answer is that if we had the balls in a solo gravity field, with no E/M component, they would meet in the middle. If we had them in a current gravity field, which is really composed of both fields, they wouldn't meet in the middle. I even do the full math to solve a problem Newton and Einstein couldn't and didn't solve. It burns me up when people email me and ask me tongue-in-cheek to explain something they think I can't explain, when I do explain it in papers they haven't bothered to read. It really makes them look stupid, because they don't bother to pose the same question to Newton or Einstein, or to do the experiment. I don't do the experiment because no one is funding me to do any experiments, and I am not a rich guy. Why aren't they doing the experiments? They have had centuries to do these experiments, and they have spent trillions of dollars doing experiments. They are currently spending many billions seeking gravitons and many more billions on a hadron experiment that can't even start up. It is clear why a poor guy working alone might not have new experiments to back up every equation. Why doesn't the standard model ever do any basic experiments on gravity? I can tell you why. The experiments they have already done in the past have shown they are wrong (see below), and they don't want to do any more in that line.

Concerning question 3, it amazes me how fertile a person's imagination can be when reading mainstream articles or accepting mainstream claims, but how quickly that imagination dries up when they read anything by me. “Try as he might,” this self-assured person cannot think of a way to create a wave motion with real matter. Interesting, since we know that real matter does show wave motions. It is not just light that shows wave motions, either. He should know that all matter shows wave motions. He seems to have some problem with my insistence that quanta must obey material rules and have size, so maybe he thinks that protons, like photons, are also point particles that show wave characteristics only by mathematical magic. Apparently he prefers non-physical solutions to physics rather than physical solutions, since he can hardly veil his contempt for my attempt at mechanics. Beyond that, I never said quanta were strictly equivalent to baseballs. In the paper he is talking about, I compare them to gyroscopes. I would love to do some experiments with gyroscopes, since my imagination, or ability to visualize, is much better than his. If he will just recommend funding for me, I will get right on that. I can tell him, for now, that his baseball example fails simply because the pitcher can apply a force only at the beginning. The pitcher cannot run along with the ball and apply a continuous spin to it, or try to stack spins on it. With quanta, we assume that the first spin is continuous, and will maintain itself as we apply secondary spins. This is not the case with a baseball in flight. For example, suppose we let two spinning baseballs hit eachother midair, and hit on edge. No wave will be created because the original spins will be damped or stopped by the collision. But with quanta this is not the case, because quanta are receiving a continuous source of spin from a field. An on-edge hit like this would not stop a quanta from spinning, because you can't stop a quanta from spinning. It is not spinning like a baseball, from an initial force. It is spinning from a continuous force. Therefore the spin of the hit would have to stack on top of it. It is quite possible we could show this with internally powered gyroscopes moving down through heavy air or water. We create on-edge collisions and see if wave motions are caused. The number of basic and fundamental experiments we have failed to do is near-infinite, and yet current physics is satisfied with magic point particles and statistical dodges. Again, fund me and I will do these experiments. I can think them up five a day. Beyond that, we already have trick balls that move or roll in a wave motion, as he should know. Weighted balls will move back and forth, as will gyroscopes. So his pretense that none of this can be imagined, much less shown, is just posturing for an audience that isn't nearly as stupid as he thinks it is.

Now let us look at the questions I have had for the mainstream. I have tried to answer their questions, even when these questions are clearly hostile and poorly chosen. But they don't ever address my questions, or anyone else's. They just dodge and misdirect. They do this because there is no possible answer to my best questions. My best questions are immediately fatal, and I like to think they can see that. These eleven questions are among the most embarrassing and fatal questions in my papers, and you will never see the mainstream address them. These are the questions that have been in the dark, are in the dark, and will remain in the dark, if the mainstream has anything to say about the matter.

1) In the case of a gravitational resonance, as in the resonance with Jupiter and Saturn, what causes the bodies to begin moving apart after the closest pass in the resonance? Gravity is stronger at closer distances, so what makes the resonance “turn”?
2) Roche limits are an outcome of gravity, so why don't the inner moons of Jupiter and Saturn obey gravitational laws? They not only go below the Roche limit, and avoid break-up despite having low densities, they also survive large impacts (as we see from large cratering). Finally, they accrete. How can bodies that should be dissolving accrete?
3) We are told that atmospheric muons are experiencing time dilation in order to reach sea level detection. But special relativity tells us that all objects in relative motion experience both time dilation and length contraction. The length contraction in SR is derived from the x or distance contraction, and they are proportional. Meaning, the whole x-dimension must be contracting, not just the “length” of the muon. Which means that a time-dilated particle must seem to be going a shorter distance than expected, not a longer distance. How can current theory ignore the length contraction?
4) The orbit is currently explained by only two motions: gravity and the velocity of the orbiter. But according to Kepler's and Newton's equations, which still stand, this velocity is the tangential velocity. It is not the orbital velocity, since the orbital velocity is the result of the two motions, not the cause of them. In other words, the orbital velocity curves, and it curves because it is composed of the centripetal acceleration. If the orbital velocity is the result of the two motions, it cannot be one of the two motions. According to Newton, the tangential velocity is the “innate motion” of the orbiter. But this innate motion cannot curve by itself. Given these two motions, why is the orbit stable? Current physicists just sum to show the stability, but summing hides the variations in the differentials. The problem is that if we study the differentials, we find the tangential velocity varying to create the stability. How can the “innate motion” of an orbiter vary? Are we to imagine that orbiting bodies are self-propelled, or that they can change their motions to suit summed orbits?
5) Perturbations are an important part of solar system mechanics. These perturbations often take the form of torques or tangential forces from one body to another. Given that neither Newton's nor Einstein's fields allow for forces at the tangent caused by the gravitational field, how do physicists justify these torques?
6) Symmetry breaking is a common tool of modern particle physics. Since symmetry breaking requires borrowing from the vacuum, how is this physically justified? What are the rules for borrowing? That is, why can particle physicists borrow from the vacuum in order to fill holes in electroweak theory, but I cannot borrow from the vacuum to fill all the holes in my theories? Is it something to do with institutional credits? Is Goldman Sachs involved in this borrowing?
7) After more than a century of silence, the standard model finally assigned the “mechanics” of charge to the messenger photon, a single virtual photon that can either tell quanta to move away or move nearer. What is the operation of this “telling”? It is some sort of code etched on the virtual face of the virtual photon? Is it a mysterious wave sent across intervening space, a wave that can be inverted at the will of the photon? Or is it a voice message? A Tweet perhaps?
8) Speaking of virtual particles: is there anything a virtual particle cannot do? Are there any rules of virtuality? For instance, if virtual particles can explain charge and color and borrowing from the vacuum, why can they not explain every other problem of modern physics? Where is the imaginary line drawn, and why draw it there? Once you begin cheating, why cheat halfway when you can cheat all the way?
9) If e=mc2, and if the photon has energy, how can it be massless? How can an equation with the speed of light in it not apply to light? Sure, we can say that the photon has no rest mass, since it is never at rest, but how can we say it doesn't have moving mass? Don't energy and field equations, like charge equations, have to be fudged, in order to deny mass to the photon? Energy without mass contradicts both the classical equation and definition of energy (e=mv2/2) and the relativistic equation and definition of energy (e=mc2). Might this be why particle physics now hides out in a renormalized gauge math?
10) If gravity is now defined by curvature rather than by a centripetal force, what impels an object placed at rest in a field to begin moving? General Relativity supplies us with field differentials, which can explain why an object already moving in the field will move as it does. But field differentials, being math, cannot create a force. The math of GR represents motions, it cannot cause them. GR is also not a field of potentials, since it requires a field of forces to create potentials. GR is not a field of forces, so the differentials cannot be interpreted as potentials. Einstein admitted that GR was the bypassing of Newton's inertial field. How can an object that is “feeling no forces” begin moving in such a field? In other words, Einstein inherited and extended the field of Newton, but he did not overwrite Newton's first law. If he had, we would not still be taught it in high school. Newton's first law is that an object at rest will remain at rest unless a force acts upon it. What force acts upon an object placed in Einstein's curved field? How does the object know that the field differential just below it is any different than the field differential it inhabits? It can't know, and therefore GR fails to explain motion from rest in a field.
11) The Moon is experiencing tides front and back caused by the Earth. Because the Moon is in synchronous orbit, these tides are always in the same place: they do not travel. All tides are caused by two mechanisms, we are told. They are caused by different levels in the gravity field, and they are caused by unequal centrifugal forces due to the orbital motion. The second effect is half the first, so it is 1/3rd the total: very significant, in other words. If the forward and backward points of the Moon are experiencing strong and constant tides, why are they not shearing strongly sideways? The farthest part of the Moon should shear in the reverse direction of the orbital motion, since there is nothing in the gravitational field to make it orbit faster than the center of the Moon. Just the opposite, in fact. If we assume all parts of the Moon have the same “innate motion”, and if we are given that an object at a greater distance has a smaller acceleration from the field, then the farthest part of the Moon should be going slower than the center of the Moon. As it is, it travels faster than the center of the Moon for no physical reason. The reverse applies to the forward part of the Moon, and it should shear in the direction of orbit. Why is this data so obviously negative? Among other hugely embarrassing data on the Moon is the negative tide on the front. The standard model of tides predicts equal tides front and back, but the Moon's crust is obliterated almost down to its mantle in front, showing an obvious negative tide. The standard model has no explanation for this, while I have a simple and mechanical explanation. The question is, how can piles of obvious data like this continue to be ignored, when there exist straightforward explanations for it?

As you see, I have already "blown the roof off" GR and Newton so many times the molecules won't even cohere into shingles anymore. An honest person would just admit that and ask what's to be done. Instead, the mainstream simply refuses the see the holes I have pointed out. They pretend that I have not asked them a thousand important questions, and they begin scanning my papers for weak points. That is also a clear sign: a real scientist would scan any paper for its strong points, since those are the most useful to science. Instead, mainstream scientists scan any new ideas, especially those from outsiders, for their weakest points, ignoring the strong points on purpose. This immediately proves that the reading is hostile, and therefore unscientific.

They redirect always: they pretend that this is not about them, because they want it to be about me. Remember their mantra: never answer a direct question, or look directly at a problem; instead, attack the questioner personally and ask him an unbroken line of questions, so that he can never be on the offensive himself. They always say something like, "You are the one claiming to know something we don't, so you should have to prove it." But that is just misdirection. It is true, but it is true on a much smaller scale than my reply to them, which is, "We are both claiming to know something, but you are the one whose account has been accepted. Therefore, it is even more important that your account be tested than mine. Besides, I admit doubts about both your theories and my own, while you admit no doubt about anything. Since your doubt is 100 times less, your data should be 100 times more secure. But it isn't. You have just unloaded all your negative data into a dark pit, and refused to remember it exists. You claim that physics should be testable, but then dodge all tests except those that you create to confirm yourselves. You look away from huge piles of negative data, and get mad when it is pointed out. That isn't scientific. Science requires criticism, but you refuse to countenance any criticism, blacklisting anyone that doesn't immediately accept your proposals. Your whole method of teaching makes this clear, since it is a method of indoctrination and peer pressure, rather than an open method of free inquiry. You have been defining science as free inquiry for hundreds of years, but the amount of free inquiry that actually gets done in academia is now near zero. Free inquiry in a time of such partial knowledge would spawn great disagreement and debate, and the fact that we have so little of either is clear evidence against free inquiry. Therefore, don't be surprised when I take your hostile questions with an ill grace. I can see them for what they are: suppression of science.”

What I have done is to dig deep into the closet and pull that bundle of negative data back out into the open. I have laid all the old problems out on the sidewalk, where passers-by can see them and study them. I have pinned all the old data on the trees in the front yard, where it can air in the wind once more. For this reason, I hardly need new data or experiments of my own. This old data can be used by either the standard model or by me, and since they have no use for it, I am free to use it myself. This was a good move on my part, since this old data has turned out to be my best friend. As in a zero-sum game, every plus for me scores a minus for them, which is a change of two in the game. While they have been jacking themselves off with string theories and backward causality and virtual particles and symmetry breaking, throwing a series of airballs, I have been scoring at least two points with every paper I write. I passed GO some time ago, and they are still rotting in jail or in no parking, looking for the community chest. They no longer even have the gumption to realize that I own all four railroads, that the wheels are off their car, the shoe is off the foot, and the little silver hat is headless.

So print out this list and sew it into your peacoat, like Thoreau did with Carlyle's Sartor Resartus. And when some mainstream stuffed shirt starts calling you a crank for not bowing down before him and his false gods, ask him these simple questions. Do not let him dodge them, and do not let him re-direct the argument into some slur upon your alma mater or your IQ. Badger him, browbeat him, and always seek the higher ground where you can look down upon him. If you don't, he will do it to you. And if you ever feel the least bit unsure of yourself, return to the question he seems to like the least. Roll it up into a sharp point and metaphorically try to insert it into his ear.

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. I have joined the boycott against Paypal, and suggest you use Amazon instead. It is free and does not enrich any bankers. AMAZON WEBPAY
donate from your cellphone or computer
donate to