
return to homepage return
to updates
The
Moon Gives up a Secret
by
Miles Mathis
First
posted September 29, 2005
To
my mind our physical theories have recently traveled too far from
home. Theories on black holes and other exotics, theories of the
first seconds in the universe, theories of strings vibrating
below the Planck limit. These may be interesting, but to me they
are not as interesting as objects in our nearer environs, things
we know a bit more intimately. It is from these things that we
are likely to learn the next secrets of the cosmos.
As proof of this rather nonmodern assertion, I will offer in
this paper some basic data from the Moon and show that it
contains an astonishing secret that has so far lain unheard.
Let us start with three basic measurements of the Moon:
its vital stats, if you will. Its mass is 1/81 that of the Earth.
Its radius is 1/3.67 that of the Earth. And its gravity at the
surface is about 1/6 that of the Earth. I have given all these
numbers relative to the Earth for a reason. I looked hard at this
very limited data and the thought occurred to me that the gravity
ratio and the radius ratio were rather close. Much closer than
the mass ratio, at any rate. Might there be a direct link?
I don’t know that anyone has ever considered this. If they had
considered that gravity might vary directly with radius, then
this data from the Moon would have been the first thing to put
them off the idea. Data from the rest of the solar system, and
indeed the universe, would be the second thing to put them off
it. The ratios from the Moon are close, but they are far enough
apart to deter all but the most eccentric from following up any
idea that they might be related. If they were related, shouldn’t
the gravity of the Moon be 1/3.67 that of the Earth? It is not
and that is all there is to it. Once we get to the Sun, and then
to exotics like black holes and neutron stars, the idea that
gravity is simply a function of radius is ludicrous. Why even do
any math on the Moon to pursue it one way or another?
Without a very strong lead, none but a fool would pursue the
idea. After all, what could possibly cause the variance in the
Moon? What could make up the difference between 1/3.67 and 1/6?
Whatever it was would have to make up much greater differences
for the Sun and exotics. Well, it turns out that there is a very
strong lead, and it is called the E/M field. Quantum physicists
think that at their level the E/M field totally swamps the
gravitational field (they
are wrong), but at the macrolevel the E/M field has been
pretty much ignored. As I will show, the strength of the E/M
field of the Earth at its surface is not sufficient to effect g
until the third decimal point, so it is not surprising that
terrestrial scientists would get used to ignoring it. If they
ignore it concerning g, it is not surprising that they would also
ignore it concerning the field of the Moon. They would assume
that the Moon’s field is proportionally weaker than the
Earth’s, since the Moon is known to be almost nonmagnetic, as
a whole. This ignoring of the
E/M field has been a grave error, however. An E/M field continues
to exist even in the absence of the expression of its magnetic
component, as we now know. Venus and Mars exclude the Solar Wind
just as if they had powerful magnetospheres, even though they do
not. In fact, I will show with a few very simple postulates and
some even simpler math that the E/M field of the Moon is quite
sufficient to make up the difference between 1/3.67 and 1/6. I
will go even further and show that the E/M field of the Moon is
exactly
sufficient to make up that difference. This will prove that the
total weightcausing fields of both the Earth and the Moon are
sums of the gravitational field and the E/M field, and that the
solo gravitational fields can be shown to vary exactly as the
radius of the object.
My proof relies on only two
postulates. The first is that the E/M field is an exclusionary
field created by bombardment or an equivalent mechanism. This
postulate is orthodox, since most physicists accept that the
field must be mediated by particles, probably photons of some
sort. Some quantum physicists now prefer the concept of the
messenger photon, a photon that is capable of giving different
messages to negative charges and positive charges; but a simpler
mechanical explanation is that the field is a straight
bombardment of photons, either as a sort of fluid or as a sort of
hail of tiny bullets. It is
not necessary for me to finalize a mechanical description of the
E/M field at the quantum level here. All that is necessary is
that you accept that physical objects are affected by a large E/M
field by feeling an exclusionary force. There is nothing
revolutionary in this postulate, since we already accept that
meteors are affected not only by the atmosphere of the Earth, but
by its E/M field. The Solar Wind is also excluded by the E/M
field, as I have already stated. Plasma research has provided
lots of new data in this direction, but we have always had data
that showed the basic exclusionary nature of the field.
The second postulate concerns the variance of an E/M field when
it is created by a spherical object. We know that in a
nonspherical E/M field the field varies with the inverse square
law. But this is the electrical field created by electrons, not
the foundational field I am talking about. The foundational
field, as a field of photons emitted by protons and electrons and
so on, must be spherical at that level, since it is emitted by
spheres. Conversely, in large flat objects, this emission field
would be expected to sum in a normal way, without the inverse
square law, due mostly to Huygens Principle. Conversely again, in
large spherical objects, the summation would once more create an
inverse square law, due to the decreasing density of the field at
greater distances from the center. The field lines emitted by a
sphere will not be even nearly parallel. They will spread out as
the radius increases. This means that the field must become less
dense at greater radii: the distance between photons must
increase. Since the surface area of a sphere is given by 4πr^{2},
the density of the field will drop off with the inverse square
law. But to this we must add another inverse square effect, that
of relativity. In small nearby objects, we would not have to
consider this, but the Moon is large enough and far enough away
that relativity cannot be ignored. If we compare the Earth and
the Moon, we cannot ignore relativity. To understand how
relativity creates an inverse square effect, consult part 3 of my
Third Wave papers.
For this reason, a large spherical E/M field will vary as 1/r^{4},
if measured from a distance.
Some will say that if the gravitational field is expressed by the
graviton, the same consideration must apply to it. But this is
false. Even if the graviton existed (it doesn't), the
gravitational field was always spherical, and the inverse square
law always applied to the spherical field. This has been known
empirically for centuries, so that we do not need to figure a
special case for the gravitational field. There is no rectilinear
gravitational field, like the E/M field, where the inverse square
law also applies. Therefore we do not have to add effects.
Besides, as I have
shown more recently, the gravitational field doesn't
actually change as the inverse square of the distance. Only
Newton's equation changes as the inverse square, and Newton's
equation is a compound equation, one that includes both the
gravitional field and the foundational E/M field. The inverse
square effect enters Newton's equation through the E/M part of
it, not the gravitational part of it. That is precisely why
gravity can vary as the radius, as I am proving in this paper.
Gravity varies ONLY as the radius of the object, and no longer as
the distance of separation.
Given these two postulates we
can proceed directly to the math. Let us first make a prediction,
using the postulates above. I am claiming that that I can show
that the gravitational fields of the Moon and the Earth are
directly proportional to their radii. Let us do the math to show
what the Moon’s gravitational field would have to be if that
were true. g_{E}
/ g_{M}
= 3.672 9.8 m/s^{2}
/ g_{M}
= 3.672 g_{M}
= 2.669 m/s^{2}
But the current number for g_{M}
is 1.62 m/s^{2}.
That seems like a huge amount of acceleration to make up, and I
can understand your doubts. When I first did the math I thought
there was little chance the numbers would work, to be honest. I
was just following an idea. But watch closely:
We know
that the total field of the Earth at its surface creates an
acceleration of 9.8 m/s^{2}
and we hypothesize that this is the gravitational field minus the
E/M field [the gravitational field is an attractive field and the
E/M field is a repulsive field]. And we know the same for the
Moon. g_{E}
 E_{E}
= 9.8 m/s^{2} g_{M}
 E_{M}
= 1.62 m/s^{2}
I have also postulated that
the gravitational part of this acceleration should be
proportional to the radii. g_{E}
/ g_{M}
= 3.672 g_{M}
= .2723 g_{E}
And I have just postulated that the E/M field is proportional to
1/r^{4}. E_{E}
/E_{M}
= 1/3.672^{4}
= .0055 E_{M}
= 181.81 E_{E}
But that last equation is assuming that the Earth and Moon have
the same density. So I must now correct for density. D_{E}
/D_{M}
= 5.52/3.344 = 1.6507 = 1/.6057 E_{M}
= 110.12 E_{E}
So, we just substitute: .2723
g_{E}
 110.12 E_{E}
= 1.62 m/s^{2} g_{E}
 E_{E}
= 9.8 m/s^{2} .2723g_{E}
 .2723E_{E}
= 2.6685 m/s^{2}
[subtract the two
equations] 109.85E_{E}
= 1.0485 m/s^{2}
E_{E}
= .009545 m/s^{2} E_{M}
= 1.051 m/s^{2} g_{M}
 E_{M}
= 1.62 m/s^{2} g_{M}
= 2.671 m/s^{2}
You
can see that the math bore out my prediction exactly. Once we
correct for the presence of the E/M field, the Earth and the Moon
have gravitational fields that are exactly proportional to their
radii. We did not get an exact
match in the third decimal place only because we used 9.8 m/s^{2}
for g_{E}
in the first equation. We must now add .009545 to that, and if we
do we get 2.671 m/s^{2}
in the first equation as well.
[In a subsequent paper I
have confirmed this number .009545 m/s^{2}
for the charge field of the earth, in an unrelated problem with
unrelated math. In my
paper on atmospheric pressure, I calculated an effective
weight of the atmosphere, as a percentage of the gravity field.
Using novel but very simple math and diagrams, I found that the
force down on any gas semicontained in the curved field of the
Earth would be .00958 m/s^{2}.
Since this matches the force up, the atmosphere is effectively
weightless. That these two numbers match with such simple math
and postulates is one of the outstanding outcomes of my unified
field theory, and I highly recommend you take the link, if you
haven't already read that paper.]
At first the series of
equations above appears to be circular, but it isn't. If you
postulate a different variation for the E/M field, the numbers
don't work out. It only works with 1/R^{4}.
Notice that the number I have arrived at for the E/M acceleration
at the surface of the Earth is quite small. This explains why it
has always been neglected. Physicists have correctly assumed that
it was negligible in most cases, and they went on to assume the
same for the Moon. Why, they thought, would the Moon have an E/M
field that was more active at the surface of the Moon than the
Earth’s E/M field is at its surface? The idea was
counterintuitive, so no one has ever done any math to show it one
way or another. I have just shown, using postulates that are
hardly revolutionary, that the Moon’s E/M field should be
expected to offset its gravitational field quite strongly.
You will say that we have tested the fields on the Moon already
and found them to be quite small. There are two problems here.
One, our tests were designed to measure local fluctuations in the
E/M field, and especially the magnetic component of that field.
This is not the same thing as measuring the strength of the
entire field at a distance. Two, the tests of the E/M field are
compromised just like all our tests of the gravitational field
have been. In neither case have we been successful in separating
the effects of the two fields. Whether we are measuring a
gravitational field or an E/M field, we must measure a force on a
body. But the force on the body is a composite of the two. A
differential. If we do not take this into account (and we don't)
there is no way we can know what the strength of each field is
alone. We would have to block one field or the other in our
measurements, and we have never done this. According to my
theory, you cannot block the field of gravity, since it just a
real acceleration. You cannot block an acceleration. The E/M
field should also be unblockable, for a different reason. You
would try to block with some dense substance, like lead, but this
lead will be emitting the field, too. In fact, lead would emit a
denser field, giving you the opposite effect. Dropping ball
bearings above a very thick sheet of lead would be likely to
yield an acceleration measurably below
9.8 m/s^{2},
and I recommend experiments in this line.*
The math above also implies that all celestial bodies, including
exotics like black holes and neutron stars, have gravitational
fields that vary as their radii vary. It suggests in the
strongest possible way that the huge additional forces
hypothesized for exotics are either wrong or are mainly a
function of a superstrong E/M field, solar winds, or other as
yet unknown interactions, interactions that have nothing to do
with gravity per
se. This
means we must reconsider all our theories for exotics, and indeed
for nonexotics. Our theory has existed with a very large hole in
it and now we must recalculate many things.
The implications of this paper are beyond number. I could not
begin to address them here, even as a list. I begin to address
them in other papers, but it will take physics decades to come to
terms with the full import of this discovery. Those who have
claimed that physics is nearly over will be glad to discover that
they have something left to do.
December 2008: I have now
discovered wellknown proof for my predictions here. My number
for the foundational E/M field of the Earth, .009545 m/s^{2},
is .1% of the total field, 9.8 m/s^{2}.
In my paper on the
Bohr magneton, I remind my reader that 80 years of
experiments have shown a .1% error in the magneton. This is
direct proof of the existence of the charge field at the
macrolevel, as I predict in this paper. I not only have found
the field, I have found the right number for it.
June
2009: More proof of this number now comes from my paper on
Atmospheric Pressure,
where I develop the number .009545 by completely independent
means, in an astonishing demonstration with diagram.
*Some
data already exists on this. I have reminded my readers in my
Unified Field paper
that in the 1940’s the Dutch geophysicist and ocean explorer F.
A. Vening Meinesz showed that gravity is very slightly stronger
over deep oceans. According to my theory outlined in this paper,
this is not due to blocking, but the reverse. Oceans are less
dense than land masses, creating less summed emission of the E/M
field. A weaker E/M field creates a stronger Unified or compound
field, and thereby greater weight.
[March 25, 2008: Go to
An
Update on Weight for more on this
topic.]
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 Smiththat 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.
