Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[Lloyd]

Matter Motion
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/R ... nload/4286
I finished the article yesterday, I mean my first reading of it, and it seems to have a number of helpful suggestions. I don't understand the info on gravity well yet, but it makes more sense to me than MM's expansion idea for gravity. The suggested explanations for electric and magnetic forces seem pretty good too. Michael says there are a couple of kinds of photons as well as the aethereal field and his description of the latter sounds a lot like MM's description of photons, i.e. having radius and mass. He says all matter has spin and helical precession and there are no natural linear motions, though large precession paths are nearly linear from our perspective.

Feel free to post any interesting quotes from the paper. I will if I get time.

[Lloyd]

MJV's Gravity Model

If one end of the axis of a small non-spinning gyroscope is placed on a small tower, like this
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/pplato2/h- ... 8f_15a.png
__|__ the gyroscope simply falls, since the center of gravity is in the center of the gyroscope,
[] | off to the side of the tower.
[]
[]

But, if the gyroscope is spinning rapidly, it stays on the tower and rotates/precesses around the point of contact, because the center of gravity is at the point of contact with the greatest applied force. The greatest applied force here is the tower.

All subparticles are spinning gyroscopes.

Quoting MJV on Gravity
(He's using some terms that need to be deciphered. Can anyone help decipher this, or comment?)
In order to keep spinning, electrons and protons must take momentum from the continuous collisional attention of the aethereal field. As a consequence there is a permanent reduction in field momentum density vectored away from spinning matter particles. Due to the spin of electrons and protons, there is always a greater net momentum density towards spinning sub-atomic matter particles and this leads to the effect called gravity. When objects approach, each object presents the other with a reduced field momentum density from its direction so that there is a net force ”pushing” them together, which gives us the effect of a gravitational ”attraction”. Since momentum has been removed from the outward vector, there is a net inward vector, which leads to gravity and is understandably proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance. F = GM1M2 r2

The push of gravity is not a direct push by the field in the sense that we might imagine it to be, based on our everyday experience. Electrons and protons are spinning and following their inherent precessional helices at the speed of c. The push of gravity derives from a field momentum density fluctuation that acts as a point of force, and a point of force becomes a pivot point. Gravity, like ALL accelerative ”forces”, is a source of influence that aligns matter to a secondary helix, propelled by each particle’s inherent helical precession. Gravity does not act in a straight line between mass centres, it acts by a helical curve between travelling objects in motion.

[seasmith]

Quoting MJV on Gravity
(He's using some terms that need to be deciphered. Can anyone help decipher this, or comment?)

Lloyd, Have you contacted T'bolts member Michael V (MJV),
and asked him to comment personally ?


http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=14508

[Lloyd]

SS, I contacted him by another route. His previous username was just MJV something. I had his paper which had his email address on it. So that's how I reached him. I didn't realize he's still a member here with a new username. So thanks.

[Spektralscavenger]

I wonder if the so called torsion aether waves (dr Koryzev, Dan Winter), sometimes referred to as "non-electromagnetic energy", are just another facet of the charge field or something on its own. Spinning photons no more? Do they really travel billions of times the speed of light? Are they hyperconductive paths in the field? Are they "sub-photons"?
They claim many experiments on the existence and properties of these waves thus (unless lying) it´s not like black holes entropy.

[Lloyd]

Spektral said: I wonder if the so called torsion aether waves (dr Koryzev, Dan Winter), sometimes referred to as "non-electromagnetic energy", are just another facet of the charge field

Can you provide a few relevant quotes?

[Spektralscavenger]

Can you provide a few relevant quotes?

Let´s see:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/05/koz ... orsio.html

http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/ ... waves.html

http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com.es/ ... thing.html

http://www.enterprisemission.com/mayantorsion.html

Nikola Tesla was the first to experiment with two spiral shaped wires. He fed these with alternating currents in exact opposite phase, which made the net result a nil electromagnetic field, the zero field. Even though the two opposite electromagnetic fields eliminated each other, Tesla managed to demonstrate that these spiralled wires were capable of sending energy over very long distances. He discovered a totally new form of energy.

This is the wave that remains when two opposing electromagnetic fields interfere and cancel out each other’s electrical and magnetic field components. The result is a longitudinal wave that vibrates in the same direction in which it travels

Kozyrev's work showed that torsion fields can be absorbed, shielded or sometimes reflected. For example, sugar can absorb, polyethylene film and aluminium can shield and other forms of aluminium or mirrors can reflect.

Kozyrev determined that strongly right-handed molecules such as sugar can shield torsion effects, whereas strongly left-handed molecules such as turpentine strengthen them.


It seems that torsion waves are generated when photons and anti-photons, or matter and anti-matter in general, cancel out. The annihilation process is more complicated.

[Lloyd]

Kozyrev vs Vaicaitis

Kozyrev's torsion fields seem to resemble Michael Vaicaitis' helical precession motion of spinning matter. Michael's model is explained at http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/R ... nload/4286. One difference is likely Kozyrev's claim that superluminal velocities up to 10^9 c are possible, whereas I think Michael says c is the limit.

Do you want to share some of the main features of Kozyrev's model?

[Spektralscavenger]

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/book ... na-kozyrev

http://tompaladinoscalarenergy.com/niko ... physicist/

https://books.google.es/books?id=5YU7AA ... hs&f=false

https://books.google.es/books?id=NatHZn ... hs&f=false


Regarding the question of a thosand million times the speed of light, maybe the no spin means channeling all the motion into "linear" (spiralling) motion or, since come from photons and anti-photons "annihilating" each other, are smaller particles not slowed down by the ocean of "big" photons. Any speed is possible given tiny enough particles therefore stretching out the causality cones. If there is a full spectrum of smaller particles they mingle all the things together as being able to go from edge to edge of the universe and back in a blink. Going on into a funnier speculation, what for us is an attosecond for little green men made of torsion is many lifetimes; what for us is a lifetime for extragalactic sized green men is an imperceptible "tic" no clock can measure.

Some experimental scientists have claimed superluminal speeds in the order of c+v in high voltage discharges, being "v" the speed of the background. Imagine a wave moving on a pool. Now imagine the pool itself is moving at speed v.

I think, however, equalizing this field, or anything else, with time is simply a conceptual mistake. The "tempo field theory" (another theory allowing FTL, by the way) has the very same mistake.

[Spektralscavenger]

Do you want to share some of the main features of Kozyrev's model?

I don´t mind but ain´t easy to find.

Prediction: we can rise up the speed of light as much as we want in some direction at the price of reducing it as much in any other direction, in other words, turn the symmetrical space zero-vector field into a net flux.

According to Kozyrev´s probing of the Sun its core is cool (may be a Bose condensate-like state) and hollow. I sincerely don´t understand the metallic core EU idea. Wouldn´t electric repulsion push metals (and hydrogen, etc) apart to a shell? That in general, disregarding what depth this layer should be. Stars are metal balls with some gas above and below.

Really? Can the interior of a star be "empty"? Well, my money is on it´s full of "exotic" matter. What for some beings is vacuum for others might be solid superdense matter, and vice versa, except that it´s a continuum of (variation of) densities and frequencies/coherency rather than a "black or white" and not only less density but also more density ("too much solid") means "effective vacuum". They say "negative temperatures" are the hottest! The spectrum is never-ending. A blackboard-- for ones the black is vacuum and the white matter, for others the other way around. Write in and the first perceive the "universe" is filling in while the second perceive it´s emptying. Even weirder, in superstring theory entities can be components or compounds depending on the parameters, like if a brick could be a whole building or a "fundamental piece" of a building depending on the weather. Hey, albeit "superstrings" are already ruled out by LHC still might be of some use, like Newtonian theory of gravity.

When I´m inspired, boy, I´m inspired


http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2011/09/r ... e-machine/

http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com.es/ ... ol-of.html

[Lloyd]

Spektral, thanks for the links and summary. Have you checked out Charles Chandler's model at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6031.html?

Power Generation
A few months ago we analyzed a battery circuit in this thread and came up with a lot of material, but no very clear explanation of how photons energize a light bulb or other electric load. I'd like to go through that again one of these days and try to clarify it better. But for now I'd like to try to analyze several forms of power generation to see what role photons play in each case.

Water Pressure
Water can generate power via gravity. Water stored at a higher altitude can generate power as it falls to lower altitude. The weight of the water can turn a water wheel or an electric turbine etc.

Wind Energy
The weight of air movement can power a pump or electric generator or charge a battery etc.

Solar Energy
Photons can be converted to electric power in solar cells.

Fuel Combustion
Fuel can be burned to heat water for steam power or to turn vehicle motors etc.

Animal Power
Animals and humans can pull or push implements etc to do work.

Power Storage
Water stored above a dam is one form of power storage. I discussed the idea recently that charge can be stored in stars, planets, batteries etc, similar to storing water energy, but other Mathis supporters don't seem to like that idea, though it seems obvious to me that the Sun emits vastly more energy than it receives. I showed also that even a battery seems to produce a lot more energy than it receives. I was talking about a small 9 volt battery, but the same seems to apply to a car battery.

I think MM said in his Battery Circuit paper that protons and electrons are segregated in a battery and that the leads supply different signals to the load and the difference is what somehow provides energy to the load, such as a light bulb. Can anyone say if that's accurate? Or can anyone explain how MM's model works in detail to power the bulb?

I'll continue later.

[Lloyd]

Water Pressure
Water can generate power via gravity. Water stored at a higher altitude can generate power as it falls to lower altitude. The weight of the water can turn a water wheel or an electric turbine etc.

Comment: By MM's model it may be upward photon pressure that raises water molecules into the atmosphere, where they condense onto dust particles etc to form ice crystals that either melt and drop as rain, or do not melt and fall as snow etc.
- In this TB forum post http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 43#p103238 Charles Chandler explains why dust particles are needed for the ice crystals to form. It's because the water molecules all have the "same" charge and so they repel each other, but dust particles tend to have the "opposite" charge and so they "attract" the water molecules. When enough molecules thus clump together, they become heavy enough to fall downward.
- MM acknowledged in the Star Formation paper that the negative and positive ions attract. All he didn't do is explain how the attraction occurs. I suggested somewhere here that, as protons suck in photons at their poles, electrons are sometimes carried along in the photon streams and the electrons get stuck to the protons. I'd like to see a calculation that would show how strong this sort of attraction of electrons to protons would be. Can anyone suggest such a calculation? Or is there a better explanation of the attraction?
- Another question: when the weight of falling water from a dam to a turbine or water wheel does work, such as by producing electricity, how many photons are needed to do a certain amount of that work and how are the photon masses applied to a circuit load?

[LongtimeAirman]

.
We have an update for Miles' September 2014 prediction concerning the beginning of the next solar cycle.

"Solar Cycle 25 has already begun".

NEW PAPER, added 11/27/18, Solar Cycle 25 has already begun. My revolutionary prediction of 2014 has come to pass, sending the mainstream even further under the bed.

http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
http://milesmathis.com/apollo.pdf

Which I suppose proves how big this is more than anything else would. The fact that the mainstream feel the need to hide—not only failing to publicize my work but failing to publicize the Solar Cycle itself—proves they are running scared. They have been forced to bury an entire Solar Cycle for at least eight months, just to avoid facing the truth. The mainstream cannot deal with me on any level, so the only thing they can do is bury their heads and pretend that history is not proceeding without them. After all, the Sun is not going to quit doing his thing just because they decide not to report it. And, likewise, I am not going to stop doing my thing just because they fail to report it. Both the Sun and I are going to continue spewing out our light and heat, and those that can't stand the burn can go hide in the closet or under the bed. But those who aren't afraid of daylight can come here and bask all they want.

Congratulations Miles.
.

[Lloyd]

Hi Airman. Can you post what his prediction was, in case some of us don't have time to check out his paper for a spell?

[Cargo]

He predicted the start of the Solar Cycle. The mainstream is still trying to say it won't start until next year. Other details in the 2 page pdf linked apollo.