return to homepage
return to updates
WHY HAS THE STANDARD KILOGRAM
by Miles Mathis
Abstract: I will show that a charge field fluctuation explains the loss of weight by the standard kilogram. I will make a prediction concerning this. I will also show why gyroscopes lose weight spinning in one direction and not the other, again using the charge field. I will also make a prediction concerning this.
I have had two different readers send me very interesting data in the last week. The first reader sent me this:
No one knows exactly why the international prototype of the kilogram, as pampered a hunk of platinum and iridium as ever existed, appears to weigh less than it did when it was manufactured in the late 19th century.*
That is from February 12, 2011, New York Times, Europe Section. The prototype kilogram in Sevres, France, has lost 50 micrograms in that time, we are told.
Then, a couple of days later, I got this:
The weight change of each of three spinning mechanical gyroscopes whose rotor's masses are 140, 175, and 176 g has been measured during inertial rotations, without systematic errors. The experiments show that the weight changes for rotations around the vertical axis are completely asymmetrical: The right rotations (spin vector pointing downward) cause weight decreases of the order of milligrams, proportional to the frequency of rotation at 3000-13,000 rpm. However, the left rotations do not cause any weight change.**
That is from PRL, December 1989.
It should be obvious by now (after all I have written in the last six months), but both those phenomena are caused by the charge field. I will show you how below.
Since I have proved in a series of papers that weight is a function of the unified field, not just gravity, we have to take charge into account in every measurement of weight. I have proved that Newton's field (and thereby Einstein's) is a compound field, and that the old equations already contain two fields. These two fields are solo gravity and charge, and they are in vector opposition. Since the Earth has not changed radius or density since the 19th century, we can rule out a change in the solo gravity field. This leaves the charge field. We only have to assume that charge has changed a tiny fraction in that time, and that assumption is easy to make. I reminded my readers in a recent paper that it is common knowledge that the Sun has lost heat and magnetism in the last century. The figures are posted at Wiki and are not hidden or esoteric. We also know that the Earth is currently going through a magnetic reversal. Again, that is common knowledge. Both the changes in the Sun and the changes in the magnetic field of the Earth are caused by a change in the charge field. The Solar system travels quickly through the galaxy, moving through areas of differing charge. These fluctuations must cause fluctuations here on Earth, and that is what we are seeing with the weight change of the kilogram.
Since we have a weight loss, we know we must have a charge increase of some sort. Our first assumption would be a straight gain in charge, which would lift all objects by straight bombardment (linear momentum). But given the second piece of news here (old news, actually), we see it may be a bit more complicated than that. In other words, it looks very much like we will need spin to explain this one. We will need to look at photons and anti-photons in the charge field, and see how they might cause a weight loss. Only then can we see how the charge field as a whole must be fluctuating.
This works out well, because a straight gain in the charge field would be difficult to explain. It would be tricky to explain a gain in charge during a time when the Sun is cooling and losing magnetism and so on. For this reason I was quite happy to get the second email, reminding me this could be explained with spin. I had already come near solving this problem in my paper called "The Hole at the Center of the Sun," where I used spin to explain current anomalies, including the loss in heat and magnetism by the Sun. I only have to take one more small step to apply that theory to these two problems.
To start with, remember that I have shown that the charge field of the Earth is not balanced in terms of spin. To put it in quantum mechanical terms, the field lacks parity. We have more photons than anti-photons, and more matter than antimatter. In the quantum realm, I have shown that this explains the lack of parity in beta decay, the overproduction of muons in experiment, and so on. In the macro-world, it explains why some planets and moons are electrical but not magnetic. The ones with little magnetism do have parity, and this causes a spin cancellation.
Since all my spins are physical and mechanical, they cause motions by straight collision. A spin transfers energy at a right angle, at the tangent, causing sideways motion. In other words, a spinning photon hitting you from directly in front will cause you to move both backward and to one side. This is straight pool-ball mechanics, and a large number of frisbees hitting you would cause the same motion. The spin of the frisbee causes a torque, and that torque works at a right angle to the radius at that point. Nothing esoteric here, just highschool level physics.
But we must add to that the fact that all material particles other than photons are also spinning. The z-spin or outer spin of electrons and baryons normally matches the spins of photons, since the spins of the photons create and maintain all the material spins. But if we add antiphotons to this mix, we get spins being damped instead of maintained. What does that imply? It implies that as these spins are damped, the particles lose energy. Since energy has a mass equivalence, a loss of energy will cause a loss of weight. This tells us immediately that any loss of magnetism will be like a flag, alerting us to a possible weight loss caused by the field. A loss of magnetism means that spins are being cancelled, and that means that antiphotons are present in large numbers. When an antiphoton hits photon, we get a magnetic damping, since the spins on the photons is what causes magnetism here. When an antiphoton hits electron or baryon, we get a weight loss, since energy is being lost.
This explains the experiment with the gyroscopes. I have been recommending experiments like this for years, and had not been aware of this experiment until now. It is perfect for confirming my theories. What the gyroscopes do is manufacture spins at the macro-level. By looking at the different outcomes of spin, we can tell how the quantum particles are spinning, and how the macro-spin affects the micro-spin. As is clear from a glance, the affect is straight poolball mechanics once more. And it confirms all my previous paragraphs in a very direct manner. When the gyroscope is spinning in the same direction as the quanta (up, here), we get no weight change. This is because the electrons and baryons are already being spun by the photons, and spin velocity has already been maximized. It can't be increased by the macro-spin. But if we spin the gyroscope opposite to the quanta, we get a weight loss. The macro-spin is damping the micro-spin, and energy is being cancelled.
In this way, the opposite spinning gyroscope is acting like a field of antiphotons. It is damping the spin energy in precisely the same way. This allows us to make a prediction. If this experiment had been run on the Moon or on Venus, we would have expected a different outcome. Why? Because we would have expected the up-spinning gyroscope to weigh more there. Since the field on Venus, say, is locally non-magnetic, it would not be maximized in terms of spin, and the up-spinning gyroscope could add to the spin and therefore the energy. This would create a weight increase. The only reason we don't see that on the Earth is that we already have a magnetic field here near maximum. In terms of field strength, magnetism here is just as strong as electricity. That isn't true on Venus.
We can also make a prediction concerning the kilogram. Once the Earth has passed through this magnetic pole reversal, the charge field will rebuild itself along old lines, achieving the level of parity imbalance it had before the switch. When it does that, the kilogram will return to its old weight. This kilogram has not lost 50 micrograms from polishing or from going through customs. It has lost 50 micrograms from a temporary spin or magnetic fluctuation in the charge field. What it has lost, it can gain back in the same way.
How long will that take? Precisely as long as it takes the Earth to complete the magnetic reversal. When the Earth returns to the state it was in at the end of the 19th century, the kilogram will return to that weight.
Now, we can even use the weight loss to calculate how much the charge field has changed in the last hundred years. The weight loss is 5 x 10-8. The charge field is 9.73 x 10-4 of the total field.
9.8/(9.809545 - .009545x) = 1/[1 – (5 x 10-8)]
Or, just divide the weight loss by the charge field fraction:
5 x 10-8/9.73 x 10-4
The charge field has lost about .005% of its weight-causing strength.
**Physical Review Letters, Volume 63, number 25. Hayasaka and Takeuchi.
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.