Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

moses · Unread post by **moses** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:37 pm

In order for the incoming photons to overpower the emitted photons, the Earth and other large bodies must absorb more than they emit. Lloyd
This assumes that the emitted photons are the same as the incoming photons. After all an atom emits different photons to what it receives, so a nucleus could do the same. Then it would just be a matter of the incoming photons being better absorbed than the emitted photons. This would mean that the source of the incoming photons would be high energy plasma.

The atmosphere is 'lifted' by the large velocity of the gas molecules, which laugh at the photons, and even though there may be a resultant force on the molecules up or down, this resultant force is trivial compared with the momentum of the molecules. But gravity works on these gas molecules just like any other molecules and this helps keep the gas molecules near Earth. Of course electrical factors may be involved also.

Protons
For protons to repel they presumably fire emissions at each other. Also it is extremely likely that protons are spinning. If one proposes that some sort of emission is coming from the equatorial region of the proton due to the spin, then we want this emission to overpower the gravitational attraction. Note that just above I stated that the emissions from the nucleus must be less well absorbed by another nucleus to produce gravity. Conflict !

Perhaps we should consider reflection of the photons by a nucleus. Thus one nucleus would block photons from hitting another nucleus just as effectively whether the photons were relected or absorbed by that nucleus. However reflection would result in much less energy being taken in by the nucleus, so that it's emissions would be much less. But that would mean less proton emissions.

Postulating other emissions that are not absorbed by other nuclei would work but one feels that something is wrong. Just having the universe filled with emissions that don't affect anything seems wrong.

I'll think about it !
Cheers,
Mo

seasmith · Unread post by **seasmith** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:01 pm

≠
Wasn't there some discussion of emission deflection in this earlier Miles Mathis thread ?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &start=345

Chromium6 · Unread post by **Chromium6** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:12 pm

I see this may fit also. The 5th state of matter is not widely known and I don't think Mathis addresses it or debunks it like a lot of other theories. I think this and Mathis may also have a link. The Filament field is not that well known or published. This may be a blind alley to go down but it is worth a look. The Charge Field must also share these characteristics as well. Dr. K. holds to the classical views of physics but I believe this is something to consider-- the Filament in regards to the Charge Field... flowing in one direction:

http://www.electric-universe.de/the_idea.html

As these continually produced cosmic ray particles fly in space, the active (positive) Sun repulses these positive ions; their flux is lower during solar maximum and after every flare (Forbush effect). Recently, NASA speaks about a proton storm during a mass ejection of the Sun. Flying ion- and electron-filaments divert these ions in space and they do not show their origin: the neutron stars. This electric model can also be deduced. The two nuclear forces have only a very short radius. Gravity (one of the two forces of infinite radius) can only attract. Only the positive or negative charge remains as repulsing accelerator! The highest possible concentration of electric charge can only be positive, because only the protons can be fixed on a neutron star. The strong nuclear force of these protons is more than 300 times stronger than their mutual electrostatic repulsion. Electrons (as leptons) could be fixed only with gravity which is 1039 times too weak. The supernova i.e. the highest power-density of the Universe can fix protons onto the neutron star which is the highest concentration of active matter. Therefore, the positive neutron star is the strongest possible accelerator of particles. The acceleration-force of the ions continually pushes back the neutron star. Perhaps a calculation will show a big relativistic mass of these ions and explain the velocities of the pulsars (see arrows of 100 km/s and 150 km/s in Fig. 8-9). The electric repulsion-force does not stop after the ejection! This model explains the huge matter emission of pulsars which would be impossible from their neutron body. The non-axial jet of the Crab-pulsar (see on the left in Fig.9) is not clear.

Fig. 10 The high ranges of the particle energies in the 3rd, 4th and 5th states of matter. Thermal bodies exist up to 105 eV, non-thermal bodies up to 10-21 eV, theoretically up to 10-26 eV. These cosmic rays are continually accelerated in the jets of the neutron stars (Fig.8 and 9). This electric model explains also the measured upper limit of the cosmic rays at 10-21 eV. (Perhaps 10-22 eV will be found, too.). The theoretic limit is 10-26 eV (equ.4) because the electric neutron star above can only contain a higher positive charge if it has a larger diameter due to its mono-proton layer (equ.4). But the neutron star cannot have a larger diameter without limit because it collapses into a black hole already at about three sun masses. Therefore, a cosmic ray particle of an energy of e.g. 10-30 eV cannot exist according to this model (Fig.10). The fifth state of matter is the most energetic one because another state of matter between e.g. 10-26 eV and 10-35 eV is not possible. One of the states of matter is the Bose-Einstein condensate. It has zero thermal-energy. We should give the number zero to it (table below). Its popular name of the fifth state of matter is clearly incorrect since heated plasma will never be transformed to this Bose-Einstein condensate.

0 1 2 3 4 5
name: Bose-Einstein | solid | liquid | gaseous | plasma | filament
energy: ~zero | <crystal | <attraction > attract. | <10-5 eV | <10-26 eV
character: non-thermal | thermal | thermal | thermal| thermal | non-thermal
particle-motion: no (heat) motion | particles move in all three dimensions | motion in only one direction

Table 3 shows all possible six states of matter. Particles in the Bose-Einstein condensate have almost zero energy and no heat-energy. In this table, the energy of the particles increases from left to right by 36 orders. This energy determines the state of matter in relation to the mutual electrostatic attraction and to the character of the motion of the particles.

CONSEQUENCES

Physics knows four forces. However, astronomy of the 20th century did not accept the role of the electric force of infinite radius. The cause of this aversion was the tradition, a threatening complication, it was not debated. The present introduction of this force does not complicate but greatly simplifies astrophysics and astronomy. Now, all the four forces of Nature are considered and, therefore, hundreds of very old contradictions are solved. After millennia of three states of matter, after a century of four states of matter, the last years enriched us with additional two states of matter. Very probably, no more than six states of matter are possible. In the last two states of matter, no thermal energy exists. In the Bose-Einstein condensate no thermal but only a very-very low quantum mechanical energy of about 10-10 eV exists, in the fifth state of matter a very high velocity in only one direction exists and a very high electric energy in form of ions or electrons. The fifth state of matter could be named, therefore, filament-state- or beam state- or electric-state-of matter due to its form or energy or cause of its particle-acceleration. The e.g. Fe9+-ions are not indicators of a temperature of 1MK (Fig.3). They show no high and no low temperature, but a positive filament, i.e. positive matter in flight emitted by other positive matter. Very probably, the Sun has a variable luminosity (causing e.g. ice-ages) due to its electric function. It emits negative filaments as the solar wind. It also has an immediate influence within days on our climate due to its electrically emitted positive filaments which push away the cosmic ray ions (which can be seeds of clouds) and appear as red sprites above the terrestrial clouds. If the models of both electrical reactions are confirmed, the presence and future of mankind – even a possible climate-catastrophe - depend on matter in the fifth state. Did we understand the most conspicuous bodies: the biggest ones (the jets of radio galaxies and galaxy-clusters), the nearest ones (filaments of the Sun, auroras, lightning),the most energetic bodies (flares, jets of pulsars) as the first ones? No, they were understood as the last ones. The matter of these and other filaments is no plasma, but charged particles moving parallel to the filament axis. This simple rule is valid for all filaments of diameters in 20 orders! The most important error of astrophysics is now simply and elegantly corrected after 60 years of mysterious magnetic dynamos and magnetic tubes . Nobody has emphasized, but this supposed Magnetic Universe was always thought to be based on a certain Electric Universe in background. However, this Electric Universe clearly acts via filaments. No mysteries anymore, only physics are necessary. The lightning probably was one of the first bodies which got its own name from the first human beings. But the lightning and other filaments are the last bodies which were recognized as bodies in a correct state of matter – two million years later. All other states of matter were discovered earlier.

Lloyd · Unread post by **Lloyd** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:27 am

Everything But Photons Expand? and Proof of Expansion

seasmith wrote: Wasn't there some discussion of emission deflection in this earlier Miles Mathis thread?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &start=345

Thanks for the reference, Seasmith. In that thread at this post, viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2582&start=15#p28006, I quoted Mathis twice, first re "everything but photons expand" (http://milesmathis.com/third8.html) and second re "proof of expansion" (http://milesmathis.com/third6.html and http://milesmathis.com/ele.html). Steven O said a little later that Mathis didn't actually think that photons don't expand and he supplied a couple of references for that.

Photon Spin Images
In this post viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2582&start=45#p28147 someone showed what the photon spins might look like. Maybe this person could show better images, or a video, by now.

In this post viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2582&start=60#p28182 and this one viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2582&start=75#p28219 are better diagrams and explanations, I think.

This references the computer app: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2582&start=90#p28481.

Lloyd · Unread post by **Lloyd** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:38 pm

moses · Unread post by **moses** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:25 pm

Resonance
What if resonance occurs because a nucleus emits something (let's call it a photon) that has complex spin which has properties that produce similar complex spin on a neighbouring nucleus. If this emission had low mass or low speed but high spin, then it would not push the impinged nucleus very much. This would effectively mean that the incoming, high push emissions from the universe are somewhat blocked by a neighbouring nucleus, and the emissions from that neighbour do not push the nucleus as much, so there is a net force on the nucleus in the direction of it's neighbour, which is gravity.

This suggests that the nucleus emits something different to what it receives from the universe. This resonance emission could also tend to keep the poles of two protons parallel.Thus the equatorial emissions from a proton would push the other proton quite strongly, which is electrostatic repulsion. Similarly with two electrons.

The electron and the proton, again.
Basically we are after a force that is much greater than the assumed gravitational attraction between a proton and an electron. Well the electron, in it's orbit, can dodge regions of high energy emissions from the proton or the nucleus. This is something that neighbouring nuclei cannot do, or can do only to a limited extent. Thus there is more push emissions landing on the neighbouring nuclei per unit mass of that neighbour, than there is landing on the electron per unit mass of the electron. Thus more net push in the direction of the proton.

Also the electron can get quite close to the proton in it's orbit and so a big angle of the universal emissions would be blocked with a resultant large force on the electron, accelerating it.
I feel I'm getting warm on this TOE.
Cheers,
Mo
PS I thought that we were not discussing Pi here.

LongtimeAirman · Unread post by **LongtimeAirman** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:49 pm

Lloyd:
That's what I was getting at in LloydBlog. I called the UEs photons. In order for the incoming photons to overpower the emitted photons, the Earth and other large bodies must absorb more than they emit. This might produce slow expansion of large bodies. The main puzzle for me on this issue is how the Earth emission is able to lift the atmosphere, if the incoming UE photons have greater pressure than the photons emitted by the Earth. Does anyone have ideas? For Mathis it's not a problem, since he resorts to matter expansion and or universal spin to account for gravity.

Lloyd,

Since I argued with you there, I feel compelled to answer.

Clearly I'm a Miles believer, and what you said sounded heretical. But I gotta admit it sounds reasonable too. IMHO, I am partial to the notion that the earth's radius has doubled in the last 65-80 million years. That is easily explainable as an imbalance in the earth's recycling charge field. The earth accepts more photons than it emits. 1000 times more at present. Those absorbed photons build new matter within the planet. The sun and planets are growing.

Air floats for the reason that Miles has already given.

But Miles has proven the expansionary gravity theory by, for example, improving Einstein's Mercury precession prediction?

REMCB

Chromium6 · Unread post by **Chromium6** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:08 pm

Thanks Loyd for resurrecting old Mathis links here and also Seasmith, L.A.M. and others for the blazelabs/Encedalus and Albedo links! It is great material. The older 2010 links are pretty rich for looking at Mathis/EU.

Concerning photons, what are the various sources of photon-generation/recycling from "matter"? I'm not 100% certain I am aware of all the ways in which photons are generated -- particularly differences between EU and Mathis as sources.

http://sonoluminescence.com/

Lloyd · Unread post by **Lloyd** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:15 pm

Photon Sources

Cr6 said: Concerning photons, what are the various sources of photon-generation/recycling from "matter"? I'm not 100% certain I am aware of all the ways in which photons are generated -- particularly differences between EU and Mathis as sources.

I believe Mathis says photons are constantly received by particles polarly and quickly emitted equatorially, except for neutrons, which emit polarly at lower intensity, which is why they're "neutral". So the source of photons is the field of photons that's constantly around everywhere.

EU theory seems to accept conventional claims that photons are emitted by electrons only when this results in the electron falling to a lower shell or energy level. EU also likely accepts the claim that photons have no radius or mass. So I think they regard them as mere virtual packets of energy. Here's a Mathis quote from http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf:

I can already tell you the main cause of electronegativity, a cause that current theory is totally ignorant of because they have no nuclear diagram. The main cause of electronegativity is the proton configuration in the outer shell. That's right, it has nothing to do with electrons or electron shells, since electron don't orbit the nucleus to begin with.

Because the proton configuration varies greatly, even from period to period, it won't follow a tight pattern across the Periodic Table. Nuclei aren't built by mathematical rules, they are built by structural rules, the main structural rule being stability. Each elements seeks the most stability at that number, and the only way to discover the stability is know the structure. In other words, you have to know how the nuclei are built.

By the way Cr6, your previous post on Friday was hard to understand and it didn't seem to relate much to Mathis' theory. Does it?

Expanding Earth

Airman said: I am partial to the notion that the earth's radius has doubled in the last 65-80 million years. That is easily explainable as an imbalance in the earth's recycling charge field. The earth accepts more photons than it emits. 1000 times more at present. Those absorbed photons build new matter within the planet. The sun and planets are growing.

So far there's likely no good evidence of anything on Earth being over 12,000 or so years old. Conventional Expanding Earth theory claims that the continents moved apart because Earth expanded from inside. Photons may well cause some expansion, but that's not what caused the continents to move apart. An asteroid impact is what broke up the supercontinent and pushed the Americas away from AfroEurAsia. The Earth may also have changed shape from Oval to Spherical.

Contradiction. Expansion from within would not cause whole continents to move together intact. Instead, the entire surface would break up into small pieces, because the forces pushing from the center upward start pushing horizontally in all horizontal directions once they reach the solid upper layer of crust. And the crust's cohesion isn't strong enough to keep very large objects, like continents, intact under such forces, IMO. And they wouldn't be able to form mountains. They would thin the crust instead of thickening it.

Impact. See http://newgeology.us for detailed explanation of Impact-caused rapid continental drift. I've also been discussing Young Earth at LloydBlog. The Earth may be fairly old, but we have no way to tell yet. The surface however was all formed recently. EU considers that much of the surface may have come from Saturn within the last tens of thousands of years. And the crust likely had no mountains and was soft as recently as 4,500 years ago.

Mo, I'll have to read your message tomorrow.

Chromium6 · Unread post by **Chromium6** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:34 am

Sorry to cause confusion on that post Loyd. This is the direction I was going with it. I didn't want to go in too many directions on this thread but saw this as something Mathis' Charge Field but in 1 direction only -- Körtvélyessy's filament.

Lloyd wrote:Photon Sources
Cr6 said: Concerning photons, what are the various sources of photon-generation/recycling from "matter"? I'm not 100% certain I am aware of all the ways in which photons are generated -- particularly differences between EU and Mathis as sources.

I believe Mathis says photons are constantly received by particles polarly and quickly emitted equatorially, except for neutrons, which emit polarly at lower intensity, which is why they're "neutral". So the source of photons is the field of photons that's constantly around everywhere.

EU theory seems to accept conventional claims that photons are emitted by electrons only when this results in the electron falling to a lower shell or energy level. EU also likely accepts the claim that photons have no radius or mass. So I think they regard them as mere virtual packets of energy. Here's a Mathis quote from http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf:

By the way Cr6, your previous post on Friday was hard to understand and it didn't seem to relate much to Mathis' theory. Does it?

Expanding Earth
Airman said: I am partial to the notion that the earth's radius has doubled in the last 65-80 million years. That is easily explainable as an imbalance in the earth's recycling charge field. The earth accepts more photons than it emits. 1000 times more at present. Those absorbed photons build new matter within the planet. The sun and planets are growing.
...

This script by Dr. László Körtvélyessy has a better and more detailed description of "filaments" and how this form is "physically" different in nature from plasmas-solids-gases. According to my understanding, the "straight as an arrow" flow of these high-energy particles may have impacts on Mathis' kinetic-mechanical UFT. I see it as a "sleeper" energy field that in some cases may be wrongly considered as 3-D (ionic) in nature when it is not.

Overall, I was just trying to see if Körtvélyessy's Filament would hold true with Mathis' work.

BTW, he did include a quote on the Expanding Universe but he couches his perspective in classical G-R/Black Holes/etc. If his perspective could be adapted to Mathis' it could likely be another key to unlock things with.

This quote in particular. How might Mathis describe it?
------

About 40 000 TV-beams of a small city would radiate more power than the whole Sun if the TV-beam was of plasma! A plasma filament of a mercury lamp would melt a house in microseconds. These impossible results prove that the TV-beam (or an ion-beam) is no plasma body! It does not obey the heat radiation law (equ.1). This result can be simply understood because the beam-electrons fly parallel to the beam-axis along straight lines with constant velocity. The zigzag-motion of plasma does not exist in this beam. Such particles do not emit heat, independently of their very high particle-energy. But the zigzag motion in the electrongas around the hot cathode (of some 10-2 eV i.e.1000 K) is smoothened by the voltage of +26000 V to a parallel flight in only one direction in the TV-tube.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... html#5ukrk

Characteristics of bodies in the fifth state of matter:
They all have a filament-form, their particles fly parallel to the filament axis. They mostly have particles of higher energy than those of the plasma bodies. In spite of the very high particle-energy, they all do not emit heat. They all have a circular cross section and, therefore, a more or less bent cylindrical body. Like crystals, they have a deeply organized form, also in their smallest branches (Fig.2). Like crystals, they can oscillate with more frequencies. They move as if gravity would not exist even in the very mouth of a black hole. Their electric charge is either positive or negative. They dissolve in space at zero charge.

Report of the satellite symposium of the UNESCO- ICSU word science conference: Future of the Universe (Budapest, 1999 July)

FILAMENTS OF THE UNIVERSE
http://www.electric-universe.de/Scripts ... aments.pdf

Theses
1 The future form of the Universe in its largest-scale will be more and more the filament-form.
2 All filaments of the Universe are made electrically, via motion of electrically charged matter.
3 All filaments of the Universe have a circular cross section

What is the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe ?

Lloyd · Unread post by **Lloyd** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:47 pm

Electron Orbits

Mo said: Also the electron can get quite close to the proton in it's orbit and so a big angle of the universal emissions would be blocked with a resultant large force on the electron, accelerating it.

In Mathis' theory the electron doesn't orbit the proton or the nucleus. It orbits the proton axis above the pole of the proton. Since the entire atom or ion rotates, all of the particles have pseudo-orbits around the axis of the atom or ion. I'm not understanding your model yet, but if you keep talking about it maybe I'll understand.

I didn't intend to discuss Pi here. I only mentioned the discussion of Pi in the 2010 thread because I noticed that Web had an interesting explanation in the post that I referenced. The disagreements about Pi is what got that thread terminated.

Mathis' Matter Expansion Idea

Cr6 said: What is the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe ?

As I stated at LloydBlog, I don't see Mathis' idea of apparently eternally accelerating expansion as possible, because accelerating expansion of matter requires constant pressure from inner layers of acceleratingly expanding matter. That would require continuous creation of matter within every particle of matter and the rate of creation would have to be constantly increasing. I don't believe there's any evidence of the existence of inner layers of matter within particles that are growing and pushing outward to expand matter. Thus, his idea of expansion seems to be impossible.

On the other hand my idea of slow Earth expansion via inward movement of photons into low pressure areas within matter so far seems plausible, despite the problem that it makes it hard to explain the buoyancy of the atmosphere etc. Maybe the expanation is along the lines that Mo mentioned. Shortwave radiation that strikes the Earth is said to turn into longwave radiation when it reflects off the Earth. That's how greenhouses trap heat: they block the longwave radiation from exiting, but allow shortwave radiation to enter the greenhouse from above. So maybe we'll find out eventually if longwave radiation is what buoys up the atmosphere, whereas shortwave radiation goes right through the air molecules.

Lloyd · Unread post by **Lloyd** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:53 pm

Filaments
Cr6, the FILAMENTS OF THE UNIVERSE paper is interesting, but I think it would be more useful to Charles Chandler, than to Mathis. So I told Charles about it. At the end of this paper http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... -6031-5972 is where Charles has discussed filaments. Mathis hasn't discussed filaments much yet, has he?

moses · Unread post by **moses** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:35 pm

We have a choice. The standard model says that something travels from nucleus to nucleus and produces an attracting force called gravity. Or somehow matter is expanding which results in gravity. Or there is some sort of emissions travelling through the universe which pushes on nuclei. Take your pick.

The universal emissions are clearly the most natural and obvious choice. It is just that there are a couple of issues to explain. If these emissions can also explain electrostatics then probably all things can be explained by the results of these emissions.

So having these universal emissions causing a nucleus to increase it's complex spin, is a reasonable possibility. That this process also reduces the 'push' emissions from that nucleus is also worth considering. The point is that lots of consideration is needed about universal emissions because it is the best option.

For explaining electrostatics having a proton spin and emitting an equatorial emission seems very reasonable. That we have to fiddle with this idea to make it work only requires lots of work seeing if the fiddle can explain some physical measurements. Having elecrons inside or outside the nucleus doesn't matter much as all we really require is that electrons somehow hang around the nucleus rather than escape the region easily.

So we would be best selecting a few of these models or fiddles and testing them mathematically to see if we can explain physical phenomena and measurements. And then there are the phenomena that are not explained by the standard science, perhaps the fiddles can explain some or all of these, especially through the resonance idea. Thus shape can effect the nucleus through harmonics, so we think of pyramids and crystals, etc.

Cheers,
Mo

Chromium6 · Unread post by **Chromium6** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:14 pm

Lloyd wrote:Filaments
Cr6, the FILAMENTS OF THE UNIVERSE paper is interesting, but I think it would be more useful to Charles Chandler, than to Mathis. So I told Charles about it. At the end of this paper http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... -6031-5972 is where Charles has discussed filaments. Mathis hasn't discussed filaments much yet, has he?

I see Charles has valuable contributions there. I suppose I'm looking for this "5th State of matter" and it is not something directly entertained by CC or the wider EU community as far as I know. This brings me to the question since I think there is a 5th state of matter. Can Mathis' atomic structures shape the charge field into a parallel (photon?) field as a "filament" with high eV? Dr. K points to the solar wind as this high eV energy shape coming from the Sun. It is a "cold" source according to Dr. K on Filaments. If you think of lightening and the number of people that survived "hits" from it, I'm surprised they didn't evaporate into something like a small burnt piece of charcoal considering the heat involved at that eV if that was actually "plasma" and not a cold "filament" .

Mathis does address this a bit in this paper.

http://milesmathis.com/corona.pdf

So how does the Solar corona create these four separate domains? We have seen in all these
explanations and models that we need at least two plasmas meeting to create the separator. But the Sun
is just one plasma. Where is the other? The Solar plasma should always be moving out from center, no
matter its flux or density, especially at the height of the corona. The Solar wind is moving out quite
positively by that point. What is moving in? According to the mainstream models, the Sun is emitting
into a charge vacuum, or near vacuum. It is also emitting into an ion vacuum, or near vacuum. The
charge and ions in the Solar system are said to have been put there by the Sun itself, and are currently
given to the Solar wind itself. So what second plasma is meeting the Sun's plasma head-on, according
to this theory of magnetic reconnection? What magnetic field is moving in toward the Sun here, and
why?
...
Which brings us to why I am here. I have shown my readers in scores of papers the cause of this
potential in space. It isn't a Dirac field, a Higgs field, a zero-point energy field, a nebulous or
mysterious ether, dark matter, hidden-sector field, neutrino field, or WIMP field. Nor is it some
undefined field differential between the Sun and distant objects or distant space. It is simply charge—
the same charge in Coulomb's equation, the same charge that is moving through the nucleus, the same
charge that is “on” the electron. This charge isn't carried by virtual photons, messenger photons,
neutrinos, or any other mysterious particles unknown to us. It is carried by the real photons we already
know about in the spectrum. The “hidden-sector” actually exists in the known spectrum, and it is
“hidden” only in the sense that it is poorly understood. Nothing remains as incomplete as our
knowledge of real photons, that is, and it is this incomplete knowledge that rears its head on a daily
basis, stopping all new theory in its tracks.

Also:

Some will say that I am assuming a longitudinal wave for light, whereas Fresnel proved that light has a transverse wave. If I am able to multiply my local spin wavelength by c2 to get a visible wavelength, my local wave must be longitudinal. But that is not correct. Since the wave of light belongs to each photon, via spin, the wave is neither longitudinal nor transverse. Longitudinal and transverse waves are defined as field waves, and light is not a field wave. Light is a spin wave, and the spin is neither transverse nor longitudinal. The local wavelength is just a radius of spin. However, since I have shown (in my paper on superposition) that any electromagnetic radiation must have at least two stacked spins to show a physical wave, this stacking can mimic either transverse or longitudinal waves, depending on the experiment and the effect studied. Fresnel was studying polarization, and although Young had already shown both longitudinal characteristics and transverse characteristics, the polarization experiments seemed to confirm only the transverse part of this duality. And, indeed, polarization can be explained with only the transverse characteristics of the stacked wave. Other experiments and effects are better explained as the stacked spins mimicking longitudinal waves. This is what is happening with Tesla or plasma waves which are longitudinal. In plasmas, the spins beneath the outer spin come into play, and the axial spin of the moving electron is no longer hidden. The charge field coheres or links these inner spins, creating uncommon effects. At any rate, wave theory will not advance beyond its current wall unless it comes to see that both transverse and longitudinal waves are a misconception, built upon a mistaken field wave theory that is an analogue of fluid or sound dynamics. Light waves are not field waves, they are spin waves. Light is its own field, since light is both the linear motion and the spin motion of the photon.

Finally this paper has a bit more:
http://milesmathis.com/cu.pdf

We see this again a sentence later, in a much more important fudge, when we are presented with the
real data. The physicists measured the “scattered” photons, so that is the data. What you measure is
the data. So we may infer that they saw and measured no spinons, orbitons, or holons. Those quasiparticles
were not part of the data. They were only inferences from matching a computer simulation.

--
5th State of Matter:

RECENT ASTRONOMY FINDS MANY FILAMENTS

Galileo saw the penumbra of the sunspots. Larger telescopes show no grey ring but 100-200 fine dark filaments around the sunspots (Fig.4). Herschel named small, structureless and round spots "planetary nebulae“, the Hubble Space Telescope resolves about 40 fine filaments in the Eskimo planetary-nebula (Fig. 5). Skylab detected puzzling layers of the solar corona. SOHO and TRACE show no layers but hundreds of very fine filaments which culminate mostly higher if their atoms are stronger ionised (Fig. 3).

Characteristics of bodies in the fifth state of matter:

1. They all have a filament-form, their particles fly parallel to the filament axis.
2. They mostly have particles of higher energy than those of the plasma bodies.
3. In spite of the very high particle-energy, they all do not emit heat (lacking heat-motion).
4. They all have a circular cross section and, therefore, a more or less bent cylindrical body.
5. Like crystals, they have a characteristic form, also in their smallest branches (Fig.2).
6. They can oscillate with supersonic frequencies (solar radiation on 10.7 cm ?).
7. They move as though gravity would not exist even in the very mouth of a black hole.
8. Their electric charge is either positive or negative. Their overbalance is never neutral.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/p ... atter.html

Lloyd · Unread post by **Lloyd** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:59 pm

5th State of Matter: Filaments

Chromium6 wrote:I suppose I'm looking for this "5th State of matter" and it is not something directly entertained by CC or the wider EU community as far as I know. This brings me to the question since I think there is a 5th state of matter: Can Mathis' atomic structures shape the charge field into a parallel (photon?) field as a "filament" with high eV? Dr. K points to the solar wind as this high eV energy shape coming from the Sun. It is a "cold" source according to Dr. K on Filaments. If you think of lightening and the number of people that survived "hits" from it, I'm surprised they didn't evaporate into something like a small burnt piece of charcoal considering the heat involved at that eV if that was actually "plasma" and not a cold "filament" .

5th State of Matter:
RECENT ASTRONOMY FINDS MANY FILAMENTS []
Characteristics of bodies in the fifth state of matter:
1. They all have a filament-form, their particles fly parallel to the filament axis.
2. They mostly have particles of higher energy than those of the plasma bodies.
3. In spite of the very high particle-energy, they all do not emit heat (lacking heat-motion).
4. They all have a circular cross section and, therefore, a more or less bent cylindrical body.
5. Like crystals, they have a characteristic form, also in their smallest branches (Fig.2).
6. They can oscillate with supersonic frequencies (solar radiation on 10.7 cm ?).
7. They move as though gravity would not exist even in the very mouth of a black hole.
8. Their electric charge is either positive or negative. Their overbalance is never neutral.
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/p ... atter.html

Cold Lightning & Plasma
Your comment about lightning is interesting and believable. I noticed that Kortvelyessy said positively charged space plasma is cold too. Is lightning positive? I believe it's negative. So that seems to contradict him so far. But his info is very interesting.

Electric Attraction
Mathis says there is no attractive force, and I believe that's very probably true, but I don't understand how to account for the apparent attraction between conductors by Mathis' model. Do you? Is it electric or magnetic "attraction"? Do 2 conductors block the charge field from each other, resulting in the conductors being pushed toward each other by the ambient field? Are plasma filaments considered conductors? I know Mathis mentions electrtic attraction on occasion. Do you know if he's explained it anywhere?

Thunderbolts Forum (v2.0)

Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Who is online