I've been reading some of his writings
found here
http://www.amperefitz.com/
he is big on phase symmetry
I know RS says frequency is derived from s/t units and not the bottom line
similar to Mathis's charge isn't the bottom line
but if we consider writing the universe program in "cobal" instread of 0101010"s or (0,1,0),(0,1,1)etc
then it's just a translation problem
and he might be bringing some new or helping to flesh out RS
i do like his style
Daniel J Fitzpatrick
What if Miles is all wrong
What if Miles is all wrong about his charge field and there is only a gravitational field that IS the magnetic field? This follows the Circles of Apollonius of Perga; same guy from the conic sections.
Dimensional problems
His charge field works, if you are dealing only with spatial relationships. (Same thing with the "electric universe" theory). The problem here is dimensional:What if Miles is all wrong about his charge field and there is only a gravitational field that IS the magnetic field?
- Charge = t/s
- Magnetism = t^{2}/s^{2}
- Gravity = s^{3}/t^{3}
Every dogma has its day...
gravity is just the
...and is not antimatter (c-matter) the reciprocal of matter, too, which would make gravity synonymous with antimatter?gravity is just the reciprocal of mass
Conjugate mass/gravity
c-matter is the conjugate of m-matter, not the inverse because m-mass has its location in space and structure in time (time region), whereas c-mass has its location in time and structure in space (space region). When you invert m-mass, to m-gravity, you still have location in space and structure in time; it is just expressed as speed rather than energy....and is not antimatter (c-matter) the reciprocal of matter, too, which would make gravity synonymous with antimatter?
Every dogma has its day...
Yup but this difference is
Yup but this difference is not apparent when only units of these phenomena are compared.