You are right, he does think independently. As they say... respect!
As for the mass, he picked it off of a page from Maxwell (Article 5, Chapter 1, see attached page), who used this argument:
F = ma = GmM/r2
a = GM/r2
Now, AD HOC assumption: G is dimensionless. Note, this is where he is using his intuition, which is telling him that G is something that is an error of using the wrong units. He is partially correct, as the dimensions in this case lie neither with G, M, nor r, as they are all multiplicative numbers, and not quantities. They are derived from ratios in Reciprocal System. Hence, it is:
a = 1* GM/r2
And the 1 has the unit acceleration, so in this case the dimensions are in the UNITS.
So, from his assumption of G being dimensionless, we have:
M = ar2 = (s/t2)*s2 = s3/t2
And with mass gone, charge got confused as well.
Time (Miles Mathis)
Update
Update on Miles Mathis.
After interacting with him personally, it became clear that very often we were talking about similar concepts. There is a language difference between his approach and the reciprocal system, for the most part. For those of you who might be trying to follow his papers using RS:
Charge field Unit Progression
Flip the sign of g Gravity is just acceleration (he uses it in General Relativity)
B-photon unit speed
Stacked spins Larson's a-b-c notation
4th power relation Time region motion
Lines on the graphs Coupling to the Conventional Reference System
Finite time-intervals Discrete unit requirements
Pi equals 4 "... and its geometry is Euclidean"
These are just the highlights, a full analysis will take a while. There are several topics on which Miles' contributions are fully independent and thorough and deserve full merit, such as the ones on Relativity, on tides, and on Nuclear diagrams. Similarly, Larson's identification of multi-dimensional motion and high speed motion is also stand alone from the side of Larson, so it is hard to find parallels in those areas.
Hope this helps.
After interacting with him personally, it became clear that very often we were talking about similar concepts. There is a language difference between his approach and the reciprocal system, for the most part. For those of you who might be trying to follow his papers using RS:
Charge field Unit Progression
Flip the sign of g Gravity is just acceleration (he uses it in General Relativity)
B-photon unit speed
Stacked spins Larson's a-b-c notation
4th power relation Time region motion
Lines on the graphs Coupling to the Conventional Reference System
Finite time-intervals Discrete unit requirements
Pi equals 4 "... and its geometry is Euclidean"
These are just the highlights, a full analysis will take a while. There are several topics on which Miles' contributions are fully independent and thorough and deserve full merit, such as the ones on Relativity, on tides, and on Nuclear diagrams. Similarly, Larson's identification of multi-dimensional motion and high speed motion is also stand alone from the side of Larson, so it is hard to find parallels in those areas.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for outlining the
Thanks for outlining the parallels between RS an Miles' papers.
I have been studying them too.
Did you ever take him up on his statement: "There is no such thing as scalar motion" appearing in http://milesmathis.com/avr3.pdf ?
I have been studying them too.
Did you ever take him up on his statement: "There is no such thing as scalar motion" appearing in http://milesmathis.com/avr3.pdf ?