Flabbergasted » October 5th, 2016, 4:14 am wrote:
I am not trying to be critical or a besserwisser, but it occurred to me that by arguing there are flaws in practically all the currently accepted models and paradigms in physics (which of course there are and always will be), one ends up giving credence to a number of highly questionable "realities", such as black holes, dark matter, the Big Bang, Einsteinian relativity, space travel, nuclear bombs, and so forth.
Such is not the case with MM. He argues against black holes, the big bang, and nuclear bombs. He has argued that the moon landing and ISS are hoaxed, but I don't know if he argues against space travel in principle. He does not believe the vacuum is empty, but rather views space as filled with millions of what he calls b-photons. These b-photon particles constitute what he calls the “charge field,” and he has calculated they have a radius of 2.74 x 10-24 m and that space is filled with about 56 million of these b-photons per cubic meter, on average, though not with uniform density: http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf
Would that enable rockets or other forms of propulsion to work on outer space? I don't know. Does he believe in satellites orbiting the earth? I don't know. Somebody can ask him if they're curious.
As for Einsteinian relativity, well, I'm not really clear on what the big criticism of it is, or if you mean special or general relativity. He has reworked general relativity and turned it inside-out so to speak. As for special relativity, he believes that Einstein was correct about the maximum speed of light (and can even tell you why that is the maximum speed). But he has gone into Einstein's original equations, found errors, and reworked them. His basic argument about special relativity is that when something is moving very fast relative to the observer, you need to take that into account when calculating is velocity/position and use 'transforms' to achieve the correct calculation. So he brings a different perspective/interpretation to trying to understand the import and implications of special relativity. To me that doesn't seem very objectionable, but maybe there's something I'm missing.
EDIT: whoops, I forgot to cover dark matter. Well, what is dark matter/energy? Equations explaining galactic movement don't add up unless you assume some additional mass, which they've called 'dark matter.' They can't observe it, but they know
it must be there because the equations they fudged said so. Since energy has mass equivalence, we can lump dark energy in with dark matter. MM says: wait, I know what that stuff is that they're calling dark matter and/or dark energy: it's the b-photons of my charge field.
To say it in the simplest possible way, the masses we have been measuring up to now have been unified field masses, coming out of Newton's unified field. But because we did not know Newton's field was a unified field, we did not know our masses were unified field masses. Because the unified field contains the sub-field of E/M, and because the sub-field of E/M is in vector opposition to the total field (causing it to be subtracted from the total), our current masses are deceiving. They are too small, and they are too small in the amount of the E/M field. To make the correction—to find the real mass—we have to add the E/M field to every mass in the universe. In other words, to make a correction to the total mass of the universe, we have to add the universal mass or mass equivalence of the entire E/M field.
Where the E/M field he's talking about is just the b-photons.
See here for more on a critique of the "dark matter" solution and more details on his theory: http://milesmathis.com/mond.html