return to
homepage
return to updates
The
Central Discoveries
of this Book
a
top-ten list
by
Miles Mathis
nullius
addictus iurare in verba magistri1
It is no longer common for mathematicians or scientists to publish entire books full of new information or theories. Due to specialization, the normal procedure is to publish experimental findings augmented by very limited theoretical suggestions. By and large, theory is left to a select and limited number of specialists. Those in the center of the field would claim that this is a sign of their maturity, humility, or other positive quality, suggesting that those on the margin who are rash enough to have their own ideas must be immature, immodest, or otherwise deluded. In doing this they neglect to notice that the entire history of science has proceeded along other lines, and that the contemporary hierarchy would be seen as abnormal, inefficient, and ridiculously regimented by anyone from the past, even by those from the recent past like Einstein and Planck and Maxwell.
This is as
much as to admit that I know that my book must seem an anomaly as
well as an anachronism. Both its form and its content must seem
strange to a modern reader. To counteract this I have found it
necessary to write this general overview. In it I will briefly
describe the highlights of my research, hopefully whetting the
reader's appetite for the longer papers. None of my papers contain
difficult math or esoteric ideas, but here I will simplify even
further, offering the sort of critical gloss a publisher or editor
might make a hundred years from now, assuming my ideas are
correct. Most of these papers are now several years old, and
already I have a bit of hindsight regarding them. This makes it
possible for me to rank my findings in order of importance, and to
contextualize them for you as I list them. This may give you a
place to start in your readings, or it may supply you with a
clearer understanding of what I think I have achieved. Either way,
given that the book has now gone past 2,200 pages, I think it has
become a PR necessity, if nothing else.
I am probably most
widely known online for my algebraic analysis of special
relativity. Many readers, if they were writing this, would
probably begin there. But I am going to start with other things
here. I do this for two reasons. One is that many readers coming
to a new website will be prejudiced against relativity naysayers.
I am not a normal relativity naysayer since I accept time dilation
and the basic claims of SR. All I do is fine-tune the transforms,
so that they match the latest experiments. But once people peg you
as a naysayer of SR of any kind or in any amount they have great
difficulty taking anything else you say seriously. This is a fact
I have been forced to accept, whether I agree with it or not. It
is a sign of the times and cannot be ignored. The second reason is
that I believe a number of other findings of mine will be
considered to have more lasting importance than the relativity
corrections. These findings are both more fundamental and more
inventive. To add yet another level of tidiness, I will begin with
the oldest problem I have solved: meaning the problem that had
persisted for the most amount of time before I solved it.
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.
This finding also intersects my first
discoveries in special relativity, which I will discuss in greater
detail below. The first mistake I uncovered in special relativity
concerned Einstein's and Lorentz' early refusals to define their
variables. They did not and would not say whether the time
variable was an instant or a period. Was it t or Δt? Solving
this simple problem was the key to unlocking the central
algebraic errors in the math. Once it was clear that the time
variable must be an interval or period, at least two of Einstein's
first equations fell and could not be made to stand up again.
Next is my Unified
Field Theory, just added to this list. I haven't put it above
the correction to the point, since the correction to the point
determined a part of my UFT. At the heart of my UFT is the
discovery that Newton's gravitational equation is a compound
equation, one that already includes the foundational E/M field or
charge field. This pulling apart of Newton's equation by showing
that G is a scaling constant between gravity and charge has become
the new centerpiece of my website in the past few years,
supplanting the number one spot held by my relativity papers.
Since a NASA astrophysicist read my theory on this, recommended
it, and wrote the introduction to my new book, this theory has
generated a lot of interest worldwide. In it I also show that the
current "messenger photon" cannot be virtual and that
the field must be both real and mechanical. This means that
Einstein's field equations are also compound equations. Einstein
already had a UFT and didn't know it. But my theory goes far
beyond this, since I don't just pull the lid off Newton and
Einstein and then stand back. I segregate and simplify their
equations, showing many many new things, including a correction to
the perihelion of
Mercury, a mechanical solution to the
Metonic Cycle, and a new
theory of tides. I also show that the
universal gravitational constant G is a transform between the
two constituent fields of Newton's equation. This allowed me to
solve the dark matter problem, including the galactic
rotation problem and the bullet
cluster problem, by showing that the charge field outweighs
normal matter by 19 to 1. Dark matter is not non-baryonic, it is
photonic.
As the second part of this Unified Field Theory,
I have also deconstructed
Coulomb's equation. I show that Coulomb's constant k is tied
to the Bohr diameter, and that when applied to quanta we can drop
this constant from the equation. Like G, k is a scaling constant,
and at the quantum level we have no need to scale. Among other
things, this changes the force between electron and proton by a
factor of 10-19.
The charge part of this unified field has also allowed me to
easily solve Bode's
Law, resolving all the error, and to show the physical cause
of axial tilt.
Neither Bode's Law nor axial tilt are coincidences, as we have
been told.
More recently I have found a third unified
field equation: the Lagrangian. This was my most important
discovery of 2010, and it must now rank very high in this list. I
have shown that the kinetic energy variable in the Lagrangian is
misassigned. Once the variable is properly understood in a fully
mechanical two-part field, the Lagrangian becomes mathematically
equivalent to my new Unified Field Equation, and I show in
that paper how to go from one to the other in a couple of
simple steps.
Most recently I discovered a fourth set of unified field equations, that being the equations of Maxwell. Specifically, I discovered that Maxwell's displacement field was hiding the charge field. This allowed me to tie many more things into my unified field, including Gauss' Law.
I haven't
updated this paper in a long time, but my
nuclear diagrams must certainly place high on this list. I am
the first person in history to successfully diagram the nucleus,
showing it is not just a bag of marbles. Rather, it is a complex
channeler of charge. This has allowed me to also throw out
electron bonding theory as unnecessary, as well as the strong
force. I have now diagrammed most important elements and many
important molecules, showing how their qualities are explained by
these channels of charge.
For the next important
discovery we will stay in the 20th century and look at the central
problem of QED, which is superposition. The Copenhagen
interpretation has assured us that quantum experiments cannot be
explained in a logical mechanical way. That is, no possible
visualization can explain various interactions of quanta or
various mathematical and statistical outcomes. I have disproved
this by explaining it all mechanically and by drawing
a picture. Rather than focus on statistics or math, as most or
all have done up to now, I focus on the mechanics of spin. Given
an x-spin, I remind my reader of the gyroscope and show that
y-spin must be about an external axis. Meaning, if the radius of
the x-spin is 2, the radius of the y-spin must be 4. This not only
creates the mechanical and physical wave motion, it explains the
statistical outcomes of all mysterious experiments. Because the
spins must be orthogonal to eachother, only one can be an
experimental constant. If you maintain an experimental view that
keeps the x-spin clockwise, for instance, the y-spin will vary
with time. The x-spin will be clockwise 100% of the time, but the
y-spin will be clockwise only 50% of the time. I show this with an
easy visualization. I also draw the superimposing physical
waves and show the simple mechanical reason for the variance. I
explain precisely how this solves the biggest statistical
problems.
Using these same stacked spins, I am then able
to create all the known particles, including the electron,
the proton, the neutron, and all mesons
and bosons. I am able to develop a simple quantum equation
with which I can predict the masses of all known particles. These
spins then replace the
quark model of QCD, and I am able to show precisely why the
quark model must fail, including the loss of the weak
force, the
strong force, asyptotic
freedom, broken symmetries, and all the rest. With this same
quantum equation, I am able to unify
the photon, show how it creates its own
wave with spin, and show how Planck's
constant is hiding the mass of the photon.
You would
think this would also solve the double
slit experiment mystery, but that mystery is actually solved
by the foundational E/M field. This second field in Newton's
equation is emitted by the central wall in the double slit
experiment. The slits create an interference pattern in this
field. So the interference pattern actually exists, in a real
field, before any particle is sent through either slit.
A
problem I recently solved is the perihelion
precession of Mercury. This problem has been thought for a
century to have been solved by Einstein, but I have shown major
errors in the initial derivations of the field equations. The
central error is applying the curvature of the field directly to
the precession. Einstein achieved a number (.45) which he admitted
was the field curvature at the distance of Mercury's orbit. To
assign this curvature to precession requires a good deal of math,
including a time assignment, and Einstein mistakenly assigned his
number per Earth year. It should be assigned per one orbit of
Mercury, which is a Mercury year (88 days). Then the curvature
precession has to be compared in a vector analysis to the Earth's
curvature precession, and Einstein ignores that as well. Finally,
the precession due to perturbations has to be refigured using the
new field equations, and that has never been done. I show that a
correct analysis of the GR field requires a 4% correction to the
historical perturbation number, and this correction was ignored by
Einstein and is still ignored. This means that all the current
numbers are wrong. I have corrected them and achieved the right
totals, without using the tensor calculus (and explaining the
mechanics at every step).
A much older problem I have
solved goes all the way back to Archimedes. It is closely tied to
the one concerning the point. The pre-calculus was invented by the
Greeks and perfected by Archimedes. Archimedes solved what we
would call calculus equations by using infinite series and
exhaustion. We don't use exhaustion anymore, but, via Leibniz and
Newton and Cauchy, we have inherited the basic method of
Archimedes. That is, we use an infinite series. This method was so
difficult to put a foundation under because Newton and all the
others kept trying to introduce the point into their equations.
Not only did they try to introduce it into their axioms, they
tried to force it to exit the proofs as well, so that they could
claim to find solutions at a point and instant. The equations and
proofs kept rebelling and continue to rebel to this day. The
proofs do not work, but we moderns have decided to ignore that.
After a century or more of worrying and arguing about it, with
little to show for it, we decided to let Cauchy put a lid on it,
and we have refused to open the pot since.
To solve this problem I re-invented what is now called the
calculus of finite differences. Although I did not know it at the
time, this form of the calculus has been around for centuries. It
solves all the same problems as the infinite calculus, but it is
quite easy to prove and to use. This form of the calculus falls
like an apple out of an elementary number table, and students can
follow this table and see for themselves how and why the calculus
works, without any mystification. I have strongly recommended the
replacement of the infinite calculus with the calculus of finite
differences, not just for educational reasons, but because it
solves many of the problems of QED and General Relativity. I have
already shown how it impacts renormalization, and it does the same
sort of housecleaning on GR. Most of the foundational
inconsistencies in Einstein's expression of GR immediately
evaporate once we jettison the point and define all space and time
on intervals or non-zero differentials.
The next important
problem I have solved is another one made famous by Newton,
although this time he invented it without much help from the
Greeks. By analyzing a diminishing differential applied to the arc
of a circle, Newton claimed to prove that as the arc length
approached zero, the arc, the chord, and the tangent all
approached equality. I
have shown that Newton's analysis is false. Newton monitored
the wrong angle in the triangle created, which skewed his
analysis. He did not notice that another angle in the triangle
went to its limit before his angle, assuring that the tangent
remained longer than the arc and chord all the way to the limit.
This solves, all at once, many of the mysteries of trigonometry.
Newton's ultimate interval, which became the infinitesimal and
then the limit, is proved by me to be a real interval, where the
variables do not go to zero and they do not go to equality. This
is the reason we find real values for them. Even at the limit, the
tangent is not zero and it is not equal to the arc or chord. The
tangent and the arc are expressed by two different (perhaps
infinite) series of differentials, and these series do not
approach zero in the same way. In fact, one reaches zero after the
other one, which makes it a lot easier to understand why the
equations work like they do.
Because Newton misunderstood circular motion in this way, he also
misunderstood the dynamics of circular motion itself, and the
equation that expressed it. His basic equation a = v2/r,
which is still the bedrock of circular motion, is wrong. If you
express the orbital velocity as v = 2πr/t, then the equation
must be correct, of course. We know that from millions of
experiments. The problem concerns the fact that that variable
cannot be a velocity. A velocity cannot curve. The circumference
of a circle cannot be expressed by a simple velocity, even though
the apparent dimensions of the variable (m/s) would imply that it
could. Velocity is a vector, and there is no such thing,
mathematically or physically, as a curved vector. By definition, a
velocity can have only one spatial dimension. Any curve must have
two spatial dimensions. Of course a velocity has a time in the
denominator, which gives it two total dimensions. A circumference
or orbit must have at least three dimensions (x,y,t).
Flying in the face of this very simple fact, for some reason
Newton assigned 2πr/t to his velocity. To add to this error, he
conflated the tangential velocity with the orbital velocity. Going
into the series of equations that proved a = v2/r,
he defined v as the tangential velocity. That is, it was the
velocity in a straight line, a vector with its tail touching the
circle at a 90o
angle to the radius. But at the end, he assigned v to the orbital
velocity, which curved. Any elementary analysis must show that the
orbital velocity is a compound made up of the tangential velocity
and the centripetal acceleration. In fact, Newton said so himself.
It is a fact we still accept to this day, and it is taught in
every high school physics class. If so, it cannot be the
tangential velocity and it should not be labeled v.
This is of paramount importance for any number of reasons, but I
will mention only a couple. Since contemporary physics has
inherited this confusion of Newton and utterly failed to correct
it or notice it, all our circular fields are compromised. I
have shown that Bohr's analysis of the electron orbit is
affected by this mis-labelling, and that the equations used to
calculate the velocity of quanta emitted by electrons must be
falsified. Huge problems have also been caused by the ubiquitous
equation ma = mv2/r.
The form of that equation has led many to think that the numerator
on the right side is a sort of kinetic energy, but the mv2
comes from Newton's equation, and the velocity is not really a
velocity. It is not a linear velocity, but it is also not an
orbital velocity. It is simply a mis-defined variable. It is not a
velocity of any kind. It should be labeled as an acceleration. By
correcting Newton's proof, I discovered that
vt2
= a2
+ 2ar
ao2
= 2acr
ac
= ao2/2r
Where
ao
is the orbital acceleration, replacing the misnamed orbital
velocity, and ac
is the centripetal acceleration.
By cleaning up our
variables and definitions, we can avoid many problems. Just as a
starter, the equation ma = mv2/r
must become ma = mao2/r.
That keeps us from thinking about kinetic energy when we look at
the right side, and solves many many errors, including several of
Bohr, Schrodinger and Feynman.
Speaking of Bohr and
Schrodinger, I have now corrected the important equations of both,
beginning my overhaul of quantum mechanics from the foundations.
Several years ago I
found Bohr's mistake of making illegal substitutions between
angular and linear equations. More recently I
have shown an error of substitution in Bohr's equations
between the momentum of the electron and the momentum of the
photon. This error compromises his entire derivation of the Bohr
radius and Bohr energy. Likewise with Schrodinger, who continued
the mistakes of Bohr. I have had to rewrite
the Schrodinger equation from the ground up, correcting the
same basic substitution errors. Rewriting the Schrodinger equation
has been the most important paper of 2012.
Another
interesting find that intersects my book at this place is the
fact that π is itself an acceleration. That is, I have shown
that C = 2πr is a distillation of vo2
= 2ar, where π stands for the acceleration and C stands for the
summed orbital velocity or orbital acceleration. They are the same
equation; the C equation is just the orbital equation without its
full time components. Plane geometry ignores all time components,
so that it allows for this simplification. Divide both sides of
the C equation by t2
and you will begin to see what I mean. It is fascinating.
In
a related paper I finally show that π, understood as the
number 3.14, is false. In kinematic or dynamic situations, where
time is a factor, π is not 3.14 but 4. Since the circumference
is an acceleration, as in the orbit, it cannot be compared
directly to the diameter, which is a velocity. The line and curve
cannot be compared one to one, since the first has one implied
time variable and the second has at least two. Once we expand them
physically, it turns out that 3.14 is no longer applicable. In
physics, it is not an esoteric number, it is simply a mathematical
error. In physics, you cannot straighten out a curve like a string
and measure it: straightening out a curve changes it both
mathematically and physically. Obviously this must impact a large
number of equations and a good deal of engineering.
Now we
can look at my corrections to relativity. The first major
correction comes from my discoveries on the point. As I said
above, the time variable in SR must be a period. Einstein even
admitted this in later math, when he began writing it as Δt.*
But once the time variable is admitted to be a period, that
variable must grow larger as the time dilates. Einstein admits
this also.** Dilation means "to grow larger" and
Einstein admits that as length contracts, the numerical value of t
grows larger. That is why he called it time dilation, in fact. But
of course this puts the two variables x and t in inverse
proportion. This is important since Lorentz and Einstein both use
two light equations as axioms.
x = ct
x' = ct'
The problem is, you see, that the variables in these two equations
are directly proportional, not inversely proportional. One of them
must be wrong. One must be wrong because the two equations are not
analogous. In the second equation, the variables are defined as
measurements within the system S'. But in the first equation, the
variables are defined as those same variables as seen from S. Let
me put it another way: the variables in the first equation are not
defined as measurements within
S. This would be the analogous definition, one that was equivalent
in all ways to the first one. But that is not what we have. One
equation describes how a system looks to itself. The other
equation describes how one system sees another system. So they
don't balance, definitionally. And this makes the first equation
false, given the second.
You
can make the first equation true, if you define it as the way S
sees itself. But then you can't solve the problem of Relativity,
since you have no link between the systems. The long and short of
it is that Lorentz and Einstein have used a false equation.
This
is not the only smashing error of SR. The other axiomatic equation
of SR, used by everyone from Einstein to Russell to Feynman and
beyond, is
x' = x - vt
That
equation is also false. We are told that it is the Galilean or
Newtonian expression of relativity, and that the Lorentz transform
resolves to that equation if you make the speed of light infinite.
But that is false. This may be the greatest error in the whole
history of science, since it is both spectacularly wrong and
transparently obvious, and yet it has survived in full view for
more than a century. It is not so stunning that Einstein made the
mistake, since everyone knows he was a poor mathematician. What is
stunning is that it has not been discovered by any of the towering
geniuses of the 20th century. What the Lorentz transform really
resolves to if the speed of light is infinite is
x = x'
All you have to do is think about it for a moment. If x' is not
equal to x, then you have a difference in length. A difference in
length is defined as length contraction. But you can't have a
length contraction according to Galileo or Newton. It is
impossible. That is the whole reason that relativity was invented,
to formalize length contraction. And yet Einstein and everyone
else has accepted that x' = x - vt is not relativistic. It is
relativistic, by definition, since x is not equal to x'. There is
no way around it. And if it is relativistic, then Einstein's proof
must be circular. He is deriving a relative transform from an
equation that is already a relative transform.
If light's speed is infinite, that must mean that you see
everything that I do at the same time I do, no matter how far away
we are from eachother and no matter how fast we are traveling
relative to eachother. Galileo and Newton didn't need a transform
of any kind precisely because they thought that light had an
infinite speed. The whole universe was a single system. Everyone
knows that, or should. Therefore, you can't have two x's or two
t's in a Galilean system. Velocity just doesn't have anything to
do with it. Prime variables are disallowed in a Galilean equation,
because here the prime variable applies to a second system. A
velocity in Galileo's time didn't create a second system.
Fortunately, special relativity is easily solvable even
without these three equations. Once I corrected these errors, and
several others, I found new transforms that were close in form and
output to the ones we have, which explains why SR has been
confirmed despite being wrong mathematically. My corrections also
allowed me to discover what I call First-degree Relativity.
Einstein skips an entire co-ordinate system, jumping directly into
Second-degree Relativity. That is, he finds transforms for his man
moving on the train, but neglects to find transforms for the train
itself. We know that all motion causes contraction and dilation,
and his train is moving; but with current transforms we cannot go
from numbers on the platform to numbers on the train.
Interestingly, the first-degree transform is equivalent to the
simple frequency transform in optics. But the second-degree
transform is not gamma
and does not include gamma.
I showed that relative motion toward an observer must
cause time contraction, rather than dilation. Relativity is the
Doppler Effect applied to clocks, and clocks moving toward us will
be blue-shifted, not red-shifted. This was already known
experimentally from observing binary pulsars, though no one has
made the connection until now. This fact explodes the Twin
Paradox. My new solution to SR also solves the Pioneer Anomaly and
other anomalies.
Next I took my finding into a review of
mass increase, where I discovered that once
again all the equations were wrong. The basic theory was
correct, the equations were nearly correct, but they were
compromised by many errors in many places. By making several
fairly subtle tweeks, I found that Newton's equation for kinetic
energy was not only an approximation, it was a precise equation.
That is, if you defined the mass correctly, and used the correct
transform, Newton's equation would resolve out of the mass
transform equation in perfect form.
What is more, I discovered that gamma
didn't apply to mass increase either—although here the form
of the equation was a near match. We don't have the square root of
gamma,
and we have an additional term in the numerator. But you can see
that we have that familiar differential in the denominator.
ET
= mrc2
[1 +
(v/2c)]
[1 -
(v2/c2)]
This correction to the mass transform also allowed me to
propose a cause for the 108 limit to the mass increase of the
proton in the accelerator, a limit that has always remained a
mystery.
Next I jump to General
Relativity, where I use Einstein's theory of equivalence to
solve field equations without the tensor calculus. Simply by
reversing the central field vector (gravity), I am able to create
a rectilinear field that may be expressed with high school
algebra. I use this method to solve Einstein's bending of
starlight by the sun problem. In five lines of math I solve a
problem that took him 44 pages, and I get the same answer.
s =
at2/2
t
= time for light to travel from the tangent (the edge) of the sun
to the earth
s = distance traveled by this light
s = (9.8
m/s2)(501.32s)2]/2
= 1,231,477m
tanθ = opposite/adjacent =
1,231,477m/1.50696 x 1011m
θ = 1.686 seconds of
arc
I also show that his
analysis of the spinning disk is false, as well as his analysis of
the bending of light. Perhaps most importantly, I show that even
Einstein's four-vector field is homogenous and rectilinear at the
limit. He gives us this equation,
√-g = 1, so that dτ'
= dτ.
And he says, "The
invariant √-g(dτ) is equal to the magnitude of the
four-dimensional element of volume in the 'local' system of
reference". This is extraordinary, because if the volume of
every infinitesimal is equal at the limit, then that means that
everything is equal at the limit. Time and distance must be equal
at the limit, which means that space is homogenous at the limit.
No one has yet realized what this means. It means that the "local"
system does exist, even according to Einstein. What is more, all
local measurements are equal—not just as metaphysics, but as
math. The standard model likes to treat relativity as if there is
no way to assert or prove that all local measurements are equal.
But Einstein admits right here that it is one of the assumptions
of the entire theory. It is a mathematical axiom. An axiom belongs
to logic, not to metaphysics.
This brings us to my
paper on Minkowski. Since he relied on the basic assumptions
of Einstein—which I have shown are false—his math must
fall as well. Minkowski's numbers, like Einstein's, are not
correct. Which means that his math is useless no matter how
elegant it is perceived to be. It would be useless even if
Einstein's equations had been true, since his axioms are false.
Minkowski allows the time variable to travel at a right angle to
the other variables, but this is false. It does not do so, in
fact, and cannot do so. Therefore his method must be false at the
axiomatic level. If your assumptions are incorrect, then your
logic is incorrect, even in the case that your deductions are
true. A true physical theory requires that both the assumptions
and deductions are unfalsifiable. Minkowski's assumption is not
just an unknown, and therefore a possible assumption. I show that
it is known to be false.
Tying into this critique of
Minkowski is my critique of 20th century math in general. I have
shown how non-Euclidean
fields are used to fudge equations, how the complex number
plane hides the mechanics of the electrical field, why
gauge math is intrusive and misdirecting, and how tensor
fields are misdefined and misused.
Another important
part of my work in relativity has been the analysis of the
Michelson/Morley interferometer, and with it the Light
Clock. Both ideas rely on the same basic diagram, and I show
that this diagram is false. Everyone from Poincare and Lorentz to
Dirac and Feynman have used an analysis of the right triangles
created in these diagrams to explain time dilation, relative
motion, and the speed of light. Like Newton, they have used a
trigonometric diagram to prop up their theory. But also like
Newton, they have failed to draw or imagine the correct diagram.
In particular, the creators and viewers of the interferometer
diagram seem to believe that the scientist collecting data from
the machine is connected to the ether, instead of connected to the
interferometer. Mostly, they leave the observer out of the diagram
altogether, but when his presence is implied by the equations and
the motions, it always turns out that the observer is imagined to
have no velocity. In other words, the interferometer is in the
ether stream, but the observer is on the shore.
But this is not how the real interferometer worked, in operation.
In order to collect data from the interferometer, Michelson
and Morley had to sit very near it, and move as it moved. They
did not let the interferometer move with the earth while they got
off the earth and sat still relative to the imagined ether.
Because they had the same velocity as their machine, Michelson and
Morley should not have expected any fringe effect. Their
expectation of such data was simply a false expectation, based on
a false diagram. The interferometer could only provide a null
set.
The same analysis destroys
the Light Clock, since the position and velocity of the clock's
observer is never defined. Exactly the same triangle is created in
the diagram, and it is analyzed in precisely the same faulty ways.
The Light Clock does not explain time dilation, and it leads the
viewer into false equations like the ones Einstein used.
Of course, since time dilation is true, my attacks on the Light
Clock and interferometer are not fatal to Einstein or relativity.
My cleaner, more transparent analysis, combined with my better
illustrations, allow me to show that relativity is actually much
simpler and much more reasonable than we have been led to believe.
It contains no paradoxes, requires no leaps of faith, and may be
expressed with simple equations that anyone can comprehend.
My
next major contribution to physics concerns the unseen hole in
orbital mechanics.
This hole is a direct outcome of Newton's mistake above. To
explain the orbit, Newton created a balance between the
centripetal acceleration and the tangential velocity. But because
he later failed to differentiate between the tangential velocity
and the orbital velocity, both his and Kepler's analyses of orbits
have come down to us hiding magnificent messes. Physicists now
commonly sum the motions in the circuit to show that the orbit is
closed, but the problem is with the differentials. In any problem
with three or more bodies, Newton's balance between the two
motions cannot be maintained. An analysis of the differentials
must show a variation in the tangential velocity of all orbiters,
in order to correct for forces outside the main two. But orbiters
cannot vary this velocity. They are not self-propelled. Newton
told us that this tangential velocity was innate; an innate motion
cannot vary. We have not shown any mechanism or cause of this
variance, therefore we cannot let it vary. To put it another way,
the variance is totally unexplained and unsupported. It has been
covered up, possibly on purpose.
What this means is that orbital mechanics is just magic. The
mechanics we have doesn't work and we haven't even tried to
replace it with one that does. General Relativity has nothing to
say about this problem, doesn't solve it, and doesn't address it.
GR supplies us with an orbital math that includes the finite speed
of light, but it doesn't even try to correct the mechanical
foundation of the orbit. Courtesy of the tensor calculus, the
problem is just buried deeper, under a heavy mathematical blanket.
Kepler's
ellipse has the same hidden problem, a problem caused by the
general ignorance of the difference between orbital and tangential
velocity. Kepler's ellipse doesn't work mechanically, since his
second focus is uninhabited. The orbiter is forced to vary its
tangential velocity to suit the math of the summed circuit, but no
explanation of how it could do this is offered.
I solve this problem by using the E/M field as a third component.
Orbits are not caused only by gravity and innate motion. They
require a third motion, and this motion is caused by the combined
E/M fields of all bodies involved. With this third motion, it is
possible to fully explain all the motions we see.
For the
same reason, Laplace's
equations for Jupiter and Saturn also fail. Laplace "solved"
the Great Inequality between the two planets mathematically, but
his mathematics has no mechanical underpinning. I show that the
foundational E/M field is required once again to explain the
resonance that Laplace's math contains.
Recently I have
blown the lid off Lagrange as well, by
deconstructing the Lagrangian. I do this by showing that
Lagrange's differential is hiding the charge field, in much the
same way G does. Lagrange assigns his two fields to kinetic energy
and potential, but that is another magnificent fudge. Gravity
cannot resist itself mechanically or mathematically. Lagrange's
second field is actually charge, so that the Lagrangian falls in
the same way as Newton's equation and Coulomb's equation. By
"fall", I do not mean that the equations are completely
wrong, just that the fields under them are misassigned.
Tides
also enter this revolution in theory, since tides are not simply
gravitational either. In
a long paper I show that current tidal theory has huge fatal
holes in it, holes that can only be filled by the E/M field.
Saltwater is a very good conductor, and you will have to let that
fact lead you into the longer paper, since I will not address the
full theory here. Suffice it to say that the idea of the
barycenter is a critical part of my analysis, and that I diagram
and analyze that idea even more fully than Feynman was able to do.
This proves that the field between the Earth and Moon is a unified
field.
The same can be said of the
Coriolis Effect. In a recent paper, I show that all the
phenomena now given to the Coriolis Effect are actually caused by
the charge field. In related papers, I show that the charge field
is also responsible for the ice
ages, superconductivity,
heat, brownian
motion, orbital
eccentricity, Lagrange
points, major
solar anomalies, and many other unexplained or poorly
explained phenomena.
Finally, I think I must mention my
critique of String
Theory, if only as a nod to current physics. I do not think my
critique of String Theory will actually have any long lasting
effect, since String Theory will have no long lasting effect.
However, my critique is as sharp and amusing as anything I have
written, and many readers have recommended it as one of their
favorites. If you need something a bit lighter to break up your
more serious reading, this might be one place to go.
To
recap:
1)
I show that you can’t
assign a cardinal number to a point, which begins the
revolution in both physics and mathematics. The point and the
instant are jettisoned from physics, and all math and science
since Euclid must be redefined.
2) In my Unified
Field Theory, using Newton's gravitational equation as a
compound equation, I separate out the foundational E/M field and
then reunify, including Relativity transforms. In a
related paper, I show that G acts as a transform between these
two fields. Likewise, I pull apart Coulomb's
equation, showing that it is another unified field equation in
disquise. In another
related paper I show that this foundational E/M field is
emitted by the central wall in the double slit experiment,
creating the interference pattern before a single photon moves
through the apparatus.
3) Superposition
is explained mechanically and visually, in a rather simple
manner. Using the gyroscope, I physically create x and y spins and
draw the physical waves created. This explains the wave motion, it
dispels many statistical mysteries, and it falsifies the
Copenhagen interpretation. Using this same spin model, I am able
to show the make-up of all fundamental particles, including the
electron and proton, without quarks. I am able to unify
the electron, proton, neutron, and all mesons,
by developing a simple spin equation. With four stacked spins I
can produce all known particles and effects.
4) I correct all
the numbers involved in the perihelion
precession of Mercury, proving that Einstein's analysis was
very incomplete.
5) Calculus is redefined on the finite
differential, which will revolutionize the teaching of calculus as
well as QED and Relativity. In fact, the fields of all higher math
must be redefined. This discovery ultimately bypasses
renormalization, making it unnecessary.
6) I show that many of
Newton’s important lemmae are false, including his basic
trig lemmae. His proof of a = v2/r
is compromised by this, which forces us to re-analyze circular
motion. The mechanics of his orbit also falls, which requires us
to hypothesize a third motion to stabilize the orbit in real time.
I have shown that this motion must be caused by the E/M field.
This also applies to Kepler’s ellipse. And it explains the
mechanics of tides.
7) I
also redrew the line between tangential velocity and orbital
velocity, showing that the orbital velocity must be an
acceleration. This requires a rewriting of many basic equations
and cleans up many errors and mysteries, including a few of those
in renormalization.
8) I
solved the problem of relativity, finding the simple and basic
algebraic errors at their inception. I offered corrected
transforms for time, length, velocity, mass, and momentum. I
exploded the twin paradox, and did so by showing incontrovertibly
that relative motion toward causes time contraction, not dilation.
I solved the Pioneer Anomaly. I also proved that Newton's kinetic
energy equation is not an approximation; it is an exact equation.
I explain the cause of the mass limit for the proton in
accelerator.
9) I
show the error in the interferometer and light
clock diagrams, proving that no fringe effect should have been
expected. The light clock creates the same mathematical triangle
and falls to the same argument.
10) Minkowski's
four-vector field is shown to be false, not only because it
uses Einstein's false postulates and axioms, but because its own
new axiom—that time may travel orthogonally to x,y,z—is
also false.
10a) I prove that General
Relativity is falsely grounded on the same misunderstandings
as the calculus, which is one reason it can’t be joined to
QED. I prove that curved space is an unnecessary abstraction and
that the tensor calculus is a mathematical diversion, a hiding in
esoterica. I prove this by expressing the field with simple
algebra, taking five equations to do what Einstein did in 44
pages.
10b) As a bonus, I
prove that String Theory is an historical embarrassment.
1"I
am not required to accept the word of any master." [Lat.]
This is the motto of the Royal Society of Science in England,
meant to assert the independence of science from various
authorities; but ironically we must now apply it to them, the
various academic societies in the US, and to the standard model
worldwide, which has taken over the dictatorial powers of the old
Church and Monarch that Galileo and Newton had to resist.
Mainstream science has itself become the authoritative and
tyrannical magister
or master.
*See The Meaning of
Relativity, eq. 22.
**See Relativity,
XII, last paragraph.
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
mm@milesmathis.com.