Page 1 of 1

### The Solid of Time

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:37 pm
Has someone had a talk with Miles Mathis?
This guy is an undercover shill for RS2 and he doesn't even know it.

Firstly, if you haven't already, scoot on over here and take a look at his derivation of tangential velocity.

Let me save you the suspense.

v = ω÷r

Yes, the inverse of v = ω×r

Thus, r = ω÷v

But, the units! acceleration divided by length is velocity?

Of course, s ÷ t = 1
That's a given.

Multiplying an acceleration by a time yields a velocity (we all know that); conversely, dividing an acceleration by a length the same yields a velocity (we should know that). It's all about how we want to scale the motion.

Therefore, a tangential velocity (1D) in proportion to an orbital acceleration (2D from our perspective) yields a real radius.

I see time.

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:32 am
user737 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:37 pm
Has someone had a talk with Miles Mathis?
This guy is an undercover shill for RS2 and he doesn't even know it
Actually yes a good while ago Gopi met him and they discussed things. I too have been in contact with him in the past but found his ego got in the way of serious discussion, he doesn't like reading the theories of other researchers and once his mind is made up on something he won't change it.

Other than that he is spot on about a majority of topics especially the charge field and what the spooks are up to (but not global geoengineering or ancient history for example) and we've been linking to his website and posting about his papers for years now on https://fora.conscioushugs.com/ and https://forum.antiquatis.org/.

He likes to do things his way which is a shame as he has closed off other avenues of research that would give him a clearer view of the big picture. Other than that, I quite like him and his angry rants, you can tell he has Scottish blood.

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Thu May 02, 2019 8:13 am
Djchrismac wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:32 am
Other than that he is spot on about a majority of topics especially the charge field and what the spooks are up to (but not global geoengineering or ancient history for example) and we've been linking to his website and posting about his papers for years now on https://fora.conscioushugs.com/ and https://forum.antiquatis.org/.
What specifically can you cite of Miles' work for which you are claiming "spot on?" Spot on in what manner? Accurate in observation? Perhaps your definition of "spot on" varies from mine as what I believe to be much closer to "spot on" being RS/RS2 and not in particular Miles' work. This suggests partial truth at best.

Can you expound on Miles concept of the charge field? What would be the corresponding basis in RS/RS2? If I could fit the two systems of thought together in a few places I think I may be able to get the rest to fit as well.

Straight from Miles:
http://milesmathis.com/uft.html para. 14 from the top
To be specific, I will show that the gravitational force is always a force in vector opposition to the electromagnetic force, and that these two subtract to give us a resultant force. This resultant force is the one we measure and call gravity.
Wow. I'm not sure what to say. Exactly right.
Bruce is keen to note that we have never measured an E/M field outside of a gravitational field.
What we call an attractive force ("gravity") is in actuality a compound field consisting of Miles' "E/M charge field" and gravitation.
The problem of the Himalayas is easy to solve once you realize that gravity is not an attraction. It is a motion. It is real acceleration, and it is a real acceleration in the direction that a real acceleration is required to create the force. That is, its direction is outward from the center of the Earth. As a matter of gravity, the Himalayas are moving up, they are not moving sideways.
Out, not up, but go on.
Now, it is true that by this assumption all objects are expanding, not just the Earth.
Scalarly rotationally outward in time, linearly inward in space, yes.
And the distance between them is also expanding. The tree and I are expanding sideways, but the ground between us is, too. Since the rate of expansion is equal for all of us, there is no relative motion...This is why we don't see this motion that causes gravity.
Mind blown.
Gravity is no longer a pulling force, it is an apparent motion caused by expansion.
OK, stop. I can't take anymore. This is getting too good.

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Fri May 03, 2019 9:15 am
Miles goes on to show that what we measure for "gravity" (net speed of a compound field) creates a net inward acceleration vector toward the center of mass.

"Gravity" is a net acceleration balance based on radius of the gravitating body and the opposing "E/M field" acceleration, caused by bombardment of photons in the opposite (scalar) direction than that of gravity; the E/M field is an outward real acceleration from all locations (progression). Look at that, vector displacement in 3D space with clock time is viewed as "lines of force" created by two opposing scalar fields: gravity inward, E/M "charge field" outward. The "force" of gravity isn't even created until we have an opposing motion. Where have we seen this before?

The inward real acceleration (motion) that we call "gravity" (in truth a compound field) is in actuality gravity minus the "E/M field". The E/M field is density dependent and falls off exponentially as the fourth power (motion in time being in equivalent space, a second-power relationship: (r2)2 → r4) of the radius of the spherical distribution created in 3D space.

As the gravitating body gets smaller in space (larger in time), the combination of motions that product the net "force" are reciprocally modified. Smaller bodies would create a higher E/M flux density nearer the surface of the body (and extending spherically outward in space in all directions) than would a larger body where that flux would be nominally spread over a larger surface area to begin. This makes the E/M field a function of both mass (or density per volume) and distance from the center of the source (radius of the corresponding spherical projection in space, squared, as we are spreading this "force" (opposing motions) over the surface area of a "bubble" expanding perpetually outward in time (Miles claims in space but we'll let this faux pas pass for now).

Gravity becomes a function of radius only. This makes sense as points in extension space, as observed from a material perspective, being the first derivative of speed with respect to time (i.e. distance), are in actuality speeds, not static points on a spacial grid. (We have, in our minds if you will, taken the derivative with respect to time one step too far (dv/dt → x... our consciousness must do this to halt the scalar expansion and in exchange create extension space as observation.) If you are running away from me and I am accelerating it is not enough that you match my acceleration if you are to maintain relative your position with respect to my position, you must also match my initial speed (over equivalent time intervals) or I simply move out from you like a sweet, sweet Camaro SS walking away from a Mustang GT on the highway. This is the same principle underlying how various gravitating bodies establish stable orbits based on achieving zero net speed with respect to the body being orbited. Gravitational "attraction" must match speed and acceleration to create stability (at a given distance between two bodies). This means size (speed, radius, or distance) of the expanding bodies becomes a primary (read: only) factor.

Mass, an expression of density times volume (where volume is just a third-power relationship of speed) is also a consideration in the determination of the "E/M charge field" motion (progression) and includes a similar consideration for distance (r2) due to finite "speed of light." This part doesn't quite sit right with me as it feels as though the E/M field (as observed) must be the reciprocal of what should be, i.e. if the strength of the outward E/M field is to be analogous to the outward push of the progression from all points in space, the force calculation should not be a function of mass, or density, or volume but rather inverse mass, or inverse density, or inverse volume as we are speaking of the expansion of space, not mass (time).

Would this then make the conjugate force in counterspace to be the greater of the two (i.e. in counterspace the "E/M force" would be much greater than "gavity)? It seems, YES! On the other side of the unit boundary, where geometry inverts, the direction (outward/inward) of the progression and gravity reverse and so their relative magnitudes (but not primary considerations) would reverse as well. Just as if I flipped the reciprocal relationship of space and time over on it's head!

Gravity is spacial. Progression is counter-spacial (from the perspective of a material, i.e. spacial, observer). This got me thinking yesterday... if all atoms share a location in counter-space at the plane at infinity, where each CSI must be... is this analogous to how here in space all atoms seek the same point at infinity? Do we see once again the geometric duality inherent in the material and cosmic sectors? Appears as though what comes together in space also comes together in time, albeit reciprocally related. And when things happen to come together in both space and time... well then, they fly apart at c!

I think this is starting to really make sense and this is beautiful.

Do we all recognize that Miles' work is yet another prima fascie evidence that RS/RS2 theory is right once more!!?

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 10:47 am
Here I will dissect another of Miles' articles @ http://milesmathis.com/ug.html

This one has to do with G, the "Universal Gravitational Constant," which is really just a hodgepodge of missing considerations lumped together and applied to transform one misunderstood equation into one misunderstood result.

The dimensions of G, as currently defined, are L3/MT2.
That's length cubed per mass, time squared. Ugly all day.

Ironically enough, if we take Maxwell's unit analysis for mass to be truth, we get M = L3/T2 making G dimensionless as M/M = 1. And purely scalar.

Now, before we get too much further into this I want to point out that while L3/T2 does imply a 3-dimensional acceleration (or a volume acceleration), units being what they are, there is some difference from the RS/RS2 definition of mass which is given as t3/s3. Here we use space instead of length (same difference) but also as well see the power of time in the denominator is increased from 2 to 3. The elephant in the room is that space and time and inverted from what we would expect.

The missing dimension of time can be attributed to the normalization process done by our consciousness in observation of scalar motion. In the case of scalar motion we have inverse speed, or energy (t/s) in 3 dimensions (three ratios of space and time). Within a gravitational limit we observe mass as located at a point in 3D space with clock time uniformly progressing in all directions. We have normalized mass to time by dividing by 1×t (clock time) as this is our scaling factor for material observation. Time must be normalized to unity for all dimensions of motion in order to create our Euclidean perspective. This does nothing to the magnitude of the result (factor of 1) but does allow for re-introduction of the "missing" time dimension in Maxwell's proportionality (being an observation from another relative frame of motion and not made from the natural reference frame). This is the differentiation done by our consciousness that allows for observation of relative change, or motion.

This makes sense as Maxwell not realizing that his equation E = kQq/R2 as already being a unified equation (containing both electromagnetic and gravitational motion) would have not understood the need to translate all motions back to the natural reference frame. This makes Maxwell's definition of mass consistent with the RS/RS2 definition of mass and as well means we can move forward with our critique as presented but will undoubtedly encounter other issues due the inversion of space and time.

I am continually amazed by Miles' (assumed) insistence NOT to take a closer look at what RS/RS2 has to offer in the way of further understanding of the concepts he is proposing. I see much parallel between the two and in fact believe Miles' work is some of the first of the kind that will be critical in the "back-porting" of these new concepts to existing observation. It's rather disappointing to say the least the he has not been brought further into the RS/RS2 fold.

With that being said, Miles sets up the problem as such:
Let there be two equal spheres of radius r touching at a point. We know that according to the theories of Newton and Einstein there must be a gravitational force at that point, but neither math allows us to calculate it. Newton's math cannot apply since there is no distance between the objects; Einstein's math cannot apply because there is no field at a point.
Two spheres of zero distance separation i.e. the two objects are within one unit distance at a single "point" tangent to both surfaces.
...let us move our twin spheres s distance apart for a moment. If there is a gravitational force, then after a time interval Δt, this distance will diminish by Δs.
And here we have our first example of the cognitive dissonance that is Miles' work in this regard. Miles has admitted on many occasion and in fact makes use of the principle of equivalence of length (space or distance, s) and time (t). This is the basis of relativity and is also liberally applied throughout his work.

Here we speak of some change in time equal to the interval Δt. Is this not the equivalent of Δs? And if they are indeed reciprocally related, as they are and as in the case of the speed of light, the background of our universe, as indicated by Einstein and now re-affirmed by Miles, can we not attribute the same causation to both accounts? If gravity is indeed an outward expansion as Miles claims, can not this expansion be outward in time with a corresponding perceived inward in space motion? Seems to me this must be the case.
Why has the distance diminished? Because a force between the two spheres pulled them closer—this is the classical and current interpretation given to the situation. But can we give it another interpretation? Yes, we can say that both spheres are expanding and that they moved into the distance between them. By the classical interpretation, the centers of the spheres moved toward each other. By my interpretation, they did not.
Here we see conventional "understanding" conjure up spooky forces to explain away the apparent motion. As we know to be the case, forces are simply a conjugate means of providing mechanical explanation for acceleration in space and are neither causal nor a-causal in their own right. Good to see Miles does not fall for this dirty trick.

Miles suggests the spheres are expanding. His mistake is expansion in space whereas this could be viewed as an expansion in time. This should be obvious as all motion within a quantum of time (Time Region) is motion in time, any increase in an aspect of motion would be an increase in the aspect of motion in time. As space is fixed at unity, this aspect of the motion would be viewed as repeating even though time is progressing. We view this as rotation. These are what we observe as atoms. Any increase in motion would be an increase in the time aspect, again being space is fixed at unity.
With my change in theory, you can see that we no longer have to assign Δs to the diminishing distance between the spheres. We can assign it to a change in the radii of the spheres. This being so, we can move the spheres back together, touching at a point. After a time Δt, the radius of each sphere will have changed Δs/2.
As we no longer are assigning Δs to the diminishing distance between the spheres, let's instead assign the reciprocal, Δt. After a time Δt the radius of each sphere will have changed cΔt/2, or Δs/2 from the perspective of our fixed spacial reference system.

He derives these dimensions from a simple substitution into two classical equations.

The first of which is
a = m/r2
Here I must stop as I do not understanding the basis for this equation, at least not in terms of RS/RS2. If you take mass to be L3/T2 the relationship does hold water, at least from the perspective of proper dimensional reduction.

To start, it does not appear as though dimensional analysis would allow for this equality.

a = (s/t2) ≠ m x (1/r2) = (t3/s3) × (1/s2) = t3/s5

Again, the units for mass appear to be inverted. Almost as if the mass field is being called a gravitational field (yes, mass is the field, making gravity the "point" we call mass!) and is correspondingly flipped upside-down (... and inside-out, and backwards). As well, the dimensional power for time is off as previously noted.

First mystery is why does Maxwell have mass backwards (inverted)?

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 3:00 pm
Again, the units for mass appear to be inverted. Almost as if the mass field is being called a gravitational field (yes, mass is the field, making gravity the "point" we call mass!) and is correspondingly flipped upside-down (... and inside-out, and backwards). As well, the dimensional power for time is off as previously noted.

s3/t3 is the speed of the Earth expansion (when speaking of gravity at the surface of this planet)... outwards in all directions (3 dimensions of speed, s/t).

From Bruce:
Mass (inverse speed) is rotationally inward, meaning that gravity (speed) is radially outward--expansion.
L3/T2, the units of mass from Maxwell, need to be inverted if we modify our viewpoint to attribute the inward linear motion in space to the radially outward 3D speed that IS gravity (flip the vector from inward towards the center to outward from the center). This makes sense as gravitational motion is a motion that originates from inside the unit boundary of space (or time, in the case of temporal gravity) and so we would intuitively view this inside-out being observers on the other side of the unit speed boundary.

Before we do that, however, let's look at one other issue: the dimensionality of time in this ratio of proportionality.

If L3/T2 = M (mass) then L3/T3 = M/T or mass per time. This makes sense as this normalization is an artifact of clock time... distances are in actuality speed (mass/weight) and so in order to revert to speeds in the natural reference frame we must add back the missing time component!

If we invert, by attributing the inward movement in space to the outward movement in time... again, mass (inverse speed) is rotationally inward, meaning that gravity (speed) is radially outward--expansion, we end up with T3/L3 or t3/s3.

Just stumbled on this from Wikipedia (oh, save us, oh god of wikipedia... heed my call...):
Natural units

The gravitational constant is taken as the basis of the Planck units: it is equal to the cube of the Planck length divided by the product of the Planck mass and the square of Planck time:

G = 1 = lp3/(mp × tp2)

In other words, in Planck units, G has the numerical value of 1.
Well isn't that interesting. At unit distance, G = 1. This tells me we are already in the right domain and no transformation is required. Clearly, G transforms 3D motion in time (unobservable) to a 1D force vector in space (observable), and also contains a number of unnatural unit conversation factors by definition.

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 5:06 pm
After additional reading on Miles' theory I am left of the opinion that the E/M "charge" field must comprise the 3D extension space out to the gravitational limit and each absolute location in this field must be a (spinning) photon. Miles' E/M charge field IS the progression and it is described as an "ether" of light (photons) at every location moving outward from every mass (expressed as charge, a mass equivalence). Because of this acceleration outward a corresponding force is developed only when this motion intersects with another motion, such as gravitational motion. We call this "force," as in "force of gravity." There is no force. Only motion.

More Miles (see here):
The charge field is primary, and it sets the ion field. Not the reverse. Light doesn't move in the E/M field. Light moves in the charge field, which is its own field. Light is charge and charge is light. Strictly, light doesn't move in any field. Light IS the fundamental field. The motion of light sets all the fields in sizes above it.
This fundamental field IS the charge field IS the progression and so relative to the progression light does not move. The "speed of light" IS the progression. The field must be a field of something and that something is photons. How else could you physically impart a "force?" And Miles doesn't understand RS/RS2 theory? Baloney. He is being purposefully obtuse.
In this way, charge field theory ties into Relativity, since Einstein basically proposed the same thing. In telling us that the motion of light determined the motion of everything else, Einstein was saying the same thing I am.
Uh, huh. Still not sure you understand the full implication of what you're saying, either.
To finetune your understanding of my charge field, we may go directly to Maxwell's paper of March, 1861 On Physical Lines of Force. Early in that paper, we find him explaining the magnetic field as a function of stress (p. 164).

We must therefore represent the magnetic force at a point by a stress having a single axis of greatest or least pressure, and all the pressures at right angles to this axis equal. It may be objected that it is inconsistent to a represent a line of force, which is essentially dipolar, by an axis of stress which is necessarily isotropic; but we know that every phenomenon of action and reaction is isotropic in its results, because the effects of the force of the bodies between which it acts are equal and opposite, while the nature and origin of the force may be dipolar, as in the attraction between a north and a south pole.
Electric motion (current) is 1D-- s/t; magnetic motion is 2D-- (s2/t2). Linear motion gives us the electric dipole (1-x). Magnetism, a second power relationship, where motion extends into a second dimension (2-x), must be represented in equivalent space, which is 2D. The first unit of motion being linear; the second must be rotational (energy)... spin.
You should see that my spinning photons solve this problem immediately, since every “point” in the field can be inhabited by a real photon, and that real particle already has potential forces at right angles to one another. Maxwell's problem here never comes up for me. In my field, every point is already sub-magnetic and sub-electric, since every single photon already has the motions that cause both fields.
Miles even puts 'point' in quotes! Confirmation of my above position: real photons everywhere. Sounds like the rotational base at all points in coordinate space. Nowadays we recognize this as Bruce's work to create a symmetry to the outward linear motion of gravity with a corresponding inward scalar rotation that we call spin.

My God, it's full of quaternions!
In the charge field, the photons are the field.
Excellent. Nowhere to hide now.
Yes, each photon has a tiny magnetic field of its own, caused by its own spin. But that isn't enough to create a magnetic field we can measure.
Makes sense. Photon being a quaternion, a 2D structure.... magnetic. Rotation about an axis, a single dimension in equivalent (2D) space.

I disagree that we cannot measure this affect. We used to call this weight. Weight per speed or mass. This is primary mass except we elect to label this charge. There is no gravitational "attraction," there is no like charge "repulsion" or unlike charge "attraction." Mass and charge are fundamentally same. Mass (t3/s3) is just 3-dimensional energy (t/s).
If you have photons but no larger particles or objects, your photon spins are chaotic and don't sum to anything, not even locally. Nothing above the size of the photon will feel any magnetic effect.
Why is this, Miles? Perhaps because each photon being located within unit space (Time Region, TR) cannot to interact with anything outside of unit space? Because the motion does not extend outside of unit space there is no effect outside of unit space.

There must be mass to recycle charge from the charge field, as per Miles' theory of operation. No mass, no recycling of charge, no alignment of charge field. This just goes to show there cannot be electric and magnetic fields outside of a gravitational limit (good reason #2 we haven't made these measurements; absolute reason #1: can't be done) as without mass (3D inverse speed) there is no alignment of the "charge" field, ergo no measurable field. Simply introducing the sensor, made of atoms, creates the field to be measured! The sensor is a sensor both literally and figuratively! Otherwise stated: no observer, no observation.
Light does not move in the E/M field, ions move in the light field. The motions and spin of photons create everything, including ionization, magnetism, current, and so on. The charge field is the fundamental field, and the E/M field is only a creation of it.
Well said.

Please allow me to make a slight detour...from Etidorhpa; Or, the End of Earth: The Strange History of a Mysterious Being and the Account of a Remarkable Journey: Chapter XXVI. Motion From Inherent Energy.—“Lead Me Deeper Into This Expanding Study.” Fascinating...
...

"Perhaps you can accept now that instead of light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and gravitation being really modifications of force they are disturbances."

"Disturbances of what?"

"Disturbances of motion."

"Motion of what?"

"Motion of itself, pure and simple."

"I can not comprehend, I can not conceive of motion pure and simple."

...
We must conceive that which is. This is our reality. Abstract change or motion is the underlying basis for all. As motion (or light AS motion) is the basis for everything (right, Miles?) there cannot be a further sub-division. What more, motion being the default state, this Universe is in a constant state of motion. That motion IS the progression (expansion from unity at c) IS the "E/M charge field" much like an incredibly-high frame rate. Space is an illusion and is but a shadow; nothing. Rather esoteric, but there it is staring us in the face.

Back to point: once more... so precisely how does light move, Miles? How can light move (i.e. linear translation) in a medium of light? (hint: it can't) If the speed of light is a limit, as you so claim, then how pray-tell can there be additional (additive) motion in excess of light speed? If photons moving outward (by definition at c; *please* don't attempt to argue that these photons are not moving at c) comprise the E/M "charge" field, and the ions move within this field, then ionic motion in the same direction in coordinate space as the outward motion of the E/M "charge" field would exceed c! BIG PROBLEM!!

Well then, please allow me to save the day. If I'm on a bus that's moving at c (the primary motion that is the E/M "charge" field), and I stand up (in this analogy I'm the ion) and begin to walk to the front of the bus as it continues moving forward at c, am I exceeding the speed of light? YES! Well, not from our relativistic point of view, but yes, this would be seen as inverse speed as I'm moving FTL! I'm moving in time on the other side of the unit speed boundary! On the other hand, motion in the reverse direction in coordinate space (i.e. opposite direction) would be at some speed less than the speed of light. Seems to me this is how "ponderable" energy (mass) comes into existence. First, nullify the outward progression, otherwise you just continuously move out towards "infinity."

In conclusion, Miles is so close. He sets up the charge field as primary... OK, outward acceleration of primary locations in space with intrinsic spin... good so far. The he overlays the E/M field on top of this being that 1D electric and 2D magnetic motion (don't forget gravitation: 3D motion) have their genesis in the motions that are the photon. Bing. Photons and atoms then further interact... check, charge is imparted causing ionization by energy transfered. He calls this a push outward due to real bombardment by real photons which impart real momentum/energy via spin (torque).

Contra this we have gravity. Miles appears to have this backwards as he does not properly attribute the motion to motion in time but rather motion in space, claiming we cannot sense the motion of gravity that is the Earth "rising" in all places because all locations are moving uniformly relative to one another and since we cannot sense any change (yes, Virginia, we cannot sense not-change... change is ALL we sense... cognitive dissonance #2!) we mis-perceive the outward motion of gravity (in time) for the reciprocal inward motion in space. As well, because of this Miles inadvertently flips the space-time units for mass not realizing that the outward speed of gravitation (in time) has as its conjugate an inward linear acceleration (motion) in space we call gravity. The inverse speed (3D energy) that IS mass CREATES the perceived motion that IS gravity (to our material senses).

Both fields (of motion) ARE in the same direction! Progression (E/M charge field) is away from unity in space. Gravity is toward unity in time, away from unity in space. The apparent motion that we call gravity, as observed in space, would be perceived opposite in direction than that of progression (E/M charge field). But then, you already know this, don't you, Miles?

Fine, you can't wrap your head around motion for the sake of motion. Well, you can sense change, OK!

The only true units of measure are distance (space) and time. Everything else is an artificial construct of man. The ratio of space to time is speed (s/t)--no direction--and the ratio of time to space (t/s) is energy (also scalar). Light is motion and motion is light. Motion is change. Light is change. All is changing. All is light. You are light; I am light. The light is everything.

Motion is all there is. Larson said it best: Nothing but motion.

...all the while acknowledging the equality of space and time (i.e. Minkowski 4D space).... join us in RS/RS2, Miles! The water's great!

In closing:
The first postulate we must be reminded of is that time and distance are theoretically interchangeable, in some ways. What I mean is that a distance separation implies a necessary time separation. -- Miles Mathis
Not just in some ways... in all ways. We must recognize that c is not a limit; it's a ratio of proportionality.
x = ct (let's use s for x) → c = s/t, space per time (speed) or 1/c = t/s (energy)

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 8:48 am
user737 wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 10:47 am
First mystery is why does Maxwell have mass backwards (inverted)?
The usual twisting and suppression of someone who was onto something big:

“Maxwell’s” vector equations taught in university are actually Heaviside’s truncated equations, and are only a simplified version of what Maxwell originally wrote.

http://www.cheniere.org/references/maxwell.htm

You've been making some good posts mate, sorry i've been ill and have lots of other stuff to deal with at the moment so my time on here has been limited.

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:41 am
Should we consider this an endorsement of Tom Bearden's work?
Interested to know your thoughts on Tom...
I have one or two books from Tom that I have not nearly completed.
I get the sense he understands that conventional "physics" is severely flawed but like many others is stuck in a material world.

### Re: The Solid of Time

Posted: Mon May 13, 2019 7:09 am
user737 wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:41 am
Should we consider this an endorsement of Tom Bearden's work?
Interested to know your thoughts on Tom...
I have one or two books from Tom that I have not nearly completed.
I get the sense he understands that conventional "physics" is severely flawed but like many others is stuck in a material world.
I don't know much about Bearden other than what's been said on here previously and some good posts on Geoengineering that he's done, the point was that Maxwell's equations were heavily cut and edited after his death and several other sources say the same thing, that his original research was changed or dumbed down on purpose.

A look at some of his work makes me think you are correct, he understands the flaws and lies of science but is missing that extra something (like a dimension of time) to make sense of it all.