Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[LongtimeAirman]

Moses,

Thank you for sharing your insight. A dual component emission field, E/M and charge. I still think that the difference could be reduced to the outer spin level, and speed, including spin complexities.

"We need ideas that could produce this inequality", That is, I assume, between the universal field and the emitted field.

It seems ever clearer to me that all matter is more transparent than a window to the "particles" comprising the unified field. Most pass through matter without interaction. The nucleus is one one hundred thousandth the presumed atom's diameter. The emission of that nucleus, resonant or otherwise, is much less than the surrounding, interpenetrating field, depending on the larger field density, as Steve says above (thank you Lloyd, I need to reread your discussion with him again). That is the imbalance. We are mere shades to the universal field. Yet I can see how that small differential can account for gravity.

REMCB

[moses]

I think that the charge field cannot account for gravity. Consider a Faraday Cage - a charge field will induce an equal and opposite field produced by electrical conduction in the cage. So inside the cage the charge field from outside is balanced by the charge field from the metal cage.

If gravity was a charge field then objects inside a Faraday Cage would experience no gravity. Thus I have wasted your time, but only somewhat, but I do apologize for that. I still think that gravity is a push gravity, but now there must be something else that does the pushing.

Sparky, have you never played with a toy top which has a plunger that when depressed makes the top spin like crazy. So conversion from push to spin doesn't seem like a problem to me. Perhaps it is the complex stacked spin that you object to.

Thank you for sharing your insight. A dual component emission field, E/M and charge. I still think that the difference could be reduced to the outer spin level, and speed, including spin complexities.
LongtimeAirman or REMCB (acronym ?)
Yes the charge emission could now be like a photon, with different spin complexities. Gravity would be produced by some emission that was not E/M.

Well I shall get back in my box and consider this issue privately. Unless someone wants to comment further. Magnetism is curious in that it is not blocked by a Faraday Cage but is produced by a moving charge and so presumably by the charge field of that charge, yet that charge field would be neutralised by the Faraday Cage. So there is plenty to consider without subjecting you guys to my ramblings.
Cheers,
Mo

[LongtimeAirman]

Moses,
I apologize. »

I am very grateful that we trying to get beyond Miles, and entertain gravity in a new direction. Your ideas affect my own.

A Faraday Cage,  as I understand it, doesn't induce an equal and opposite field but instead forms a sort of common ground system. That cage is a rather ineffectual barrier when compared to either the unified and/or universal fields. The density of the universal field can be a million million times greater than the local emission barrier provided by the cage, yet still be currently indetectable. It certainly isn't fair to say that the cage can block "gravity".

What box? Those are my initials. Your ramblings are brilliant. Consider this a friendly hand ball game. Don't stop playing.

REMCB

[Chromium6]

I noticed Mathis entertains other ideas than the "expanding universe" in this paper:

The Source of Gravity

those planets are really orbiting close!
by Miles Mathis

In my last paper, I defended my expansion theory once again, but stated that I was open to suggestion
for something better. I said that I had been fielding ideas for years from readers, but had never gotten
anything really promising. The very next day, I heard from a reader (Paul Nussbaum), and he had
something promising. Just a raw idea—nothing spectacular—but a good idea nonetheless. And he
hadn't even read my last paper.

Coincidence? Who knows. All I can say as a scientist is: it happened.

He sent me to a physics forum, where a new member had posted his very first post. He was asking
about the spin of the universe. That's right. Of the entire universe. Of course he was told there was no
evidence for it, or something like that. Dismissed with a wave of the hand. I got the email from my
reader late at night, and at first I didn't see the import of this. I had to ask for clarification. Why was
this interesting? He only had to say one word: gravity. The forum poster hadn't mentioned gravity in
his post, so my reader was very perceptive.
...
Since my x, y, and z spins are not the same size, shouldn't we see accelerations in one plane that
are larger than the others? Why are the accelerations the same all round? This is also not so
difficult to answer as it might seem at first, for the same reason as we just saw. Since objects in
the universe are not tied to any universal axis, they will drift through universal x, y, and z. If we
average these accelerations over time, we can't keep them separate. They will stack, or sum.
The total acceleration in any one direction will be something like (x+y+z)/3. If x=4, for
instance, then we will get a=9.333. And that acceleration will apply at all levels of size,
quantum and galactic (if we measure from the scale we are measuring). Why? Because if the
acceleration is being caused by the spin of the universe as a whole, the acceleration will seem to
come from every point in that universe. Nothing will be too small to get beneath that
acceleration. Even the photon will feel it. If we measured from the size of the photon, the
photon would have an acceleration of 9.333.

Also:
http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf

Since inertia is a resistance to a force, and force is caused by a motion (acceleration), it is not clear how mass can counteract motion. As a matter of logic, we would like to see motion counteract motion.
This is why I very early on tried to reduce mass, gravity, and inertia to a single motion. I made good progress on the problem in my first paper on the constant G, showing that all three could be explained by an outward acceleration of the shell of any quantum. This acceleration is the single cause of gravity, mass and inertia, greatly simplifying both the terminology and the math. However, this implied that all matter was expanding, which was never a very satisfying implication, even for me. I left it hanging for several years as a partial explanation, until earlier this year I found a way to explain the acceleration vector without expanding quanta. I explained it with circular motion instead.

[moses]

The metal around a Faraday Cage cannot block the suggested charge emissions. I feel that you are suggesting that the metal blocks the E/M emissions which produces a current which is grounded. This is not the explanation I am reading. I cannot understand that there would be a universal charge field that is a million million times greater than what the barrier can shield.

Chromium - I still consider that push gravity is by far the most likely theory. I am disappointed that it is not the charge field, but there is still the possibility of some other non-E/M emission (like gravitons) that would work the same as the charge emissions. It won't be as pretty.
Cheers,
Mo

[Sparky]

I still think that the difference could be reduced to the outer spin level, and speed, including spin complexities.

Perhaps it is the complex stacked spin that you object to.

Correct! It is nonsense...

I too favor a bombardment gravity, but what if it is what it appears to be: the sucking vector!

I have seen only one sucking gravity mechanisms that is palatable: A neutral particle, made up of equal + and - charges that are absorbed by matter. Matter spits out one of the charges and that spit collects as a cloud which the neutral gravity particles move through to get to matter. Thus, a sucking vector via particle ingestion of bombarding particles...

[Chromium6]

Well moses, how would you define these then. In the same way?

------

The only difference that we can find between inertial and gravitational mass that we can find is the method.

Gravitational mass is measured by comparing the force of gravity of an unknown mass to the force of gravity of a known mass. This is typically done with some sort of balance scale. The beauty of this method is that no matter where, or what planet, you are, the masses will always balance out because the gravitational acceleration on each object will be the same. This does break down near supermassive objects such as black holes and neutron stars due to the high gradient of the gravitational field around such objects.

Inertial mass is found by applying a known force to an unknown mass, measuring the acceleration, and applying Newton's Second Law, m = F/a. This gives as accurate a value for mass as the accuracy of your measurements. When the astronauts need to be weighed in outer space, they actually find their inertial mass in a special chair.

The interesting thing is that, physically, no difference has been found between gravitational and inertial mass. Many experiments have been performed to check the values and the experiments always agree to within the margin of error for the experiment. Einstein used the fact that gravitational and inertial mass were equal to begin his Theory of General Relativity in which he postulated that gravitational mass was the same as inertial mass and that the acceleration of gravity is a result of a 'valley' or slope in the space-time continuum that masses 'fell down' much as pennies spiral around a hole in the common donation toy at your favorite chain store.

To state the answer one more time, there is no difference between gravitational and inertial mass as far as we know.

Also are you looking at a graviphoton type of action?

New Concepts

Van Flandern [2] argues that the attraction of gravity between two distant bodies is due to the interaction between the gravitons embedded in the matter and some related entities that he calls c-gravitons. In producing this attraction, he has independently proposed that there must exist a tremendous flux of c-gravitons that produce the attractive force by a shadowing process! Hence, c-gravitons are apparently equal to graviphotons.

One can even argue that these c-gravitons/graviphotons may also be the equivalent of the long postulated aether that light and electromagnetic waves propagate through.

He further demonstrates that gravity acts essentially instantaneously at a speed orders of magnitude greater than light speed, because the measured motion of distant celestial bodies is not affected by delays in the transport of light between them. Hence, gravity acts by a different mechanism than electromagnetic attraction/repulsion, which both act at the speed of light. He then argues that wave/particle duality is a consequence of the interaction between light-speed entities and non-light-speed entities. An implied consequence is that a Grand Unification of all four forces, weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational, is not possible.

I'm not sure that anyone has yet succeeded in fully explaining gravitational attraction. It acts as if there was a background field that instantaneously knows the positions of all masses even though the bodies are located a universe apart. It may operate by a bootstrap effect, a kind of whispering gallery where each mass continuously tells its neighbors what it knows in terms of instantaneous positions and higher space-time derivatives, and this gives it the effect of faster-than-light-speed analytic continuation to continuously map the entire space. One can postulate that the intensity of the graviphoton field at any point is a measure of the summed distribution of mass around that point, and that it is possible to anticipate the effect of motion of these masses by the time behavior of the resultant field.

I have argued that the Big Wave Model of a new Big Bang requires a coherent wave of photons and graviphotons moving out from the origin at the speed of light, creating neutrons as they go. If graviphotons moved faster than the speed of light, then they would get out of coherence with the photons. Hence, graviphotons must be components of a gravity wave that moves at light speed. Their role in instantaneous gravitational attraction has to have a more complicated explanation.

Extension

The above arguments raise an interesting new question. What are the effects of the leakage loss of photons, neutrinos and graviphotons at the edge of the universe on the reversibility of a closed universe? The only thing that makes sense is to assume that there is essentially a zero current boundary condition at the edge that exactly compensates for this loss. This implies that there are in fact billions of other universes distributed throughout the Cosmos[1], bumping up against one another, undetected, such that the leakage out of each one is exactly balanced by leakage in from its adjacent neighbors. On the grand scale, nothing is lost.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rarydin/gravity.html

[Chromium6]

Some recent news:


Confirming the Big Bang's Inflation: Q&A with Study Leader John Kovac
By Mike Wall, Senior Writer | March 21, 2014 06:00am ET

On Monday (March 17), a team of astronomers sent a jolt through the physics and cosmology communities and made front-page news around the world.

The researchers, led by John Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced that they had detected a type of polarization called "B-modes" in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the ancient light that began saturating the universe just 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

The B-modes could only have been produced by gravitational waves a few tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, during a period called "inflation" which saw the universe expand from mere quantum fluctuations to something of macroscopic size, scientists say. [Cosmic Inflation & Gravitational Waves: Complete Coverage of Major Discovery]

http://www.space.com/25162-gravitationa ... rview.html

[Sparky]

The B-modes could only have been produced by gravitational waves a few tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, during a period called "inflation" which saw the universe expand from mere quantum fluctuations to something of macroscopic size, scientists say.

More nonsense!

This is an exceptional claim. Should we require exceptional proof?

[Chromium6]

The B-modes could only have been produced by gravitational waves a few tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, during a period called "inflation" which saw the universe expand from mere quantum fluctuations to something of macroscopic size, scientists say.

More nonsense!

This is an exceptional claim. Should we require exceptional proof?

You have a friend in "Mathis" Sparky:
-----------
3/18/2014.
Gravity Waves of Propaganda.


I shouldn't have to point it out, but these figures are measuring E and B, not gravity waves. That is
even clearer now that we see the figures are labeled E and B. They aren't just collecting microwave
photons, that is, they are measuring electrical and magnetic fields. Why would they think that E and B
maps of microwaves were indication of gravity waves? To prove gravity waves, shouldn't you have to
show fluctuations in the gravity field? And even if they admitted they couldn't do that, and wished
instead to use E/M fluctuations to prove gravity waves, wouldn't they need a unified field to show how
gravity waves could affect E and B fields? And don't they admit they don't have a unified field? So
ask yourself (and them) how gravity waves mechanically cause variations in the electromagnetic field.
Where, exactly, does gravity come into contact with charge or E/M, in the current field equations?
I can tell you, but the mainstream can't. Therefore, they shouldn't be able to propose E or B maps as
indication of gravity variations. Until and unless they come up with a unified field that shows the point
of contact between gravity and E/M, they are disallowed from pushing data like this.

http://milesmathis.com/guth.pdf

[moses]

I am trying to use Miles' charge field to relate to gravity. I am trying to avoid other physics theories and am just trying to keep to the subject given in the heading.
Cheers,
Mo

[LongtimeAirman]

Now I'm confused. I started off by arguing with Lloyd about incoming charge causing gravity. The charge imbalance was too dreadful to contemplate. I assumed that the Earth's emission field at the surface of the Earth, was the dominant field. OK, Assume that the incoming Unified Field charges are a thousand times more numerous than the Earth's emisson field. I don't see a problem with that. But now that I believe it, Moses says it cannot be. What do you say Cr6?

REMCB

[Chromium6]

Now I'm confused. I started off by arguing with Lloyd about incoming charge causing gravity. The charge imbalance was too dreadful to contemplate. I assumed that the Earth's emission field at the surface of the Earth, was the dominant field. OK, Assume that the incoming Unified Field charges are a thousand times more numerous than the Earth's emisson field. I don't see a problem with that. But now that I believe it, Moses says it cannot be. What do you say Cr6?

REMCB

Hi LongtimeAirMan and Moses,

Maybe I'm just stirring the po(s)t? I'm figuring that a "Push Gravity" is best manifested as resulting from a centripetal force? Framed at the galaxy level? I should have read this paper before creating this thread. My apologies.
-----------------------------
Given current theory, you wouldn't expect that. Why would curl due to gravity waves cause
equal E and B effects?

Since gravity waves would have to be directionalized (by the definition of
gravity), these waves should work preferentially either on E or on B, depending on the original
configuration. Remember, E and B are orthogonal. At right angles to one another. Well, gravity, and
therefore gravity waves, cannot work on a vector and its tangent at the same time. Newton and
Einstein agreed on that, and it is generally known by anyone who wants to know it. Gravity waves
have to be vectorized, in other words, and cannot be composed of orthogonal vectors. The nature of
gravity simply doesn't allow it. For instance, the Sun can pull on the Earth in a line, but it cannot also
pull or push on the Earth at a tangent or right angle to that line. In a gravitational field, there can be no
force at the tangent due to the field. This was Newton's postulate and Einstein did not overturn it, as
we see clearly by studying his GR papers. Gravity was and still is a centripetal force. Well, since a
gravity wave is an outcome of gravity, the same logic applies to the wave. Its propagation has to be
along some vector. Given that, the wave cannot affect orthogonal fields equally. Therefore, we have
proof from BICEP2 data that this effect cannot possibly be due to any gravity wave, old or young.

By the same argument, we see that this effect must be a charge field effect on photons, since only the
charge field can create equal E and B field results like this. Only charge field variations could appear
to “polarize” the E field. Of course the E field isn't really being polarized, since polarization is a
characteristic of the magnetic field. It is a spin result. But what we are seeing here in this data is that
the E field is responding to the field variation in the same amount as the B field. That is due to the fact
that photons are both traveling c and spinning c. The “traveling c” is the E field, and the “spinning c”
is the B field. Since “traveling c” can't vary, the E field can only vary in photon (or ion) density. In
this case, that E density is a function of B. They are co-dependent, since any density rise will also
cause a spin rise. The density rise gives us more photon collisions, and the collisions cause the spins.
That is why we see the E map matching the B map in overall variation, slant, and design. No, the curls
aren't in the same place, but the amount of curl is equal. The B map is basically just a shift of the E
map.
------

GRAVITY at the QUANTUM LEVEL

In my Cavendish paper I used my unified field equations to find the separated forces of E/M and gravity on Cavendish’s balls. Those who have read that paper will understand that when I say unified field equations, I am not talking about difficult or esoteric equations. I am talking, in the first instance, about an equation that scales down directly from the numbers of the Earth, based only on size. All I need is a radius to perform this unified field calculation.

All we need here is a radius for the proton. In my paper on the Bohr magneton, I calculated a precise radius for the proton of 4.09 x 10-14 m. That is about a hundred times larger than the current estimate, but I show why the current estimate is wrong in my paper on the scattering experiments. We know that the Earth’s gravitational acceleration is 9.809545m/s2, and that its radius is 6,378,100 m. That is all we need for the gravitational part of this unified field equation. We just make a proportionality equation:

9.809545/6,378,100 = gP/4.09 x 10-14

gP = 6.29 x 10-20 m/s2

That is the gravitational acceleration of the proton.

In my paper on Electrical Charge, I show that the permittivity of free space ε0 actually stands for gravity at the quantum level. The value I found there, 2.95 x 10-20 m/s2, differs from my number here only because the gravity at the quantum level is also caused by the electron and neutron. The neutron, being nearly the same size as the proton, will not affect the number much, but since the electron is smaller, it must pull the total number down by a fraction. The gravity of the electron is 3.43 x 10-23 m/s2, but, being smaller, the electron is a lesser partner in the total field. If we add the two fields and divide by two, we get 3.147 x 10-20 m/s2. That is still above my number for ε0. This is probably telling us how many electrons we have relative to nucleons, but I will save that calculation for another paper.

http://milesmathis.com/quantumg.html

[Chromium6]

Mathis attributes gravity variations to the Charge Field:
--------


The best way to prove they don't understand the underlying field is to show you the underlying field.

When you compare their theories to my theory, you will see precisely how theirs fail. The real cause of these gravity variations is charge variations. When we see a blue spot, we are seeing more charge; red, less charge. Since the field of the Earth is a unified field of gravity and charge, and since charge and gravity are arrayed against one another as vectors in the field, more charge equals less unified field. Since we are measuring the unified field with our machines— not the solo gravity field—these are the maps we will get.

Let me clarify that, for those who may not have read my previous unified field papers. I have shown that Newton's gravity field is actually a dual field, with two components. Newton compressed the dual field into a single field, which he expressed with the simplified equation

F=GMm/r2

In that equation, G is a constant, which Newton never assigned to anything. We now know a number for it, but it is still not assigned. It is used only because it works. I have shown that it is a field transform between the two fields that underlie the equation. Basically it is a size transform between the charge field and the solo gravity field. Yes, Newton's equation contains charge and is already unified.

This is why we haven't been able to unify it (or Einstein's field equations) with quantum mechanics. QM is a field of charge, and since what we call gravity already included charge, we couldn't unify QM with gravity. We couldn't add in what was already there.

So charge is already in the field. But as vectors, the two fields are in opposition. The charge field points out at the surface of the Earth and the gravity field points in. This is simply due to motion. If we track a test particle near the surface of the Earth, the solo gravity field causes it to move down. The charge field causes it to move up. Since gravity is stronger, the particle moves down.

Why does the charge field cause it to move up? Because charge is real photons. The Earth is recycling these real photons, taking them in at the poles and emitting them most strongly near the equator (or at 30N and S). So real photons are moving up everywhere. They are hitting you from below right now, offsetting solo gravity to a small extent. What we call gravity, and measure, is a combination of the two fields.

This explains the gravity map variations, because the variations we are mapping are mainly charge variations. Once we separate the two fields, gravity only varies by the radius, and the radius of the Earth doesn't vary enough or in the right places to explain these maps. Only charge variations can explain them.

Once you understand this, you see that mainstream geophysics is very roughly on the right track. In convection theory, they are trying to follow density variations in the crust and mantle. But since they don't understand what is being channeled through the mantle and crust, they don't understand the mechanisms of convection. It is charge that is being convected, not heat or pressure variations or compressions.

Yes, charge happens to peak in the infrared, which we call heat. This masks charge as heat, and the mainstream sometimes models convection as heat transfer from the core. In this they aren't terribly far off. Except that they have the wrong model for heat in the core. It is not a dynamo, it is charge recycling.

http://milesmathis.com/canada.pdf

[Chromium6]

On top of all of this. I'm looking at this paper as well. The author makes a lot of fantastic claims. It gets me thinking, could a device like this actually work? If it does work (?), how might Mathis' Charge Field explain it?

http://frandeaquino.org/New%20paper%20II.pdf


The Gravity Control Cell

A device called, the Gravity Control Cell, which has the property of reducing, to annul, to invert and to intensify the intensity of the local gravity, has been developed starting from the discovery of the quantum correlation between the gravitational mass and inertial mass published in the article " Mathematical Foundations of the Relativistic Theory of Quantum Gravity ", Copyright © 2002-2008 by Fran De Aquino, available at: arXiv - physics/0212033. In this article, it was shown that any body submitted to the action of an electromagnetic field has its gravitational mass reduced and that the gravity acceleration in any traverse direction to the body is reduced at the same proportion in which the gravitational mass of the body it was reduced.

According to this principle, here called of General Principle of Gravity Control, the change in the gravitational mass of the body, and in the gravity acceleration in any transverse direction to the body, is directly proportional to the product of the refraction index by the density of electromagnetic energy applied upon the body, and inversely proportional to the mass density of the body (q.v. "Mathematical Foundations of the Relativistic Theory of Quantum Gravity"). The use of gas or plasma at ultra-low pressure in the Gravity Control Cells elapses from the fact that the gases or plasmas have low mass density and, as smaller the smaller pressure also the mass density of the gas or plasma. The Gravity Control Cell is a device absolutely unprecedented in the literature. From the technological viewpoint, there are several applications for this invention; possibly it will change the paradigms of the energy generation ( G ENERGY ), transportation and telecommunications.

As shown in the article "Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure", Copyright © 2007 by Fran De Aquino, available at: arXiv - physics/0701091, the Gravity Control Cells can be used to convert gravitational(G) energy into rotational mechanical energy. Thus, starting from this Gravitational Motor it is possible to get electric energy by means of a conventional electric generator coupled to the Gravitational Motor. The Gravity Control Cells can also be used to yield thrust. In this case the thruster system, called of Gravitational Thruster can produce several Kilonewtons.

These Gravitational Thrusters can be used as basic elements of propulsion in the most of transport systems, and certainly they will have applications in the most several industrial processes; this technology probably will find several applications in other areas of the human activity. They can still be used in the construction of a Gravitational Press of Ultra-high Pressure, as detailed in the article "Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure ". In aerospace spacecrafts (Gravitational Spacecrafts) they will have a lot of applications, for example, to produce artificial gravity inside the spacecraft. As a consequence of General Principle of Gravity Control, and of the advent of the "Gravity Control Cells" arises then a new concept of spacecraft and aerospace flight, it also appears a new benefit for the area of the telecommunications with the possibility of building transmitters and receivers whose operation are based on the method of gravity control here described. These systems can be also projected for wireless electric power transmission. (q.v. "Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure").