Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[seasmith]

~
Electric Solar Circuit / Solar Cycles


It seems MM is moving ever more in line with EU solar circuit ideas, and further from Mainstreams'
(and CC's ) internal generator models :



This charge recycling theory immediately explains the limit at 30 degrees they are finding in the sunspot motion. The Sun isn't creating an E/M field in its core or body, by some nuclear means, as the mainstream believes.
The Sun is recycling a greater charge field coming in from the galactic core and the surrounding galactic field. It is taking that field in at its poles and re-emitting it nearer the equator.
From there, it travels out on the Solar plane to all the planets, where it is recycled by them in turn. A sort of circuit is then created, and the charge returns from the planets back to the Sun.

http://milesmathis.com/cycle.pdf

[Lloyd]

MM says the Sun recycles photons received from the planets and the galactic core. It shouldn't be too hard to determine how much light/energy the Sun receives from all sources. Then it could be determined if the amount of light/energy the Sun puts out is the same as what it receives. If it puts out more than it receives, then Charles' theory and MM's theory could both be right. Charles says a lot of the Sun's energy was stored in electric double layers within the Sun, which is similar for the planets.

[D_Archer]

MM says the Sun recycles photons received from the planets and the galactic core. It shouldn't be too hard to determine how much light/energy the Sun receives from all sources. Then it could be determined if the amount of light/energy the Sun puts out is the same as what it receives. If it puts out more than it receives, then Charles' theory and MM's theory could both be right. Charles says a lot of the Sun's energy was stored in electric double layers within the Sun, which is similar for the planets.

No, Charles has no external influence, so he would be wrong in fact.

Regards,
Daniel

[Chromium6]

MM says the Sun recycles photons received from the planets and the galactic core. It shouldn't be too hard to determine how much light/energy the Sun receives from all sources. Then it could be determined if the amount of light/energy the Sun puts out is the same as what it receives. If it puts out more than it receives, then Charles' theory and MM's theory could both be right. Charles says a lot of the Sun's energy was stored in electric double layers within the Sun, which is similar for the planets.

No, Charles has no external influence, so he would be wrong in fact.

Regards,
Daniel

I would like to plug this theory to you and others here Daniel -- "Dr. Körtvélyessy's -- The Electric Sun". I would like to believe it could be reconciled with Mathis' Charge Field recycling? He asks good questions on the matter.
----------
Dr. Körtvélyessy's -- The Electric Sun
The "thermoelement-effect" true or not true?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 66&p=97808
--------------

A fat number shows a picture. Fat letters show an important question. The questions below will reveal that this thick book is the sum of many short papers. All of them became explicable through the recognizing of the role of the electric force in the Universe. Therefore these models complete and prove each other. The specialists know that the present, non-electric astronomy cannot answer many questions - e.g. "What is the cause of the jets of the T-Tauri stars ? " S&T 1999 Jan.p.40. Mostly, an answer was missing in the past in the case of antigravitational motions due to electric repulsion (e.g. wind, corona, flare, CME, jets). Questions have now an answer also in the cases of the electric attraction (e.g. slow solar wind, helmet streamers, cosmic rays, flux tubes, solar loops in almost horizontal layers). Let us start with the most important investigation of our future:

(Questions at this link)
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... n_sun.html



Also the frequencies required for ionizing and non-ionizing EM radiation differences at this link:
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educ ... Rad-ST.PDF

---------

No professional astronomer could find this new astronomy because they learned (as I) that a thermoelement needs two wires. It was my luck to find a new thermoelement-law which shows that the two thermowires are two generators ! After this new law (in 1978), I needed 16 years to discover that conducting stars function similar to a thermowire, charging the hot parts positively and the cold parts negatively, without any motion, simply by heat-difference. No problem is the Lenz law which would stop the solar rotation via inducted currents. The Electric Universe is fantastical beautiful in its elegant simplicity, already in its first description. However, the 20th century remains for ever the century of astronomical mysteries because of the unleveled effects of the electric force.

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

[D_Archer]

I like his thinking, it seems concomitant to Electric Universe from Wal, there might be some connections there?

>

all photons move in a plasma along a very long zigzag course.

I wonder what Miles would say of this, i think with Miles he mostly discusses the photons that go straight through and come out again, not that in plasma photons go in zig zag motions...unless these are the photons that are recycled by the atoms in the sun, going in one end and out the other, but that the net movement of the bulk of the charge photons is through the matter and not directly out, because it is plasma.

>

thermovoltage is the result of the pushed electrons in the Sun.

Yes, the electrons are pushed by the charge photons.

>

Not a section of the Sun is a dynamo (which has no circuit !) but the whole Sun is a simple thermoelement-generator (with a simple circuit)

With Miles charge is heat, a thermogenerator has charge going from the hotter part to the colder part, which is logical, the more go to where there is less (entropy). So this could be part of how the sun works where it is cooler below the photosphere. {and ofcourse any moving charge constitutes a current}

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

Daniel:

Yes, the electrons are pushed by the charge photons.

What force attracts these imaginary photons into the sun?

Electrons, being pushed by imaginary photons would move in erratic ways, if at all!
Charge photons would be omni present and exert their imaginary force from every angle.

You are accepting a delusional imagination of MM's.

[D_Archer]

Daniel:

Yes, the electrons are pushed by the charge photons.

What force attracts these imaginary photons into the sun?

There are no attractive forces, only apparent attractions.

Electrons, being pushed by imaginary photons would move in erratic ways, if at all!

The photons are not imaginary. Electrons move in an E-Field just fine and non-erratic, an E-Field is photons. See the candle experiment between charged plates. The flame is pushed to one side due to the E-Field, this is a physical interaction, a push.

Charge photons would be omni present and exert their imaginary force from every angle.

Indeed if there where no larger spinning masses. Spinning atoms direct the field, spinning stars/planets direct the field, spinning galaxies direct the field. Into the poles out the equator the most, there is also through charge.

You are accepting a delusional imagination of MM's.

That is your opinion, but is not based an an honest review of his work.

Explain in physical therms how a thermogenerator works. I just thought that charge field photons can explain it physically.

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

an E-Field is photons.

Really?! Anyone besides MM and his followers believe that?!
Any documentation for that assertion?

Spinning atoms direct the field, spinning stars/planets direct the field, spinning galaxies direct the field.

And how do they do that? "Spinning" is not magical.

is not based an an honest review of his work.

Really, not honest? Maybe not educated enough to fall for this nonsense, but my post may be in error, but deception is not part of it.

Explain in physical therms how a thermogenerator works.

I don't know what a thermogenerator is. A generator that works off of heat?

I was referring to MM's charge photons.

[Chromium6]

an E-Field is photons.

Really?! Anyone besides MM and his followers believe that?!
Any documentation for that assertion?

Spinning atoms direct the field, spinning stars/planets direct the field, spinning galaxies direct the field.

And how do they do that? "Spinning" is not magical.

is not based an an honest review of his work.

Really, not honest? Maybe not educated enough to fall for this nonsense, but my post may be in error, but deception is not part of it.

Explain in physical therms how a thermogenerator works.

I don't know what a thermogenerator is. A generator that works off of heat?

I was referring to MM's charge photons.

Are not all of the answers to your questions conclusively found in your "magic 'twitter' ball" Sparky? It was the one with the graph network of twitter links -- spiked and fuzzy looking. You know, the one with all of the black lines spiked out in a ball shape that "charted" a full misunderstanding on your part as it related to the "E-field". That twitter network graphic was entirely your claim as a manifestation of the E-field. Now don't go and call this item "nonsense" again as you typically do on every third sentence -- especially on this thread. I was lucky to find that your image linked back to a poly-sci course post on twitter network graphs... which showed clearly your point was entirely "nonsense". But calling "nonsense " is like a bucket of paint with you... you need to color the walls for yourself in all of these threads before people hang their "work".

Again, Sparky, the answers to all of your questions are found in your 'twitter' ball even if you are a bit colorblind. I'll hang that graphic again if you need it in this MM thread...that you ruefully dismiss with "twitter" balls.

[D_Archer]

I destroyed CC's notions about conduction in the debate thread. For the record i want to add a Miles Mathis note on conduction (in his paper about Anderson localization):

the conduction of charge, which is photons, not electrons

in my theory we have to know exactly which elements we are working with. We have to know because
we have to track charge as it passes through the nuclei of these elements. What causes these extended
relaxation times isn't electron localization, it is longer charge paths through the nuclear structures.
These longer charge paths are caused by element alignments that do not allow for through charge. This
effectively stops conduction, as I showed in those previous papers by actually drawing the charge
channels through a variety of nuclei and molecules. I also showed how the dopants are affecting these
paths. If we then wish to calculate exactly how much these longer paths will interfere with charge, we
don't look at manufactured numbers like the ones that come out of current theory. We start by looking
at numbers like thermal conductivity, heat capacity, electronegativity, and so on: the numbers that
describe the charge channeling abilities of each elemental nucleus. Using those experimental numbers
and my nuclear diagrams, we can begin to understand the conductivity of given complex materials.

from: http://milesmathis.com/ander.pdf

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

Chromium6 :

Again, Sparky, the answers to all of your questions are found in your 'twitter' ball even if you are a bit colorblind. I'll hang that graphic again if you need it in this MM thread...that you ruefully dismiss with "twitter" balls.

Your "superior", self-indulgent twaddle says a great deal about your self-worship and absolutely nothing to refute my position or even answer my question. I assume by your post that your cult leader can not provide a logical or a mathematical proof.

The idea of a "twitter ball", whatever that may be, must be very amusing to you. Maybe borrow MM's?? It appears to be linked to twits, leader and followers.

*****************************************
Daniel:

I destroyed CC's notions about conduction in the debate thread.

I don't think so! But why post this here?! Using MM as an argument is not the best source. It diminishes your overall credibility. And puts you in league with others who have been duped by MM. Searching for a workable mechanical process is commendable, but MM's is terribly flawed on every level.

[Lloyd]

Daniel said: See the candle experiment between charged plates. The flame is pushed to one side due to the E-Field, this is a physical interaction, a push.

This video has a demonstration of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7_8Gc_Llr8. The candle flame is said to point in 2 directions and when the flame is blown out the smoke goes in both directions toward both charged plates.

[Sparky]

Lloyd, isn't that experiment showing ion flow?

[D_Archer]

Lloyd, isn't that experiment showing ion flow?

What do you think pushes the ions?

I don't think so! But why post this here?! Using MM as an argument is not the best source. It diminishes your overall credibility. And puts you in league with others who have been duped by MM. Searching for a workable mechanical process is commendable, but MM's is terribly flawed on every level.

I did not use a MM argument*, i found the quote in that paper later (after my comments in that other thread) and it applied to this thread so that is why i posted it here.

I do not care about credibility only about truth. One of the ways to get there is logic, my favorite method. I have found that Miles Mathis also favours logic and he is also very funny

Regards,
Daniel

*my argument was one of definition and CC butchers definitions left and right so he should be held accountable for that, instead of skirting issues all the time and rambling on.

[Sparky]

What do you think pushes the ions?

The electric field, which is not proven to be photons. I don't know what it is, but desperate need to know does not allow me to overlook MM's lack of logic.(see previous posts where I take on MM's logic.)

To overlook the imagined charge photons actions is to lack imagination in that area or chose to not see that they will not behave as MM says.

But if you care to explain in detail how E field is produced, I will study it and respond. There is a great deal that I just do not understand.

If MM's math ever does coincide with his charge model, it is coincidence. Like I said, my desperate need to know does not allow for wild, speculative models.