Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[Chromium6]

What are Tomes' and Burbidge's model for redshift? I lean toward Charles Chandler's view of it, that it does indicate velocity, but not distance. He thinks quasars have relativistic bipolar jets which are what the redshifts measure, not the quasers themselves.

I don't want to divert this thread to much from Mathis.

However, Ray Tomes has had a model looking for evidence based on periodicities and Red-shift quantization. I'm not totally wedded to this interpretation but it looked fairly interesting. Charles Chandler's perception of Red-shift an measurements is grounded in more observations.

Tomes made this video that first had me looking at this in terms of Tifft and Burbidge. It logically struck a chord:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEw7l3Fi6e4

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. ... -revisited
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. ... antization

2005-Sep-07, 10:52 AM #7
Ari Jokimaki

REDSHIFT QUANTIZATION
Over the years there have been several suggestions of different types of redshift quantization, it has been found from very different objects (quasars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, double galaxies, Lyman-Alpha forest...) by scientists in both alternative and mainstream side. There has been a variety of offered explanations (alternative or mainstream). Here are some of these:

G. Burbidge and Standard Spectrum of QSOs
First paper I'm aware of the subject is this G. Burbidge (1967) paper. It only proposes (based on very small sample) that QSOs have a standard spectrum with z = 1.95. Couple of papers from different authors followed, and then
G. Burbidge (1968) modified his suggestion. Clustering of QSO redshifts at z = 1.95 was still significant, but there appeared to be a redshift peak at z = 0.061 and possibly at some multiples of that value.

Karlsson Peaks
Karlsson (1971) found some new peaks in addition to Burbidge's two peaks, and suggested that redshift peak values follow certain geometrical series.

Tifft's Redshift-Magnitude Bands
In early seventies, Tifft started publishing papers about redshift-magnitude bands in galaxy clusters. I'm not very familiar with Tiffts work, so I just refer you to this
Tifft (1974) paper, in which he seems to describe the situation.

Arp's Model & Karlsson Peaks

Arp et al. (1990) uses Karlsson peaks in his model, but there is a twist. In Arp's model, you can't tell directly from quasar's redshift if it is quantized or not. Quasar redshift in Arp's model is:

1 + zQ = (1+zD)(1+zG)(1+zi)

where zQ is the measured redshift of the quasar, zD is the Doppler shift caused by quasars's peculiar velocity (usually assumed to be so small that it can be ignored), zG is the redshift of the parent galaxy from which the quasar has been ejected, and zi is the intrinsic redshift of the quasar. It is the zi that is supposed to show quantization in Arp's model, therefore zQ doesn't necessarily show quantization.

[Chromium6]

By the way a nice recap of Red-Shift theory is here at the last EU Conference at about 9:00 in :

JAMES SORENSEN: Halton Arp & the Big Bang | EU 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlFVUozGWyU

[Chromium6]

Mathis has a few comments on Red-Shift worth noting:

http://milesmathis.com/tired.pdf

The THEORY of TIRED LIGHT

why it is wrong and why it is right
by Miles Mathis

The theory of tired light was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929 to explain Hubble's redshifts. It
was still being defended in print in its original form by Grote Reber in 1989, as we saw in
my last paper (on Bremsstrahlung).

And it is still being defended in updated forms to this day, by various physicists.
What I will show in this paper is that no one to this day has correctly analyzed the mechanism of
redshift, which means that no one is in possession of the correct theory.

We will start by analyzing Reber's diagrams from the paper I previously quoted.

That diagram is a bit ridiculous, and I can see why Reber was being ignored on this question. At least
Zwicky and Hubble and the rest appeared to see that the so-called Compton solution didn't work, and
they moved on (Zwicky) or got quiet (Hubble). Why doesn't that work? For a start, the light isn't even
directed at the observer at the end, so it wouldn't be observed. Light can't have any angle to the
observer, or it will miss the observer. This immediately destroys the entire theory, such as it is.
Beyond that, this light is not being redshifted the whole way, even if we accept the diagram. When it
shifts toward the normal, it should blueshift, and when it shifts away, it should redshift. So on some of
these jags, it is blueshifted. For example, the very first interaction at point 2 is blue-shifting the light.
Number 9 is a redshift, because the light is at a greater angle than the original angle, but most of the
others are blue.

---------------

http://milesmathis.com/pound.html

AN EXPLOSION OF THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT

by Miles Mathis

The Pound-Rebka Experiment took place at Harvard in 1959. It is said to be the first experiment to unequivocally prove gravitational blueshifts, and to be the experiment that began the age of precision tests of General Relativity. Is this true? Well, yes and no. Let us analyze the experiment a bit more closely than it has so far been analyzed.

Basically, Pound-Rebka set up an experiment to measure the blueshift of light traveling straight down. They emitted the light at the top of a four-story building and caught it in the basement. We are told this is high-tech, but it sounds pretty low-tech to me so far. They couldn't find a taller building on campus, or in Boston? But you will see why they kept the distance small in a moment.

To measure the amount of blueshift, they thought to offset it with redshift. This makes perfect sense to me, and I congratulate them for this part of the experiment. They took some iron57 that was emitting gamma rays, let some of it emit from the top of the building downwards, and let the rest re-absorb the same rays in the basement. We suppose they found it wouldn't re-absorb in the basement, because it was at a different gravitational level. The light had been blueshifted and wouldn't fit back into the hole it left. So they let their lower iron57 move down with the rays, in a little elevator. This redshift offset the blueshift, and they had “measured” it. Appears brilliant, so far (except for that short “tower”).

Let me say that I accept the initial assumptions of this experiment. I agree that the motion of the light down in a gravity field should cause a blueshift. I agree that the movement of the iron in its elevator should cause a redshift. I agree that these should be capable of offsetting. I agree with the main lines of both Special Relativity and General Relativity. I believe in time dilation and length contraction and the need for transforms. I am not here to disprove Relativity or blueshifts. I am here to analyze this experiment, and especially the math underneath it.

For the brilliance of the experiment fades very fast when we start looking at the equations they used.

[moses]

I have been reading Mathis for many days now and I wish to make some comments. I think he conclusively shows that the mainstream is 1% correct at best. Even calculus is not certain. But I feel that Miles is about 10% correct at best.

Charge is something that has mass and some sort of spin. The proton probably spins and emits something in spinning. The nucleus probably has channels through it. As someone suggested above, a spinning charge photon could easily emit something and the field of such somethings could then produce magnetism. Gravity could be a side effect of one of these fields.

What this means to me is that we are primitive, and the natives we call primitive probably are far more advanced than us by using herbs and such to produce psychological healing effects. Because we are sick. Because our ancestors suffered greatly, and that has affected our DNA gene expression (epigenetics). And we have little access to that ancient suffering.

So we need to heal, not learn nature's secrets so that we can make better weapons. Part of that healing process is understanding the ancient past and there is probably no better place to begin doing that than here in this forum.
Cheers,
Mo

[Chromium6]

I've just noticed lately that if you look for "Interferometry" and "Gravity" you will pull up a lot of Mathis related articles recently published. Looks like this is a frontier of sorts right now.


Atom Interferometry for Detection of Gravitational Waves
Jason Hogan
Stanford University
March 12, 2013
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740776main_Saif ... 2013-1.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitati ... rferometer

Space-Based Atom Interferometers Could Find Gravitational Waves
As ground-based gravitational-wave detectors get ready to score their first direct measurement of the ripples of spacetime, thoughts turn to space-based detectors that could see all the way back to the big bang
Sep 17, 2013 |By Michael Moyer
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ves-video/

And of course:
LIGO
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

NASA Pursues Atom Optics to Detect the Imperceptible
10.18.12
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/f ... ptics.html

Atom interferometry, however, hinges on quantum mechanics, the theory that describes how matter behaves at sub-microscopic scales. Just as waves of light can act like particles called photons, atoms can be cajoled into acting like waves if cooled to near absolute zero. At those frigid temperatures, which scientists achieve by firing a laser at the atom, its velocity slows to nearly zero. By firing another series of laser pulses at laser-cooled atoms, scientists put them into what they call a "superposition of states."

[LongtimeAirman]

.
Miles has a new Charge Field paper on Ken Shoulders and Exotic Vacuum Objects.

http://milesmathis.com/evo.pdf

His charge field gains momentum.

REMCB

[Chromium6]

Mathis clarifies his definition of the Charge Field in this paper. :

Maxwell's Equations are also Unified Field Equations
------
The displacement current has an associated magnetic field just as actual currents do. However it is not an electric current of moving charges, but a time-varying electric field.

What does that mean? It means it exists whether or not you have any ions in the field. It is a sub-field
to the Electromagnetic Field, and is not equivalent to it. As a matter of straight mechanics, it is the
displacement field that creates Electromagnetism, not the reverse. Again, this matches my definition of
the charge field. It is the charge field that is primary, and the E/M field that is secondary. Charge is
photons, E/M is ions. The photons drive the ions, so they are the fundamental field

-----------
You see, the problem is they can't figure out how the charge in D is moving, so they just pretend it isn't.

In their limited world, the charge is either moving or static. If it is moving, it is free, and they couldn't
make that work. So it must be “bound.” But I have shown the answer is neither free nor bound. The
charge is moving, but it is not free. It is channeled. [See my long paper on nuclear structure for more on how nucleons channel charge.] In the presence of ions, the charge field is channeled in defined vectors, which not only prevents dissolution of the ions and nuclei, but it also explains things like the magnets and electrets above. Moving charge sums to zero only in the case that it is free and unchanneled. But if it has a summed vector defined by charge channeling, then the qualities of magnets and electrets can be explained mechanically.

We see their confusion again when it comes to explaining capacitors:

An example illustrating the need for the displacement current arises in connection with capacitors with no medium between the plates.

No medium between the plates! It is 2013, over a century after Tesla, and we still have physicists telling us there is no medium between the plates!

In fact, we see that Maxwell was on the right track with his vortices, since we require real spins in the
displacement field, beneath the magnetic spins in the E/M field of ions. They are not “molecular” in
the way we understand molecules now, but they are vortices. Each photon can be thought of and act as a tiny physical vortex, since each photon is spinning. This is what explains the displacement field, not the current dive off into heuristic math.

Wikipedia says,
Clearly Maxwell was driving at magnetization even though the same introduction clearly talks about dielectric
polarization.

But we now know it is neither. Maxwell wasn't driving at magnetization, nor was he driving at dielectric polarization. He was driving at real sub-magnetic polarization of real particles, which is what my charge photons give us. My charge field theory might be called either magnetization or dielectric polarization, but it is strictly neither. Why? Because both terms are currently used as descriptions of the E/M field, and my charge field is not a part of the E/M field. Although my spinning photons give us both polarization and a spin field (magnetic field), they do so via a sub-level of influence. Again, E/ M applies to a field of ions. Charge applies to a field of photons, and photons are not ions. Since the photons drive the ions, the charge field is at a sub-level beneath the E/M field. The E/M field is only an outcome of the charge field. But because those in the mainstream misunderstood Maxwell's definitions and delineations, they have since conflated the two fields. Because they only have one field, they cannot describe the motions and forces they see in data.

http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf

[Chromium6]

I've been looking at presentations on SFD (Stress Field Detectors) and Gravitational anomalies. In terms of Mathis, this should make sense. Large "Mass" objects create more stress from charge(?) that leads to gravitational anomalies picked up by the SFD sensors:


http://www.nxtenergy.com/_downloads/ind ... 202011.pdf


Significance of atomic scale mass detector

The SFD® sensor element coupling to the force field of
gravity as ‘wave’ renders momentum transfer
negligible, hence the anisotropy in horizontal field
becomes detectible.

SFD® sensors respond to stress
orientation changes through coupling
(wave‐particle) to earth’s gravity field.

Stress Introduces distortions in horizontal gravity field.

Gravity field couples to stress field.

What the SFD device does and does not respond to…?

• SFD is designed to be immersed and ‘float’ in the regional gravity field. The
properties of the sensor (mass, scale etc) are chosen to continuously maintain
its equilibrium state.
• Magnitude changes in the density will not affect the equilibrium state of the SFD
sensors.
– Sudden lithologic contrasts may ‘knock’ the sensor out of its equilibrium (which is a recognizable
signal response)
• In order to detect variations of the in‐situ ‘stress‐states’ the sensors are moved
across the field at high velocity in a straight line.
– Aircraft turning (it perceived by the sensor that stress orientation is changing)
• SFD sensor does not respond to topographic changes (shear does not exist at
surface, only at depth)


http://www.nxtenergy.com/sfd_what_is_sfd.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_Field_Detector
-------

Device operation

Original description of SFD by Owl Industries as of Jan 19, 1993 (part of the filings with BC Supreme Court case C944272) only said that the premise behind device's operation was "that there exist above ground, non-electromagnetic energy patterns reflecting various subsurface conditions", same definition was repeated exactly in Pinnacle Oil International brochure from 1996. NXT Energy Inc. has described SFD in its literature as a device that can measure "changes in subsurface stress fields associated with structural and stratigraphic hydrocarbon traps and reservoirs".[1]

NXT Energy Inc's. description of the device operation [2] explicitly claims that the device detects an aspect of gravity different from that detected by gravimeters and gravity gradiometry, followed by:

"Regionally, tectonics acting on rock mass will cause a slight increase in matter density due to elevated horizontal stress. That in turn will cause a re-orientation of the gravity field in the direction of maximum horizontal stress".

Since it is precisely the orientation, along with rate of change in all directions, of local gravity field that gravity gradiometry measures, it is not obvious what aspect of gravity company's description of the device operation refers to.

All published descriptions of the device's operation indicate that it produces time varying electrical output that in case of movement across terrain can be used to locate subsurface anomalies. While very few examples of device's output have been published, earlier descriptions of the device's operation show increased output activity over faults, fractures and oil fields [3] while current NXT Energy literature indicates the opposite.[4]

-----

From Mathis' Mach paper:

http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf

Claiming to follow Einstein, some later relativists proposed gravitons as a mediating field particle, to
explain attraction. But there were also three problems with that.

One, it didn't really follow Einstein, since Einstein explained gravity with curvature, not a field particle. Two, it didn't explain how a field particle could cause attraction. Particles colliding can only cause repulsion. Three, gravitons have never been found, despite huge amounts of time and money being spent on the search.
My reversal of the gravity vector ,a la Einstein's equivalence principle, simplified both the math and
the terminology of the field, since it automatically combined gravity, mass, and inertia, as well as
returning us to a Euclidean field. It also solved problem one in a thorough and very satisfying manner.
If gravity is a real acceleration, then it isn't a force, doesn't require a force field, and doesn't require a
mediating particle. But my vector reversal only highlighted problems two and three, pulling them out
of the shadows and putting a glaring spotlight on them.

......

You need to totally free up that acceleration vector, and there is no way I see you doing that.” OK, keep your eyes open, because you are about to. The first thing you need to be reminded is that size matters in my new unified field. In other words, charge works differently at different scales. I have shown how that works in many papers. At the quantum level, the photon is a lot larger as a field particle, so the charge field increases its
effects relative to gravity. The B-photon (charge photon) is about 10'30 smaller than the Earth, but only
10'10 smaller than the proton. The same thing applies here, since you are 10'7 smaller than the Earth.
Your unified field is not the same as the Earth's unified field. We have to do our calculations at the level of our bodies. The above calculations were at a planetary level. Calculations on you are at the human level. The charge photon is 10'7 more powerful on you than on the Earth. This changes everything. The vectors you feel aren't the vectors the Earth feels.

-------

My equations are more specific than that. My equations show that different objects at the same position react in different ways. Yes, my equations would match Galileo's proof that all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, since the gravity vector remains the same for them all. I have not changed that. However, my equations would not match Galileo in all situations.

I have already shown where my field equations diverge from Newton, and they would diverge from Galileo as well. They would diverge as a matter of charge. All objects are charge objects, even objects that have no E/M properties. Therefore, if Galileo could have dropped objects several orders of magnitude larger than one another, he would have found a small divergence. I repeat, this divergence would be caused by charge, not by gravity, so I am not overturning his laws, which were laws of gravity. I am just pointing out that his experiment was incomplete and inconclusive, regarding the unified field. He could hardly drop large asteroids from the top of the tower of Pisa.

[Chromium6]

From the Blaze Labs paper:
The EMRP Gravity Theory
© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-dist.asp

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10-16 eV (1.06E-51kg) with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 6E-17 eV (1.1E-52kg).

http://blazelabs.com/f-u-massvariation.asp

Mass varies with its absolute velocity
..and together with gravitational constant G, over 50 other scientific units depend on stars position!

Final Demystification of the gravitational constant variation

For hundreds of years, great thinkers have thought about the substance of matter, and specifically to its property we call mass. It all started with the work of Isaac Newton , an English scientist and mathematician who lived between 1642-1727. He had one of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known. Legend has it that seeing an apple fall made Newton reflect about the laws behind gravity, the force which keeps us bound to the Earth. Being a good experimenter himself, it did not take him too long to work out the laws of gravity. In fact at the age of 44, he found out that the motion of the planets and the moon as well as that of the falling apple could be explained by one simple Law of Universal Gravitation, which states that any two objects attract each other with a force equal to the product of their masses M1 & M2, divided by the square of their distance apart R, times a constant of proportionality G.
...
This is a plot of G results using the mentioned free fall technique. Error bars represent one formal standard deviation. The 1997 data was processed daily, giving values of G from 6.66E-11 to 6.71E-11. One day's observation consisted of approximately 7200 drop measurements. Again, data consistently shows that G varies over time, with an uncertainty of over 1400ppm, despite the fact that all sources of possible experimental errors associated with the classical Cavendish setup, have been eliminated.

Just a couple of years ago, Mikhail Gershteyn, a visiting scientist at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Centre and his colleagues have successfully experimentally demonstrated that the well known force of gravity between two test bodies varies with their orientation in space, relative to a system of distant stars. Their remarkable finding has been also been issued on the journal 'Gravitation and Cosmology'. George Spagna, a chairman of the physics dept at Randolph-Macon College, argued that Mikhail and his colleagues must provide theoretical justification to be convincing.

-------

New measure of gravitational constant higher than expected
Sep 09, 2013 by Bob Yirka report

(Phys.org) —A trio of researchers working in France, along with a colleague from the U.K. has re-measured the gravitational constant using the same apparatus they built 12 years ago and have found a small change. In their paper published in Physical Review Letters, the team describes how they reconfigured their original equipment to re-measure the gravitational constant and this time came up with a slightly higher number than before.

-----

Modern researchers use two main types of methods to try to measure G, the first is a more advanced way to do the same thing Cavendish did two centuries ago, using lasers instead of candle light—it's based on measuring the amount of torque applied to a thin ribbon set between heavy balls. The other involves applying voltage to a wire using a servo to counteract twisting due to G. In this renewed effort, the researchers ran both types of measurements in their device and averaged the results. In so doing, they discovered measurements revealed a value of 6.67545(18)x10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, with 27PPM standard uncertainty. This value is 21PPM lower than the last time they ran the experiment (measurements by others have ranged as far as 241 ppm lower). The team is unable to explain why they found a difference, and cannot say with confidence which of their measurements is likely closer to G's actual value.

Research into ways to better measure G will continue of course, with the hope that one day a method will be devised that will not be subject to other more powerful forces, or interpretation.
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-gravitatio ... igher.html

[Chromium6]

.
Miles has a new Charge Field paper on Ken Shoulders and Exotic Vacuum Objects.

http://milesmathis.com/evo.pdf

His charge field gains momentum.

REMCB

This is from Ken Shoulders as well:

http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Microscopic%2 ... 20EVOs.pdf


KEN SHOULDERS interview...RARE...MUST SEE!!! (the sound quality is not great)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTM0xO0CFaY

[moses]

Cavendish:
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

This still fascinates me. One big ball, one small ball, and Miles says that the big ball must block more charge photons than it emits. Personally that means that the blocked photons are converted to different photons that are emitted. So just like the Earth emits as a black body radiation which is different to the incoming radiation, so the big lead ball also emits as a black body and so emits photons with different properties to the incoming photons.

Then all that is required is that the emitted photons produce less push than the blocked photons, perhaps due to spin differences. But I want gravity to be a push gravity, so I want the lead ball to block gravity photon-like things and then emit possibly charge photons. So that the charge photons would produce less push than the blocked gravity photon-like things.

Of course this would mean that charge photons are being generated in the nucleus. So the incoming charge photons are less than the emitted charge photons. One immediately thinks of inside the Earth or the Sun. Perhaps at some depth most of the gravity photon-like things have been absorbed, so charge photons are not being produced. Remember, charge photons are heat. So the gravity field would produce a small heating, perhaps mostly near the surface.

One big problem is where do these gravity photon-like things come from. If matter converts them to charge photons then what could possibly convert the charge photons back to them. Well simple disintegration might do it. Perhaps even in the cold of space the charge photons lose energy and simply fall back to the smaller state of these gravity things.

Or charge photons like light photons decay very slowly, and this produces 'tired light'. And so at the same time this produces the gravity photon-like things too.
Cheers,
Mo

[Sparky]

moses:

Personally that means that the blocked photons are converted to different photons that are emitted.

why? A dense mass will block/absorb certain radiation. Charge is a continuous process isn't it. idonno..

So just like the Earth emits as a black body radiation which is different to the incoming radiation, so the big lead ball also emits as a black body and so emits photons with different properties to the incoming photons.

Is that documented or a certainty? idon't study MM theories now.

thanks

[moses]

A dense mass will block/absorb certain radiation. Charge is a continuous process isn't it. idonno..
Sparky
The Earth gets radiation mostly in the visible range and emits as a black body radiator, so mostly in the infrared. Charge is, or is like, infrared radiation according to Miles. So protons, electrons and neutrons emit charge photons. But the amount of charge photons emitted depends upon the amount received, and the nucleus channels and recycles these charge photons. Electrons inhibit the flow of charge, so positively charged nuclei emit more charge photons.

Now I am saying that the big lead sphere receives radiation and charge photons ( if these are at all different ) and emits charge photons as infrared radiation. So the output is somewhat different to the input.

But now I am proposing that the big lead sphere absorbs these gravity photon-like things (I'll call them gravs), and converts them into charge photons. Then the emitted charge photons would produce a lot less push on the little sphere than the blocked, or absorbed, gravs.

Moving on, I am wondering whether the charge photons emit gravs. These gravs would be the cause of magnetism as well as the cause of gravity. So basically a charge photon would be built of gravs. And so a charge photon could decay back into gravs. The charge photons would also recycle gravs so that the incoming gravs balance the outgoing gravs.

There is a lot more work needed with this theory, but it is neat, as it explains all forces in terms of gravs.
Cheers,
Mo

[Chromium6]

Found at Ken Shoulders' .pdf collection:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/

Which Mass?
by
Ken Shoulders ©2006

When confronted daily with the ability of an EVO to reduce both expressed charge and mass and also faced
with the incessant chant or chorus of, E = mc2, one must ask the question of which mass should we be
concerned with as it slides over a range of at least several billion.

The answer implied is that we must use one and only one single particle to accurately apply the law. Still,
considering the incredible profusion of the effect of charge clustering, we should know how to cover the
questions this effect raises, as the energy laws are supposedly too fundamental to lightly toss them about.
The intended outcome of such a quest is to devise new ways for deriving useful energy from the mass
variation effect associated with EVO action. Although I have investigated several such means, I strongly
believe I have found neither all nor the best of them.

An allied mystery with the mass reduction effect is how the charge tracks the mass reduction so accurately
over such an enormous range. At this point, this tracking is measured as having a range of at least a billion
to one. This implies something so fundamental as charge and mass being identically the same with the
stated difference being only a convenient definition conjured up by previous physicists and not total reality.
We are at the gateway of answering these fundamental questions but I suspect any new answers will be
drowned out by the orthodoxy of the Church of Past Science. A consensus is not really needed here, as
mass will do what mass does, but it would be nice to at least have a new agreement between vanguard
science workers.

Which mass should we use as we move forward?

[LongtimeAirman]

Moses, Like you, I read Miles' invitation welcoming alternate ideas to explain gravity. Like you, I see that the charge field could easily explain push gravity. It seems that the universal charge field could easily "outweigh" the Earth's emitted field.

I said,
You have described our gravity as the sum of solo gravity minus the emission of the Earth's charge field. Where is the incoming charge field in that description?

Miles said,
The external field is channeled into the Earth's poles.  So it is all one field you are talking about.  The Earth uses the external or ambient field.  It actually feeds on it.  

The internet is wonderful. I don't see any interest in a push gravity in that answer.

I'm still confused. The way I understand it, the photons that make up the charge field can travel and/or spin at any speed up to light speed. All matter is comprised of and recycles the charge field. There is a hierarchy of photonic matter. More charge is received than emitted at the Earth (matter is constantly growing, unless it is evaporating). It is interpenetrable except when it is not - depending on the available ambient energy of the local unified field along with the geometry of the matter present. It has direction and can be synchronized. It can form a magneto or heliosphere.

I've been considering the charge field for a couple of years now. Clearly, I'm slow. All I know for sure is that the charge field is a marvelous conception.

I'm not ready to give up on a charge field push gravity yet. You guys are helping me get beyond my personal beliefs or interpretations. It's a mighty rich field.

REMCB