Slashdot Mirror

-excerpted from
http://milesmathis.com/venus2....

"...Here is what Stephen Smith says in a Thunderbolts press release:

"For many years researchers studying the issue have known that beams of electricity flowing through plasma
produce a central column surrounded by concentric cylinders. The cylindrical current filaments exhibit long-range
attraction and short-range repulsion braiding that result in evenly spaced vortices surrounding the column. As the
filaments rotate around one another, a preferred hexagonal cross-section forms within the innermost column.
Hexagonal craters can be seen etched into the surfaces of planets and moons. Weather patterns, such as
hurricanes on Earth, also exhibit hexagonal âoeeyesâ that defy conventional explanation."

So again, we see an explanation with very little content. According to the EU model, Saturn shows a
hexagon because plasmas show a hexagon. But that begs the question, âoeWhy do plasmas show
hexagons?â The EU explanation is somewhat more complete than the mainstream explanation, since it
links planetary structures to the E/M field, which is of course correct. But the hexagon is then only
somewhat less mysterious, since we still don't know why plasmas create them.
If you have studied my nuclear diagrams, you know why the charge field creates hexagonal structures:
the nucleus is hexagonal. All charge fields are hexagonal at the ground level, that is, so if we scale
them up without destroying the shape, we should expect to see the hexagon. The only reason we don't
see it more often is that the local or atomic field isn't scaled up evenly. Either the larger body isn't
perfectly spherical (as one example), or the body isn't homogeneous (as another). What we need to
maintain the hexagon is a homogeneous field in a homogeneous and symmetrical body, and that rarely
happens, especially at large scales. Apparently, on the north pole of Saturn it is happening, and that is
what we are seeing. Once you have a diagram of the nucleus, the hexagon isn't mysterious at all..."

http://milesmathis.com/venus2....

-excerpted from
http://milesmathis.com/venus2....

"...Here is what Stephen Smith says in a Thunderbolts press release:

"For many years researchers studying the issue have known that beams of electricity flowing through plasma
produce a central column surrounded by concentric cylinders. The cylindrical current filaments exhibit long-range
attraction and short-range repulsion braiding that result in evenly spaced vortices surrounding the column. As the
filaments rotate around one another, a preferred hexagonal cross-section forms within the innermost column.
Hexagonal craters can be seen etched into the surfaces of planets and moons. Weather patterns, such as
hurricanes on Earth, also exhibit hexagonal âoeeyesâ that defy conventional explanation."

So again, we see an explanation with very little content. According to the EU model, Saturn shows a
hexagon because plasmas show a hexagon. But that begs the question, âoeWhy do plasmas show
hexagons?â The EU explanation is somewhat more complete than the mainstream explanation, since it
links planetary structures to the E/M field, which is of course correct. But the hexagon is then only
somewhat less mysterious, since we still don't know why plasmas create them.
If you have studied my nuclear diagrams, you know why the charge field creates hexagonal structures:
the nucleus is hexagonal. All charge fields are hexagonal at the ground level, that is, so if we scale
them up without destroying the shape, we should expect to see the hexagon. The only reason we don't
see it more often is that the local or atomic field isn't scaled up evenly. Either the larger body isn't
perfectly spherical (as one example), or the body isn't homogeneous (as another). What we need to
maintain the hexagon is a homogeneous field in a homogeneous and symmetrical body, and that rarely
happens, especially at large scales. Apparently, on the north pole of Saturn it is happening, and that is
what we are seeing. Once you have a diagram of the nucleus, the hexagon isn't mysterious at all..."

http://milesmathis.com/venus2....

String theory is already axiomatically disproven by its own tenants.
It doesn't even get the definition of a dimension correct. For this and several other foundational errors is obviously a total pile of fiction. Zero dollars should be spent to further it.

See: http://milesmathis.com/string.... for a detailed debunking.

It's a theory in the sense of a mathematical theory — like set theory, group theory or number theory — but it isn't yet a scientific theory.

No, it's not.
All of those theories are based on sound, logical axioms.
String theory is a pile of bogus sh!t piled onto an ever-growing foundation of illogical, arbitrary, nonsensical "axioms".
String theory doesn't even get the meaning of a dimension correct. It's not just not science, it's not even math either.

Here's an entertaining read explaining it much better than I ever could: http://milesmathis.com/string....

Exactly

First, don't waste your time with wild goose chases. Read Miles work and you'll understand what I mean. Might start with his paper on string theory. http://milesmathis.com/string....

http://milesmathis.com/string....

Actually, they are all *time* dimensions. There is still only one time interval---they overlap (the same interval), but in the math they transport the dt to the top and call it another d'n', misunderstanding what they are actually representing in the physical world. Modern physics has strayed down wrong paths for decades and got trapped in a room full of mental mathematical porn. Gotta get back to the mechanics.

This all depends on you accepting the standard model, and the current interpenetration of quantum physics. They are becoming more rock solid every day however, it would take some pretty amazing discoveries to break them.

Like these?
The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics

or does every new science headline sound dumber than the last?
No, it isn't just me. This guy thinks so too.
Yes, yes. Cue downmodding, ridiculing, "That guy's a crank and no one should listen to him" et cetera. I expect nothing less.
If even one other person can click through that link (and then a few dozen more links - his ideas are thought provoking but a little bit nonlinear) and rethink some of this BS we're being told, I'll be happy.
The rest of you can go right on dreaming of spaghettification or some other sci-fi mess. Call me anything you like, I won't be reading replies or arguing the matter.

It won't ever make sense, and there's no reason for it to make any sense.

I beg to differ.

I think you mean interstellar, not extragalactic.

Certainly, thanks for that. :)

it is doubtful that it would be sensible to spend a similar sum on a follow-up.

Did you know Explorer 1 was 12 minutes late? The twelve-minute hiatus of Explorer 1. I just found this response to that article, which concludes that something is indeed amiss...

Reading this article just confirmed my opinion that NASA is hiding something here. I don't think Hoagland knows what it is, but he is certainly correct that something is rotten. If the official story were true, then we would not have to see articles like this by Harris fifty years later, fudging equations and spinning furiously to create cover.
- http://milesmathis.com/pi4.html

http://milesmathis.com/string.html

Props to that guy for daring to come up with original ideas, but I think this one has a more intuitive model (with gravity not as a force but an accelerated expansion effect). I tried reading those Harvey papers but I gave up a few minutes later because the density of meaningless buzzwords like "flux" was threatening to cause its own gravity field. =/

You sound like exactly the sort of person who ought to read this guy

Whether you believe he's on to something or completely nuts, at least he's thinking about the paradoxes instead of ignoring them.

Really? Where is the more parsimonious model that handles everything QM does?

Right here, actually.
Whether you think this guy's on to something or totally insane, you have to admit the ideas he writes about do make things seem a lot simpler.