Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Spektralscavenger » Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:26 am

Rather than "charge field" it´s "universal background field" or "universal background fluid", "universal" for it´s literally everywhere. OK, aether is fine for economy of language. It´s made of photons AND much smaller particles down to the infinitesimal. Levels of matter we may say, photons is one level but there are infinite levels below (and above). What seems to be absolute emptiness is indeed teeming with tiny particles, and not "virtual" ones ...
Spektralscavenger
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:55 am

Nonsense means you don't understand something. I have not spoken nonsense, because I've said specifically what makes sense to me and what doesn't. If you don't understand math, then you likely don't know if David has disproven anything. I'm very doubtful that he has. David admitted that MM's calculus works for some things and claimed that it doesn't work for other things, but Steven Oostdyk said conventional calculus doesn't really work on the kinds of math problems that MM's calculus doesn't address either, but gives wrong answers, I believe.

You said you wanted to study the magnetism issue, but as soon as it's discussed you call it all nonsense, meaning you don't understand what was discussed. And you accuse us of not using logic, without showing any logic yourself as to how you come to that conclusion.

What's apparently most illogical in physics is attractive forces of any kind, because attraction has no mechanical cause at all. Repulsion makes sense, since it's the result of collisions between objects. So it makes sense to suppose that protons repel each other because they emit photons. When the photons hit a proton, they slowly push the proton away, because the photons are so small. So where there are a lot of photons concentrated, there should be excess photon pressure and where there are fewer photons, there should be lower photon pressure. And the high pressure areas should cause motion of photons and objects toward the low pressure areas. It should be similar to air movements in high and low pressure areas of the atmosphere. So attraction seems likely to be due to low photon pressure. That's what I think gravity is likely to be too.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:09 pm

Spektralscavenger wrote:[Space or vacuum is] made of photons AND much smaller particles down to the infinitesimal. Levels of matter we may say, photons is one level but there are infinite levels below (and above). What seems to be absolute emptiness is indeed teeming with tiny particles, and not "virtual" ones ...

I think that's very possible, but do you know of good evidence for particles smaller than photons?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby 4realScience » Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:23 pm

@Lloyd

(Like your idea of gravity as low pressure area of photons, a little. Still photons travel at c yet we know speed-of-gravity, thank you Tom Van Landern, is much greater.)

Yet I am responding to a previous post you made where you said you cannot go along with Mathis' stacked spins, I cannot either yet I still like Mathis due to the charge field and the way he constructs the nucleous and the elements.

So why does he use stacked spins for the particles when he could just build the particles same as the nucleii?

He could let all particles be made of quanta that align to channel the charge field. He could diagram the electron same way he does hydrogen, or such. I don't know how well it would work, to get the 'quantum numbers' right.
4realScience
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:05 pm

4Real, I think MM started with analysis of Newton's gravity equation and found that it seems to actually cover E/M forces too. Then he must have looked at repulsion between protons and suspected that protons emit real photons which cause the repulsion. Then I guess he worked on how photons might form electrons, protons etc. And he must have worked on the atomic structures last. So when he worked how photons form atomic particles, he found a need for photon spins and then larger spins at right angles to the former and so on.

My alternative model would incorporate those right angled spins too. Instead of a photon colliding with another photon and then rotating around a point on the first photon's surface, which I call a wild gyration, but which MM calls a stacked spin, I have two photons meeting gently and then rotating together around the same point on the first photon's surface. This provides a balanced spin around the point of contact between the two photons and also provides a doubling of the mass (as well as the increased centrifugal force, which MM's stacked spins provide too). But my model doesn't provide hollow centers for protons or electrons etc. Instead, the photons would be "attracted" to the particle's poles, then to the particle's surface and finally to its equator, where it would fly off, if the spin is too fast.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby David » Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:17 am

Lloyd wrote:
If you don't understand math, then you likely don't know if David has disproven anything. I'm very doubtful that he has. David admitted that MM's calculus works for some things and claimed that it doesn't work for other things…


The mathematics used by Miles Mathis is comparable to a stopped clock; every 12 hours the clock hands will display the correct time. However, as an accurate and reliable timepiece, a stopped clock is essentially useless.

Now Mathis would have you believe that since he can produce the correct value on occasion (for instance, the derivative of a polynomial), his method of differentiation is therefore valid for all functions. However, that is not the case.

The Mathis method of differentiation (which utilizes either a table of differentials, or his slope equation) will flat out fail for any and all non-polynomials. For example: sin(x), ln(x), log(x), exp(x), sqrt(x), etcetera. And that’s not mere smoke of opinion; it is an easily demonstrable fact.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Spektralscavenger » Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:19 am

Lloyd wrote:
Spektralscavenger wrote:[Space or vacuum is] made of photons AND much smaller particles down to the infinitesimal. Levels of matter we may say, photons is one level but there are infinite levels below (and above). What seems to be absolute emptiness is indeed teeming with tiny particles, and not "virtual" ones ...

I think that's very possible, but do you know of good evidence for particles smaller than photons?


http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch5.htm
Quote: As we shall see, Rife's work showed that the living cell is connected to at least 16 internested deeper levels of reality than a relative "point" under an ordinary microscope. Further, all levels are structured and organized.
Think of it! Each one of those levels is to the preceding level as microscopy today is to the normal world. Sixteen levels!


The experimental evidence of 16 levels is not clearly explained though.
Virtual photons? Oh, please. I rather MM non-spinning photons, undetectable by ordinary means but very real. It´s not virtual/real but non-spinning/ spinning (clockwise or counterclockwise).

The attempts to prove the graininess of space failed. So far, no minimum length has been detected*. Is there a minimum bit awaiting discovery or things can be arbitrarily small?

*If space is defined by actual matter the smallest particle means the absolute minimum distance, littler don´t make physical sense; and any measured distance that there´s at least one particle that size. I think the interferometer probed down to 10^-44 m.
Brian Greene explains in one of his books that superstrings theory solve the inconsistencies of quantum and gravity imposing an absolute minimum length: the effective length of a string (although just trades structureless points for structureless strings). If electrons, etc are points with no other size than the De Broglie wavelength (in principle) they can probe any infinitesimal distance increasing the energy more and more. On the contrary, with finite sized particles (strings or any other shape) increasing the energy beyond certain threshold causes expansion, not shrinking like in the case of a point with wavelength, limiting the resolution to the particle-size. Similarly, in MM theory gamma rays of very high energy gain spins turning into electrons.

Spins within spins ad infinitum: relativity of resolution: choose your spin-wave-size, got your reference frame of spin 1 (lowest spin) whose spin additions make up any other particle. Usually the reference frame is photons but we are free to choose some sub-photons or sub-sub-photons size as spin 1 as well and then photons "become" (it´s in the observer, not in the thing itself, here why "relativity") a composite of stacked spins_ I bet even spinless photons are a bunch of whirls, only no coherent global spinning. So on till boredom. Even if we never find positive evidence of the infinitely small I´ll believe in it until someone finds proof of a bottom level or irreducible "atoms". Which I highly doubt for a cutting edge on matter, like the universe being immense but not infinite, is quite odd.

Now, what about stars and planets? Is it possible that different layers spin at different speeds or even in different directions? What if ceases to spin like Venus in some thousands of years?


MM theory of magnetism is exactly like Le Sage theory of gravitation. Attraction is due to less pressure in between than in any other direction, repulsion-pushing from the opposite directions we may say. Gravity comes into play in the Casimir effect.
Spektralscavenger
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Nov 01, 2014 6:56 pm

I think the temperature of "space" is an important consideration for electrostatics overall. Here are a few excerpts from the paper on Filaments. I'm just not sure of Dr. K's overall theory around the "big bang":

---------
Dr. László Körtvélyessy Filaments of the Universe Published: 1999-09-15

http://www.electric-universe.de/Scripts ... aments.pdf

Now we can understand the three big puzzles of cosmology:

1. The positive clustergases are the cemetery of the exploding stars which were larger than our Sun. They emit X ray as anodes. This radiation is a cold recombination of e.g. Fe XXV ions and no thermal radiation which would destroy all stars and planets in them.

2. The positive clustergases sweep away the gravitationally embedded galaxies with their bigger mass. Due to their own motion related to the Big Bang, the moving positive charges of every galaxy, of every cluster or supercluster produces electric currents which attract each other. Therefore the filaments of the superclusters come into existence more and more (Fig. 1). The elapsed time since the Big Bang and the slow production of the positive charge in the stars increase this development. No such filaments were present in the first Gigayear when the expansion was decelerated by gravity. At that time, gravity was the only force of infinite radius in function.

3. At present, also the second, the stronger (the electric-) force of infinite radius is in function. Each positive mass of a halo repulses all other positive masses of all other halos. Therefore the expansion of the Universe is accelerated more and more electrostatically.

The puzzle of the dark matter is not solved by the shown electric functions.



Nature of the filaments

Let us first analyse some terrestrial filaments.

The electron beam in the TV is a filament of electrons. The three electron guns have a hole of a diameter of 2 mm each. But the electron beam would produce a very blurred white-black picture on the screen with a spot of this diameter (all the three phosphors of the screen would light contemporarily given white light together). Moreover, the projection onto the fare screen would enlarge this spot about 20 times. But in reality, this spot has a diameter of only 0.2 mm due to the attraction among the negative currents in this electron beam. This attraction is much stronger than the very strong electrostatic repulsion among the electrons in the beam. The electrons - injected into the big volume of the screen-valve - do not explode electrostatically and do not fill the whole big volume, but form a thin beam which has a smaller diameter (0.2 mm) than the emitting surface (2 mm). The negative currents in the beam look for the minimal cross section. This is the circular cross section.

Similarly, the lightning is also a filament of a circular cross section of a diameter of about 0.1m. Also the lightning has a much smaller diameter than the charged cloud which emits it. The strong electrostatic repulsion among the huge number of electrons is overbalanced by the much stronger attraction among the electric currents. Only the movement of electric charges produces the filament, if the lightning would stop, it would have immediately a very big and exploding volume of a diameter of many kilometers due to the electrostatic repulsion.

Each spark - of the e.g. test-plant for electric insulators - is an electric filament of a circular cross section.

Stronger currents cause thinner sparks due to the stronger attraction among the negative electric charges in motion. An ion-beam in CERN is a positive filament. The ions do not explode electrostatically, they remain in a narrow beam of a circular cross section. This ion-beam has no recombination-light because no electrons are available.

-----
What is the origin of separated electric charges in the Universe ?

One origin is well known: all bodies in the Universe are hit by strong photons and particles of the cosmic rays. Especially the clouds from which stars are born have a high surface which is hit by strong ultraviolet photons of young stars in the proximity. Most of the ejected electrons return to the cloud, but a small fraction of electrons leave the cloud forever due to the electrostatic escape velocity. H II clouds in quick expansion come into existence. Neutral clouds i.e. H I -clouds will be ionised to H II clouds. Also protons are ejected by the same particles, but their mass is 1836 times higher than that of the electrons, therefore their ejection is negligible. Therefore, negative clouds i.e. „H 0"-clouds do not exist. Nature has an asymmetry in this case. Stable positive ions exist but stable negative ions do not exist.

Another process of the separation of the electric charges is stronger but less known: the emission of the stellar wind (Birkeland 1896, Biermann 1950s, Körtvélyessy 1998). The stellar wind is known as a continually ejected and charged mass.

But what is the cause of this ejection and the charge ?
Is this charge positive or negative ?

This question seems to have its very first answer in Fig.5. The big temperature difference between the stellar core and the surface moves the electrons and other light particles outwards. The electrons have a 43 times higher velocity in a given temperature related to that of the protons of the same temperature, therefore, the core will be positively and the surface negatively charged. The electrostatic repulsion in the core does not produce an explosion due to the non-transparent plasma in the core. Otherwise, already 0.001 g protons in overbalance - which means only 100 Coulomb more solar positive charge than negative charge ! - could inhibit the formation of the Sun. Also the electrons in overbalance in the stellar body are ineffective as long as they wander in the plasma. But arriving the transparent hydrogen layer - which has a temperature below about 13 000 K in the Sun - the electrostatic repulsion among the electrons produces a continual explosion which emits light matter into space. The cause of this process is constant: the temperature difference, which is 15 MK in the Sun. Therefore, the solar wind is constant in velocity (750 km/s see Ulysses). This wind is isotrop: 10 A from each square kilometre on the Sun’s surface. The negative solar wind does not attract electrons, therefore the wind-emitting solar surface - the so called coronal hole - seems to be black in X ray. Small coronal holes emit wind of the same velocity of 750 km/s as the large coronal holes.

According to this model, all HRD-stars separate the positive charged particles - which are cumulated in the core - from the electrons - which are emitted as stellar wind. Supposed core-explosions (Amabartsumian 1957, Grandpierre 1996) transport fragments of the positive core onto the surface.
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:13 pm

Spektralscavenger wrote:Now, what about stars and planets? Is it possible that different layers spin at different speeds or even in different directions? What if ceases to spin like Venus in some thousands of years?


MM theory of magnetism is exactly like Le Sage theory of gravitation. Attraction is due to less pressure in between than in any other direction, repulsion-pushing from the opposite directions we may say. Gravity comes into play in the Casimir effect.


Keep this paper in mind:

http://milesmathis.com/casimir.html

Zero-point Energy and the Casimir Effect
Miles Mathis

Also notice how the gravitational field is never once mentioned in any explanation of the Casimir Effect. We are never told why the force cannot be gravitational, although you would think that would be the first force to be checked. The Casimir Effect is an attraction, and so as the first preliminary step the physicists should have exhausted that possibility. In the first paragraph of any explanation of the history of the Casimir Effect, the reader should be told why the gravitational field was dismissed as a candidate. But this is not what we see.

Neither Wikipedia nor any other contemporary gloss of the effect stoops to tell us why the gravitational field has been ignored so thoroughly.


Also:
An Analysis of the Dynamical Casimir Effect
http://milesmathis.com/dce.pdf
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:03 pm

Vacuum Conductance?
I just saw David's post at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15364&p=101123#p101110 showing that batteries don't short out in space, therefore vacuum must have poor conductance after all, but that seems to contradict the rocket tests showing greater conductance at higher altitudes with greater vacuum.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:02 pm

that seems to contradict the rocket tests showing greater conductance at higher altitudes with greater vacuum.
:roll:

wrong thread! And logic is not incorporating possibility of something else happening,.
What altitude was conductance higher?! What else is found at that altitude?! How and where were test instruments attached?! ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:57 am

Cosmic Glow Discovered --"Radiates More Light than All the Known Galaxies in the Universe":
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/12/cosmic-glow-discovered-radiates-more-light-than-all-the-known-galaxies-in-the-universe.html

The extragalactic infrared background represents all of the infrared light from all of the sources in the universe


diffuse infrared background glow in the sky equals the total amount of infrared light coming from known galaxies.


Charge field everywhere.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:02 pm

D_Archer

Cosmic Glow Discovered --"Radiates More Light than All the Known Galaxies in the Universe":
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... verse.html

The extragalactic infrared background represents all of the infrared light from all of the sources in the universe


diffuse infrared background glow in the sky equals the total amount of infrared light coming from known galaxies.


Charge field everywhere.

Regards,
Daniel


All the more obvious; the further, farther and wider our photo-electricly enhanced vision extends.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:50 am

Stacked Spins Breakthrough

See this online article: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4286.

Until I read the section in this article about gyroscopes, I wasn't able to understand how MM's model of stacked spins could work. Now the stacking of spins is starting to make sense. The author says all particles should be understood to have spin and helical precession motion.

If anyone else checks it out, tell us what you think of it, please. I'm only partway through the paper so far.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:32 am

Lloyd wrote:Stacked Spins Breakthrough

See this online article: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4286.

Until I read the section in this article about gyroscopes, I wasn't able to understand how MM's model of stacked spins could work. Now the stacking of spins is starting to make sense. The author says all particles should be understood to have spin and helical precession motion.

If anyone else checks it out, tell us what you think of it, please. I'm only partway through the paper so far.


Seems his research is based on Mathis. I scanned it and there are some slight differences or more ideas even (ie about gravity).

Reading it. Thanks Lloyd.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests