Lloyd's Collection of Miles' Predictions

© Lloyd

[Here are a few of Mathis' predictions. I'll add others when I find them.]

[In the paper, A Higgs Update, at http://milesmathis.com/higgs3.pdf , Mathis says this:]
Incredibly, new data from the Higgs is already confirming my summation to my previous paper ( http://milesmathis.com/meson.html ), where I predicted that various large particles could be found in the 120GeV range. This is because my quantum spin equations allow me to predict stacked spins that sum at this energy
[In that previous paper he may have been referring to this:]
If we follow only the data and ignore the rest, we see a much stronger indication of the Z at 91GeV than of the Higgs at 125. The peak is about twice as tall. But more important is the data being ignored at 94, 96, 99, 122, 165 and 180. The data points at 99, 122, 165 and 180 all hit 3 on the chart, almost precisely. That is four points at 75% of the peak at 125, which must bring its sigma down considerably, as I have reminded you above. Then we have the two data points at 94 and 96, charting here at 5.

A Call to Astronomers
http://milesmathis.com/call.html
[] we should be able to see [stars] way around Jupiter [7 arcseconds?], provided that we take our picture off the right edge of Jupiter from the right side of the Earth (as seen in this diagram). If we take a picture off the left edge of Jupiter from the same telescope, we will find many stars obscured that should not be. An additional 7 [arc]seconds [] should be obscured by the left edge. Of course, the number 7 [arc]seconds [] applies only when the Earth is closest to Jupiter. Even greater apparent bending could be achieved by placing the Earth at different positions relative to Jupiter [such as 8.73 arcseconds].

bending of starlight by the planets
http://milesmathis.com/ele.html‎
If you are at the central axis of the Earth, relative to the line from Jupiter, you won't measure any parallax, standard or expansive, and won't measure any bending of starlight. But if you are on any "edge" of the Earth, relative to Jupiter, you will see a much greater amount of parallax than current theory predicts, according to my theory. What this means experimentally is that if Jupiter is low in the sky, toward the horizon, my theory predicts at least 7 seconds of arc more parallax than current theory would provide. --- [] My data consists of just math and numbers, and I have already published the math (above and in the previous papers). My experimental numbers matched my predictions on all planets to within a margin of error of about 10''. Many numbers were exact matches, given my equipment, but other matches were only rough confirmations. --- [] I take the confirmation of my mathematical predictions as confirmation that gravity is in fact a proportional acceleration outward of all bodies, of all sizes.

The Magnetopause calculated by the Unified Field
http://milesmathis.com/pause.html‎
I predict that the ionopause of Venus will be found at near 7.4 Venus radii. If it is less than that, I predict it will be found to be because Venus has very little spin.

Why is Mercury's Magnetism 1% that of the Earth?
http://milesmathis.com/merc2.pdf‎
Venus is right magnetic, and from that we may infer it is a newer addition to the system which has not been equalized to the rest. I predict its slow spin is caused by this mechanism. It was originally spinning "right" faster than it currently is, but the ambient field has slowed it. Over time, it will be stopped and then re-spun to the left. This means that I am predicting a current slowing of the spin of Venus. I am not sure if this has been confirmed yet or not. Venus may have come in from outside the system recently, or it may have been flipped in some collision or close pass.* ---  [] Mercury's magnetism is actually being suppressed by its unnaturally slow spin. Its offset center of mass is causing it to lose 9/10th's of its magnetic field strength. This offset is currently estimated to be 600-700m, which tends to confirm my analysis. But that is less than half the Moon's estimated offset of 2km, and I feel it is probably too small by a large margin. The eccentricity of Mercury indicates a higher offset as well. From comparing Mercury to the Moon, I would predict an offset of something like 6km. I calculate** Mercury would need an offset of about 7km to be synchronous, and it is near that already, having lost 92% of its potential spin.

A New Galactic Structure is more Evidence for my Charge Field
http://milesmathis.com/galcharge.pdf‎
NASA Goddard just released the artist's rendering above of new structures discovered above and below the main plane of the Milky Way. Those purple clouds represent gamma radiation. The article says, galactic-scale structures could be remnants from a burst of star formation or leftovers from an eruption by the supermassive black hole at our galaxy's center. No, they can't be remnants from a burst of star formation or a black-hole eruption, because I predict they will be found to be caused by incoming charge, not from outgoing matter. What you are seeing is the galaxy being fed by external charge coming in from space. Space outside the galaxy is not empty, it is full of charge. This is how the galaxy uses its spin to pull it in. In this way, the galaxy is an analogue of the Earth and the proton, which both do the same thing, as I have shown.

An Experiment to Test the Charge Field
http://milesmathis.com/hight.pdf‎
My theory of charge recycling also explains why the north is hotter than the south. We see record temperatures above 140o in the north, but nearer 120o in the south. Because the ambient charge field is richer in photons than antiphotons, the north is more heavily charged year-round. This would also explain why the South Pole is colder than the North Pole. I have already predicted this photon/antiphoton imbalance and discussed it in previous papers, including my paper on the Coriolis Effect . I have used it to explain everything from weather patterns to beta decay to the magnetopause to the charge profile of Venus.  My theory of charge recycling also explains why the north is hotter than the south. We see record temperatures above 140o in the north, but nearer 120o in the south. Because the ambient charge field is richer in photons than antiphotons, the north is more heavily charged year-round. This would also explain why the South Pole is colder than the North Pole. I have already predicted this photon/antiphoton imbalance and discussed it in previous papers, including my paper on the Coriolis Effect . I have used it to explain everything from weather patterns to beta decay to the magnetopause to the charge profile of Venus.
--- [] I will be told that these maximum temperatures are caused by climate, not by charge. If my charge theory were true, the entire latitude of 30o would be composed of deserts or hot spots, and it isn't. China is cooler in the south than the north, and New Orleans isn't nearly as hot as Death Valley or Presidio. But while climate is certainly a factor, it is secondary. Things like elevation and weather patterns certainly come into the mix, but the baseline is still determined by charge. New Orleans is not a desert, and it is not as hot as Death Valley, but it is plenty hot. And we have been looking at air temperatures so far, not ground temperatures. The air temperatures in New Orleans are indeed mitigated by climate and weather patterns, but I predict that ground temperatures at equal elevations and depths are quite high at 30o in Louisiana and China, just as high as Death Valley or the Lut Desert. Beyond that, I can turn the tables and ask the climatologists to explain why these deserts are at 30o N. Yes, the deserts are a result of elevation and climate, in part , but not all low elevations in similar weather positions create deserts. Any quick study of latitude variations tells us that something is happening here other than elevation and climate and weather patterns. These extremely high temperatures can't be predicted from climate, elevation, or weather patterns. It must be ground and sub-ground temperatures that are driving all the other factors, and these temperatures are the result of charge recycling.
--- [] I predict two things: 1) the average temperatures found at 30o N will be higher than at 23o N or at the equator. 2) the average temperatures N will be higher than S. Since current theory has no way to explain higher ground temperatures at depth at 30o, and my theory does, this would be a confirmation of charge recycling. The same goes for the N-S variation. Current theory has no way to explain higher ground temperatures at 30o N than S, and my theory does.

The Great Misunderstanding of Antimatter
http://milesmathis.com/anti.html‎
[] the muon experiment is taking place in the magnetic field of the Earth. Locally, we have a preponderance of photons over anti-photons, and this is causing the over-production of muons directly. I predict that if the experiment was extended over longer times, the over-production would be even greater. This is because mechanically we are seeing the photon field suppressing all the spins of the anti-muons.

Photons, stacked spins & the silver mean family
http://milesmathis.com/mhphoton.pdf‎
Since I have shown that a simple meson equation can predict levels based on nothing but stacked spins, and since these spins can easily produce very large, very unstable particles of the required sizes, it is not necessary to believe that the W and Z are borrowed from the vacuum in some mysterious process, in order to break a manufactured mathematical symmetry. As you can see, my meson equation can be used to predict other even larger particles at higher energies, and these larger particles are related to smaller ones by factors of two, in the first instance.

The Double Slit Experiment
http://milesmathis.com/double.html‎
[] now for the prediction. If we purposely fire our particle so that it fails to go through either slit, and it hits the central wall and reflects, I predict that we will find the same interference pattern on the near wall that we found on the far wall. Given the current explanation of Feynman and others, there is no way this could be true. We have no particles going through slits, therefore no sum-over solution will explain the interference. But my solution accounts for it in a very straightforward way. In my solution, it is the central wall that is creating the initial interference pattern, and due to the position of the central wall, it must be creating the same pattern both backwards and forwards.

Bohr Magneton
http://milesmathis.com/magneton.html‎
all the historical and current experiments on the electron that show this .1% error are now proof of my theory. I predicted a .1% variance several years ago in the linked paper, before knowing of or studying the Bohr magneton. [] a misreading of the scattering equations means we have the atomic size about 100 times too small, so my new equation also fits that prediction and correction very well. The Bohr radius is 177 times larger than we thought.

Quantum Entanglement
http://milesmathis.com/entang.html‎
as long as we know sizes and wavelengths, we can predict comparative wave positions at any distance or time away from collision. - This is the mechanical explanation of entanglement, without spooky forces. Albert and Bell have both been proven wrong, by direct demonstration.

The Third Wave: a New Definition of Gravity part 6 by Miles Mathis ...
http://milesmathis.com/third6.html‎
[] historical application of temperature to kinetic energy is just an assumption. It has never been proved. To prove it would require comparing the average velocities of two different gases. This would require a direct measurement of the velocity of many individual molecules, not a calculation of velocity from kinetic energy. [] Some kind of speed trap that could measure individual molecules would be required, and this has never been done, to my knowledge. 2) It probably will be done at some point in the near future, and my prediction is that the variation in velocities of different gases will not be nearly as great as has been assumed from historical theory. If there are the same number of molecules in a mole of gas, no matter the gas, and if the kinetic energies must be equal to explain the equal pressure, then the average velocities of different gases should be very different. By the equation mv2/2, a molecule of neon that has five times the mass of a molecule of hydrogen should be going 1/√5 times as fast. That is, more than twice as slow as the hydrogen molecule. I predict that the data will not bear this out. A difference in velocities between lighter gases and heavier gases will no doubt be found, but this difference will be much less than current theory can explain.

What Causes the Earth's Heat? CHARGE.
http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf‎
I predict that when this all comes out in the wash, it will turn out that radioactive isotopes are not responsible for even 1% [of Earth's heat]. Beyond that, it will turn out that this existing radioactivity is due to an underlying cause, which means radioactivity is the root cause of 0% of the heat. What I mean is that the "spontaneous" fission of these larger unstable elements will turn out to be not spontaneous at all, but due to the charge field. It is the charge field that energizes neutrons in the Earth's interior, freeing them up to start fission and thereby radioactivity.

Gravity and Mach's Principle
http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf‎
To truly test the idea, we would have to drop objects many orders of magnitude different sizes from high above the Moon to the surface of the Moon, from a height large enough to cause a clear difference. In that case, my equations would be able to predict the variations due to charge. The current equations would not. The current equations would predict no variation. I would predict measurable variation, and the greater the size difference, the greater the variation.

The Magnetic Fields of Uranus and Neptune.
http://milesmathis.com/uran4.pdf‎
I predict that the magnetic field of Uranus will vary depending on the altitude at which you measure it. [] We don't see the axis of Mercury blown back [but we do with Uranus]. I propose it is because Mercury doesn't have this quadrapole character, with the multiple influences [as Uranus does].

How magnetism works mechanically
http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html‎
In general, photons are emitted by matter and anti-photons are emitted by anti-matter. If we have about the same number of photons and anti-photons, the angular momenta sum to zero, and the E/M field is non-magnetic. This is what I believe is happening on the Moon and on Venus3 and on Mars, so it is neither rare nor exotic. In fact, I predict that the Earth is more rare and more exotic, because it is mainly made of matter. Because it is mainly made of matter, its photons are mainly spinning the same way, which creates a strong magnetic field. This angular momentum is summable; and, due to the huge number of photons in the near environs, the sum is significant.

The Third Wave: a New Definition of Gravity part 7 by Miles Mathis ...
http://milesmathis.com/third7.html‎
my theory implies that mass can vary due strictly to molecular composition or atomic composition, and this is true. It is one of the basic predictions of my theory, in this regard. Meaning that I predict that it will eventually be proved that mass is not just a summation of atomic masses—an adding up of all the masses of the protons and neutrons and electrons. Rather, mass is a summation of bond strengths at all levels. These bond strengths directly create the rigidity I have been talking about. In general, more atoms will create more bonds which will create greater rigidity. But in some circumstances this will not be true. In some cases an object with fewer molecules or fewer atoms would actually have more mass and weight than an object with more molecules or atoms. Since some molecular structures are more rigid than others, these micro-structures must create better weight-bearing and weight-causing macro-structures.

The Cometary Antitail http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf
With my theory, we would predict that retrograde comets should be brighter []. [] A retrograde comet is moving against the magnetic field of the Sun. A majority of the Sun's photons are spinning left, but the retrograde comet is trying to orbit to the right. Therefore the comet is experiencing a sort of "photon spin friction" at all times. As the charge field of the comet interacts with the ambient charge field, we get spin cancellations at the photon level (and therefore at all higher levels). These spin cancellations are caused by actual edge-to-edge collisions of real photons (like opposite cogs colliding), and in these collisions a higher number of photons are re-directed. Being re-directed means they are given escape trajectories from the normal radial trajectory they were previously on. This creates more light escaping the vicinity, which leads to greater brightness for viewers. This creates not just more light, but more heat. It creates a release of energy at all frequencies, since the energies of the cancelled spins must go somewhere. The spins sum to zero, but the energy does not. The two energies are integrated and released.
- [] From my theory, we would predict that any retrograde, short-period comet should be traveling extremely fast. Only speed would allow it to overcome the prograde charge field. And indeed this is what we find. Halley's comet is known to have one of the highest velocities of any object in the Solar System. The comet is traveling at over 250,000 km/hr [[69.4 km/s], which is five to ten times faster than most comets. From this we can confidently predict that we will never find a retrograde, short-period comet that is large and moving slowly. This sort of comet is disallowed for the same reasons that retrograde planets are disallowed. Such a beast simply cannot survive in the left-spinning ambient charge field.

The Strange Moon Enceladus http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf
On the map above, we see two big rubbing circles, as if Enceladus were made of soapstone and you rubbed in a circular motion with sandpaper front and back. [] The difference front and back clearly indicates the influence of an external field of real particles, since the front shows the spokes raying out from the center. This is what we would expect from a real field. [] It is not possible that internal forces could just happen to mimic flow lines predicted by interaction with an external field.

The Moon's Ionosphere as proof of charge recycling http://milesmathis.com/moonion.pdf
If we do find some confirmation of glow on the horizon of the Moon, I predict it will be found to be caused by charge ionization, not by dust.

The Moon Gives up a Secret http://milesmathis.com/moon.html
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 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. [] 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.
- [] December 2008: I have now discovered well-known 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 macro-level, as I predict in this paper. I not only have found the field, I have found the right number for it.

THE CORIOLIS EFFECT DECONSTRUCTED http://milesmathis.com/corio.html
The south pole is being flattened by the same cause that obliterates the nearside crust of the Moon: charge photon bombardment. Interestingly, I predicted this flattening before I knew of it. I wrote it into this paper, and only then Googled on it.

The Central Discoveries of this Book - a top-ten list http://milesmathis.com/central.html
Using these same stacked spins, I am then able to create all the known particles, including the electron, the proton, the neutron, and all mesons and bosons. I am able to develop a simple quantum equation with which I can predict the masses of all known particles. These spins then replace the quark model of QCD, and I am able to show precisely why the quark model must fail, including the loss of the weak force, the strong force, ***asymptotic freedom, broken symmetries, and all the rest. With this same quantum equation, I am able to unify the photon, show how it creates its own wave with spin, and show how Planck's constant is hiding the mass of the photon.

The Easy Solution to the New Saturn Anomaly http://milesmathis.com/sat2.html
The only "modification" we need to gravity is the simple one I have shown in my long paper on the precession of Mercury. We don't need to "modify" gravity at all: we only need to correct the simple mistakes in the field equations we have. In fact, my finding that Einstein's field equations are 4% wrong in the field of the Sun is enough by itself to solve the Saturn anomaly. The accepted value for the precession of Saturn is .1836 arcsec/cy.4 If we multiply that by .04, we obtain .007. That is nearly in the middle of the range calculated by Pitjeva, as you see. I solved the problem before I even knew of it. To put it another way, I predicted in 2007 that Einstein's field equations were 4% wrong. In 2008, that prediction was confirmed by data from Saturn.

The Third Wave - A Redefinition of Gravity http://milesmathis.com/third.html
8. Part VI. The Ideal Gas Law as proof of the Third Wave. I make a prediction, verifiable within the next decade, that the Ideal Gas Law will prove the reality of expansion.

The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity Part V - The Aberration of Starlight and other problems http://milesmathis.com/third5.html
This explanation allows me to make a very important prediction of my own. Eddington confirmed Einstein's prediction only because his telescope was positioned on the correct side of the earth. You can see from my second diagram that only the right side of the earth would be in a position to capture the starlight. In fact, a telescope positioned on the left side of the earth looking at a star on the right side of the sun would find just the opposite "bending". Rather than seeing stars it was predicted not to see, it would not see stars it was predicted to see. The sun would seem to be blocking even more starlight than it should. [] And it doesn't even require great precision. The clumsiest measurements will show a variation from side to side, if it exists as I predict. Seven or eight seconds of arc can be seen by medium sized telescopes, even on the horizon, provided the location and atmospheric conditions are optimal.

Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat http://milesmathis.com/euclid.html
I don't see any reason that Fermat cannot be proved with straight geometry and simple math. In fact, I predict it will be, perhaps in my lifetime.

The Cavendish Experiment http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
[] the E/M field is 1.86 times as strong as the gravitational field in this experiment. Which means that, if not for the walls, Cavendish would have found a repulsion! - According to this logic, it should be quite easy to falsify any Cavendish machine in spectacular fashion. But you wouldn't expect to be able to do it in any room. Someone should take a Cavendish machine (one that is encased) to the top of a mountain, mount it on a very high pole, and then mirror the laser down onto the ground, where it can be read from a distance. [] But I predict, rather confidently, that the mountain will provide the reverse effect. An open field might even do it.

A Complete Correction to and Explanation of Bode's Law.
http://milesmathis.com/bode.html
Abstract: This is not “an improved version” of the law, this is the FULL mechanical solution. In short, Bode's law, or my correction to it, is just a simple extension of the orbital equation a = v2/r. First, I show the sequence is a function of the square root of two, rewriting Newton's orbital equation to prove it. Then, I show a further correction to that sequence by importing the charge field into the equations. This shows that the planets orbit where they do due to both the orbital (gravity) equation and the charge field.