Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[LongtimeAirman]

Sparky, Posting mostly on topic? We are off topic attacking you? Why, ah, CHOOO!

1. Miles/Airman. The energy present in space is due to photons. Real, physical, and an explanation that leads to myriad solutions.

2. Bearden/Sparky. The photon is tapping into the vacuum field for it's energy. We do not need an explanation, we need to take advantage of that fact.

No surprise that I prefer Miles' explanation. Why do you prefer Bearden's?

REMCB

[Sparky]

Why do you prefer Bearden's?

Bearden is involved in real work in a very important area, as compared to MM, who is hand waving and appears to lack integrity.

Others involved in real work are: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/

A very small quantity of highly conductive H2O-based solid fuel powder was loaded in to a hopper and fed into a vibratory conveyor overhead of rollers electrodes that were electrified with about 5V, 20,000A. The high current flow ignited the fuel to produce 0.5 ms pulses of brilliant light-emitting plasma having power and power densities as high as one million watts and 100 billion watts per liter, respectively. The optical power of the white light having the same temperature as the Sun was converted to electricity using commercial solar cells surrounding the plasma, and the power was conditioned/leveled with capacitor storage.

[LongtimeAirman]

Bearden is involved in real work in a very important area, as compared to MM, who is hand waving and appears to lack integrity.

Sparky, Would you describe that quote as: A) A fair comparison; B) An honest critique; C) An invitation to discussion; Or D) A simple dismissal.

Of course it's just my opinion, but like it or not, the concept of the Charge Field is the most significant development in physics within our lifetimes. Even if is is not yet in its final form, it provides us with a simple model to better interpret Bearden's and Blacklight's findings and the universe around us.

REMCB

[Sparky]

Would you describe that quote as: -------

Of course it's just my opinion, ------- --------it provides us with a simple model to better interpret Bearden's and Blacklight's findings and the universe around us.

Just an opinion, like your posts. Simple model?! Hardly ! Bearden investigates models and has a good understanding of those. Blacklight needs to prove itself. It might be a scam. But if what they say is true, then MM/s charge field probably has nothing to do with the reactions. If one needs a "simple" model, go for god did it.
That model makes order out of chaos....

[LongtimeAirman]

Just an opinion, like your posts. Simple model?! Hardly ! Bearden investigates models and has a good understanding of those. Blacklight needs to prove itself. It might be a scam. But if what they say is true, then MM/s charge field probably has nothing to do with the reactions. If one needs a "simple" model, go for god did it.
That model makes order out of chaos....

Why, Thank you Sparky; I wish I could say the same about your usual posts. You are way too quick to judge, and perhaps don’t realize you are using your mini-colosus status as intimidation.

I must insist, the Charge Field model is simple, simpler than vacuum energy based on Hisenberg’s Uncertainty theorem. How a theorem that says you cannot know both the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously, be used as an energy generating field, is beyond me. I’m not saying they will fail, I just don’t understand their explanation. Zero point energy is fluctuations in the quantum foam of space. How can you take advantage of that?

The charge field is an exclusionary field in vector opposition (balance) with gravity on all scales. A huge simplification from where we were before. We can now toss out all sorts of maths developed to mimic this balance.

Thanks for helping me learn.

REMCB

[Sparky]

it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

If one wanted to call directionalized photons electricity, who could argue that, it is just a term, and MM is guessing about how they behave.

As for a magnetic field, MM"s ideas are nonsense. What brings the N pole field back around to the S pole? It appears to be a curved field, and his photons travel in straight lines/waves.
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Asym ... 0Motor.htm

The “static field” of a permanent magnet is actually a continual steady-state flow of real photons from the magnetic charges (poles) of the magnet, with the energy of those real photons having been extracted directly from the vacuum-with-pole (vacuum-with-magnetic charge) interaction between the seething virtual state vacuum and the magnetic pole (charge) itself.--------the “static” magnetic field is actually a nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS) thermodynamic system. It is a continuous flow of real EM energy (real photons) from one pole (magnetic charge) to the opposite (the opposite magnetic charge). The fundamental input virtual energy of course comes from the virtual state vacuum.

As Aitchison points out:
"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." … “Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta...” [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 333-391. Quotes are from p. 357 and p. 372.

As Nobelist Lee pointed out,



“…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable.” [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.].

So when we have a broken symmetry then something previously virtual has become observable. Violation in the symmetry of the EM energy means that some previous virtual energy absorbed from the seething virtual state vacuum by the magnetic dipole has become observable energy. The known and proven asymmetry of the source dipole (whether magnetic or electric) is a very simple and universal mechanism that already freely extracts real EM energy output from its seething virtual state vacuum energy input. It converts virtual state energy to its continual observable (quantum photon) energy outflow of real, usable EM energy.

Thus, when we develop asymmetry in the output fields (steady state EM energy flows) of that permanent magnet, a rotary engine using such asymmetric-field permanent magnets can indeed be powered by the asymmetry of the observable output energy, being taken directly from the active virtual state vacuum itself. This is perhaps the simplest "vacuum energy powered" asymmetrical system that can be built to power itself and a load.

How can MM's simple minded model compete with the sophistication and usefulness of QFT? What useful mechanism does he propose?

[LongtimeAirman]

M Miles Statement, _S Sparky answer, _A Airman answer

M1. .. it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

M1_S1. If one wanted to call directionalized photons electricity, who could argue that, it is just a term, and MM is guessing about how they behave.

M1_S1_A. Yes, insofar as his “guess” if a full-fledged mechanical theory. No, in that it’s fairly easily described. A net flow of charge photons results in pre-electric field. The spin coherence of the field determines the pre-magnetic field. The true electric and magnetic fields will manifest in the presence of electrons and ions.

M1_S2. As for a magnetic field, MM"s ideas are nonsense. What brings the N pole field back around to the S pole? It appears to be a curved field, and his photons travel in straight lines/waves.

M1_S2_A. I don’t believe Miles has directly answered the question of curved paths yet, (or I’m not familiar with why). It could be that the field lines are merely apparent. So, left to my imagination, I would consider the possibility of formations of head-to-tail chains of electron “matter” that grow outward along the “so-called” magnetic field lines as more electrons are included.

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Asym ... 0Motor.htm
The “static field” of a permanent magnet is actually a continual steady-state flow of real photons from the magnetic charges (poles) of the magnet, with the energy of those real photons having been extracted directly from the vacuum-with-pole (vacuum-with-magnetic charge) interaction between the seething virtual state vacuum and the magnetic pole (charge) itself.---

Wow. Real photons! That’s progress. It almost sounds like someone is coming to their senses concerning photons, but no, introduce – “vacuum-with-pole”. It sounds like you are the one relying on chaos. No reason to call Miles’ ideas nonsense if you are willing to accept a “vacuum-with-magnetic charge”.

-----the “static” magnetic field is actually a nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS) thermodynamic system. It is a continuous flow of real EM energy (real photons) from one pole (magnetic charge) to the opposite (the opposite magnetic charge). The fundamental input virtual energy of course comes from the virtual state vacuum.

A continuous flow of real EM energy from the vacuum, “a nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS) thermodynamic system”. There’s really no description here. Magic.

As Aitchison points out:
"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." …

We had free photons at first, but now we are getting some superposition effect between photons and vacuum fluctuations or something. You would have us believe that energy can spontaneously appear anywhere - from all points in the field.

“Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta...” [I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 333-391. Quotes are from p. 357 and p. 372.

I disagree with virtual force. Starting from real we are now back to imaginary. Your sources do not agree. It should be recognized that forces are delivered by real matter.

As Nobelist Lee pointed out,
“…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable.” [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.].

Your earlier “vacuum-with-magnetic charge” seems to be the solution.

So when we have a broken symmetry then something previously virtual has become observable. Violation in the symmetry of the EM energy means that some previous virtual energy absorbed from the seething virtual state vacuum by the magnetic dipole has become observable energy.

How can one have anything but “violations in symmetry” from random vacuum energy generation. Are you now saying that the vacuum is orderly? That the asymmetry becomes the source of force?

The known and proven asymmetry of the source dipole (whether magnetic or electric) is a very simple and universal mechanism that already freely extracts real EM energy output from its seething virtual state vacuum energy input. It converts virtual state energy to its continual observable (quantum photon) energy outflow of real, usable EM energy.

And “by the magnetic dipole”, you mean a dipole with north and south charges. Particles aren’t dipolar in that sense, but here, that sense has become a “known” means of tapping into the vacuum energy source.

Thus, when we develop asymmetry in the output fields (steady state EM energy flows) of that permanent magnet, a rotary engine using such asymmetric-field permanent magnets can indeed be powered by the asymmetry of the observable output energy, being taken directly from the active virtual state vacuum itself. This is perhaps the simplest "vacuum energy powered" asymmetrical system that can be built to power itself and a load.

Yep, the asymmetry of the vacuum energy manifests are able to drive a rotary engine. (David, take note).

How can MM's simple minded model compete with the sophistication and usefulness of QFT?

Are you Kidding?

What useful mechanism does he propose?

Real spinning photons.

REMCB

[LongtimeAirman]

Unifying the Photon with other quanta
http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

David, Good choice. I would definitely recommend this paper. I’ll include it again because we are on a new page. Also your quote is the next to last paragraph of the paper so I will also quote the last paragraph and the Feb 2012 Addendum:

Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gathers spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

This is the basic mechanism of charge. Of course I have only outlined a barebones theory here, and I have much work to do. But you can see that requiring a strictly mechanical explanation has continued to lead me into fertile fields. For a century it has been thought that mechanics was a necessary limitation or hindrance at the quantum level. It has been thought that the sort of explaining I am doing is impossible. But it is not impossible. Asking and attempting to answer the sorts of material and kinematic questions I am asking and answering here is the only possible way to progress at any level, quantum or cosmic.

Addendum, Feb 2012: Some in the mainstream are already moving in the direction of this paper. A reader just sent me to a 1997 paper by Williamson and van der Mark, and they are proposing a similar electron construction to mine. Unfortunately, they have kept a lot of mainstream dogma which I have shown is incorrect. These quantum problems require an entire array of simultaneous corrections, and they have only spotted some of them. They are also keeping the difficult math and complex wording, to impress their colleagues, which is understandable. If you find my papers way too breezy, you may prefer theirs. But if you want a barebones explanation, my quantum spin equation is much simpler than their toroidal construction.

Of course, you quoted the paper in order to ridicule “the little engine” and to ask us to “pull your finger”. Is this what passes for debate? Grade school snickers?

The little engine is literally that. It spins, and gains energy through the number and energy of the photons it “intakes, while at the same time it is emitting photons back out again. You think that’s too simple?

Miles is defining the genesis of nucleons, starting with a photon with mass. I must admit that I’ve yet to develop an adequate internal model for stacked spins. Lloyd believes that there is a sort of propeller action. Even curved segments might do the trick. However, there is a simple mechanical mechanism at work.

Lloyd : Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Point to you Sir.

REMCB

[Lloyd]

Airman and Cr6, I'm willing to have scientific discussion with you and others here, but not with Sparky or David, since they engage in nonscientific name-calling and off-topic discussion, which the mods don't seem to have time or interest to correct. David for example used the word bootlickers, which is certainly nonscientific name calling.

As long as the mods fail to do their job here, are yous willing to discuss without answering Sparky and David on this thread? Could you answer them only on the other MM thread, even if they continue to post here? I won't be answering them at all.

Electron Shells
Would yous like to discuss this topic of electron shells? If so, do you know what the evidence is for shells and for the amount of energy needed to remove electrons from different shells? Here are the MM locations in which he discusses shells: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... tron+shell. I'll discuss this if you're interested in discussing. Otherwise, is there another MM topic you'd prefer to discuss here?

[Chromium6]

Airman and Cr6, I'm willing to have scientific discussion with you and others here, but not with Sparky or David, since they engage in nonscientific name-calling and off-topic discussion, which the mods don't seem to have time or interest to correct. David for example used the word bootlickers, which is certainly nonscientific name calling.

As long as the mods fail to do their job here, are yous willing to discuss without answering Sparky and David on this thread? Could you answer them only on the other MM thread, even if they continue to post here? I won't be answering them at all.

Electron Shells
Would yous like to discuss this topic of electron shells? If so, do you know what the evidence is for shells and for the amount of energy needed to remove electrons from different shells? Here are the MM locations in which he discusses shells: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... tron+shell. I'll discuss this if you're interested in discussing. Otherwise, is there another MM topic you'd prefer to discuss here?

Sounds good to me Lloyd.
Here are a few of the key papers on Electron Orbit by MM to get started with:

Schrodinger’s Wave Equations Explained
http://milesmathis.com/wave.html

To continue, we just look to my paper on the electron orbit, to find another wave motion. This wave motion is created by interaction with another body. The quantum cannot exhibit this wave by itself. There I show that, just as at the macro-level, the field is a compound of the gravitational and E/M field. The standard model has long believed that the quantum field is all E/M and the macro-field is all gravity, but that model is wrong. At all levels the interaction field of all particles and bodies is a compound of gravity and E/M. Gravity causes an apparent attraction, E/M causes a real repulsion, and the orbit is caused by the balancing of both with the tangential velocity of the orbiter.

      Due to the mechanics of the orbit, an electron cannot possibly be captured at a perfect tangent. A perfect capture would only take place with an infinite velocity. In short, it must be captured in a less-than perfect landing, which creates a bounce. I show this in more detail in the other paper. This bounce becomes the wave, once it settles. This wave would become apparent in a graph of the main orbital motion. Since it is caused by a bounce and not by a spin (end-over-end or otherwise), it is not disallowed by any gyroscopic rules or other rules of dimensionality.

More Problems with Bohr - Miles Mathis

More Problems with Bohr by Miles Mathis. This paper is a lead-in to an upcoming paper on the Rydberg series. I have recently thrown out all electron bonding
http://milesmathis.com/bohr2.pdf

Only if we treat the quantum field as a unified field can we use inverse square equations, because the unified field acts as an inverse square equation, as I have shown. Both Newton's equation and Coulomb's equation are unified field equations, and they are inverse square equations. So Walker is partially correct. He is getting his analogy from the historical analogy between Newton's equation and Coulomb's equation, and that analogy is partially true. They are the same equation in different forms,
as I have shown. Problem is, his sloppy and incomplete logic ignores several pertinent complications here. One, once we know that Coulomb's equation is a UFE (unified field equation), we have to admit that the quantum field includes gravity, and we have to include that idea in all future computations. QED doesn't do that, of course.

Two, since Walker is using F = mv2/r, instead of F = GmM/r2, his equation has a velocity dependence in it. And if you increase an orbital velocity, you also increase F. But the other side of his equation ke2/r2 has no velocity variable in it, so he can't include that variance. In other words, we have no way of representing the electron's orbital velocity. The equation, as it stands, assumes that any velocity of the electron in orbit will give us the same charge. The electron could be going 1m/s or c and it wouldn't matter. But we know that isn't true, either. To start with, ke2/r2 is derived from Coulomb's equation, and Coulomb's equation wasn't written for orbiting charges. It was written for static charges. More than that, if Walker is proposing an analogy between a planetary orbit and an electron orbit, then the charge would have to increase as we increased the velocity of the electron. In that sense, Walker's mistake is trying to write an equality between a specific equation and a general equation. The term mv2/r tells us a specific velocity at a specific radius, so we are being told a specific force. But the term ke2/r2 is telling us only the radius. Depending on the speed of the electron, its charge e at that distance r could give us almost any value for F. So the equality is not allowed. The equation is a fudge.

Rewriting the Rydberg Formula
http://milesmathis.com/bohr3.pdf

That is the mechanics, but what of the math? Why this equation and not some other? Well, again, current theory is partly correct, since it is a quantum theory. Quantum theory just means the charge photons will push the electron some amounts and not others. We don't have a continuous series of allowed orbital energies. But current theory doesn't tell you why. I already have in many other papers. These energy transfers are quantized because the quanta are spinning, both the photons and the electrons. And I mean real spins with real radii. The energy is quantized because the allowed spins are quantized. Each particle, including the photon, stacks spins. Once a point on the surface of the spin is going c (tangential), it can't go any faster. If the particle needs to take on more energy—from more collisions—it can only do so by stacking another spin on top of the first. It does this via gyroscopic rules: going beyond the spin radius of the first spin. Therefore, the allowed spin radii double each time. If we have an axial spin of radius 1, then the x spin is 2 and the y spin is 4 and the z spin is 8. At that point, the particle can continue to stack spins by starting another level of a, x, y, z.
...
Shocker, right? It turns out the quantum equations aren't really following the energy of the electron. They are following the energy of the photon. The number 3.6456 x 10-7m is a common photon wavelength, being in the infrared. It is much too small to be the wavelength of the electron. Remember how I showed in my last paper that one of the central mistakes in the Bohr equations was in the assignment of the momentum? He fudged from Δp to p, mistaking the change in momentum for the momentum. Well, the change in momentum of the electron is the momentum of the photon. That is where the switch was made. All these mainstream equations apply to the photon field, not the electron.

http://milesmathis.com/uft.html

I will come back to QED later, but the short version is that if mass is a three-dimensional acceleration, the proton and electron will be accelerating by that equation just as will stars and planets and people. The electron orbit, no matter how complex and probabilistic it is (or is not), must express both repulsion and apparent attraction, since all relationships in the universe are a balancing of the two. QED has measured the resultant forces very accurately (all of which it assigns to E/M), but it has not yet assigned the mechanical causes of these forces in the correct way. It assumes that gravity is absent or negligible, but this is not true. QED has mis-assigned a motion, and this mis-assigned motion hides gravity at the quantum level.

But now I must return to Newton, since his equation is much easier to fix than QED. I must prove I can make the smaller fix before I tackle the larger one. I digressed into electromagnetism to show that I cannot simply take the electrical force equation and pull it out of Newton's equation, leaving gravity without E/M. This is clear on first glance, since it is obvious to anyone that subtracting one equation from the other will leave us with something very close to zero.

Let us return to G. We have already dismissed the dimensions of G as so much fluff. They allow us to use the new dimension of mass but don't really do anything else. To put that in stronger terms, the dimensions of G compel us to think that mass is a new sort of dimension. Newton achieves this compulsion not by telling us what mass is, but by forcing us to give up length and time. If we used the dimensions of length and time, like Maxwell, we would think that mass is defined by motion, and Newton does not want us to do that. He wants mass to be what Einstein called "ponderable", and he does not think that motion alone can supply that. So he creates ponderability by a sort of fiat. The mass dimension stands for ponderability, therefore ponderability must exist. Not terribly rigorous, but there it is.

The Electron Orbit (the greatest hole in Quantum Mechanics)
http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html

[Sparky]

<moderator edit>

What is accomplished by having everyone agree to agree on everything? <moderator edit>

MM's spin?

In addition to their other properties, all particles possess a quantity called spin, an intrinsic angular momentum. Despite the name, particles do not literally spin around an axis, and quantum mechanical spin has no correspondence in classical physics. In the position representation, a spinless wavefunction has position r and time t as continuous variables,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematic ... anics#Spin

How else can one bring sanity to the use of photons gathering or evacuating an area in order to induce or reduce a charge? The best thing that can be said is that it is just silly! MM's concept of a charge field is a construct of convenience for MM from the beginning.

<moderator edit>

[LongtimeAirman]

Airman and Cr6, I'm willing to have scientific discussion with you and others here, but not with Sparky or David, since they engage in nonscientific name-calling and off-topic discussion, which the mods don't seem to have time or interest to correct. David for example used the word bootlickers, which is certainly nonscientific name calling.

As long as the mods fail to do their job here, are yous willing to discuss without answering Sparky and David on this thread? Could you answer them only on the other MM thread, even if they continue to post here? I won't be answering them at all.

Electron Shells
Would yous like to discuss this topic of electron shells? If so, do you know what the evidence is for shells and for the amount of energy needed to remove electrons from different shells? Here are the MM locations in which he discusses shells: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... tron+shell. I'll discuss this if you're interested in discussing. Otherwise, is there another MM topic you'd prefer to discuss here?

Lloyd, Yes Sir. A discussion would be a pleasant change.

This topic of electron shells; why suggest an outdated model? Compare and contrast or argue against or what?

Thanks for the search link statement, I need to start using that.

REMCB

[nick c]

Moderator note:
It is a basic forum policy that attacks should be directed at ideas not personalities. The irony is that those that resort to name calling only serve to reduce the credibility of their arguments. There have been some devastating criticisms of MM but because of the addition of name calling those criticisms have been rendered less effective and given MM proponents a legitimate excuse to not respond.

Airman and Cr6, I'm willing to have scientific discussion with you and others here, but not with Sparky or David, since they engage in nonscientific name-calling and off-topic discussion, which the mods don't seem to have time or interest to correct. David for example used the word bootlickers, which is certainly nonscientific name calling.

Lloyd, what would you like done? You complain about "nonscientific name-calling" but have you followed forum procedure by reporting offending posts? (That is clicking the red exclamation point and filing a report of a post that you find in violation of forum rules.) You have not done so.

As long as the mods fail to do their job here, are yous willing to discuss without answering Sparky and David on this thread? Could you answer them only on the other MM thread, even if they continue to post here? I won't be answering them at all.

Due to time constraints, I and other moderators and administrators do not necessarily have the opportunity to read every post. [When I come across something that I think is a violation of forum etiquette or rules I will surgically remove the offending phrase via a <moderator edit> or remove the entire post from the thread, depending on the situation. Usually I will either PM the offending forum member or make a moderation insertion into the thread.]
It is up to forum members to report offensive posts so the specific content of a particular post can be reviewed. The problem is that since you or others have been offended and have not reported the offensive post; that the offending remarks have been quoted in subsequent posts, and are reappearing throughout the rest of the thread! Note that your last post contains David's use of "bootlickers" as does my quote in this post. That is why it is important not to respond to an offensive post but rather to report that post asap, by clicking the red exclamation point and writing out the specifics of your complaint.

[Chromium6]

Moderator note:
It is a basic forum policy that attacks should be directed at ideas not personalities. The irony is that those that resort to name calling only serve to reduce the credibility of their arguments. There have been some devastating criticisms of MM but because of the addition of name calling those criticisms have been rendered less effective and given MM proponents a legitimate excuse to not respond.

I haven't seen much "devastation" on his theories.... more like whines and mis-directions from those with a weird incomprehensible agenda against MM's writings--I guess some can't let their "cherished" theories die. All of Mathis' criticisms of the EU still stand Nick. When Sparky simply posts something like this... call it what you will but it is pretty pathetic. Now Sparky is trying to throw Bearden against MM's model but isn't really showing us anything. Is he trying to prove Bearden-Evan's QM theories over MM's ... all I see from him is this repeated "mis-direction" in many forms. It kind of lowers the value of the TB forum in my estimation overall. So, we've tried to ignore Sparky from butting-in but it has become nearly impossible at this point -- he can't restrain himself. This thread is for a discussion on Mathis' theories not other unrelated theories like Bearden's.

BTW, I will use the red exclamation mark going forward to notify admins.

Like WTH is this?
-----------

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
Postby Sparky » Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:10 pm

-----------
Mathis has pointed out a few inconsistencies of the EU model.

As for David, I've pointed that at least one of his criticisms of Mathis is entirely flawed but that didn't dissuade him from trying to drag out every formula he could find in each paper and try to find errors in it and which in a few cases was completely out of context within the Mathis paper itself.

Venus Proves my Charge Model Again
http://milesmathis.com/venus2.pdf

First published July 1, 2013

A reader just sent me to a new video at youtube by Wal Thornhill, as part of the Thunderbolts or Electrical Universe (EU) model. Although I agree with Thornhill and the Thunderbolts on larger issues, especially the deficiencies of the standard model and the need to bring a second field into celestial mechanics, I find Thornhill's analysis deficient at many points. Thornhill says that only the Electrical Universe model can explain newer data, and that just isn't true. My charge models explain all data much more thoroughly and rigorously than EU models. The EU physicists still haven't penetrated the difference between the charge field and the E/M field, so although they are near to the correct analysis, they are still missing the bullseye, forcing them cram new data into their models when it doesn't really fit. So although it is true that EU explanations are much much better than mainstream explanations, they still aren't correct.

The main problem with the EU model is that it explains everything in terms of the E/M field, ignoring or taking for granted the underlying charge field. Theirs is an electrical universe, while mine is a charge universe. Some will see the difference as one of semantics, but it isn't. As I have made crystal clear in a series of recent papers where I unify Maxwell's equations, the charge field must be separated from the E/M field in order to understand and explain unification, dark matter, and all these problems the Thunderbolts are working on. Without that understanding, the EU analysis of the celestial field must remain flawed and incomplete. Electrical and magnetic interactions are taking place between celestial bodies, as they claim, and even the mainstream recognizes that. But none of these interactions and none of the E/M or plasma fields can be explained without the underlying charge field. And when it comes to explaining winds, hot and cold poles, and other phenomena, my fields explain the data much more cleanly and clearly than EU models.

[Chromium6]

Here's an area that relates to MM's Charge Field:
------------

Phosphorescence

Phosphorescence is a specific type of photoluminescence related to fluorescence. Unlike fluorescence, a phosphorescent material does not immediately re-emit the radiation it absorbs. The slower time scales of the re-emission are associated with "forbidden" energy state transitions in quantum mechanics. As these transitions occur very slowly in certain materials, absorbed radiation may be re-emitted at a lower intensity for up to several hours after the original excitation.

Commonly seen examples of phosphorescent materials are the glow-in-the-dark toys, paint, and clock dials that glow for some time after being charged with a bright light such as in any normal reading or room light. Typically the glowing then slowly fades out within minutes (or up to a few hours) in a dark room.[1]



The study of phosphorescent materials led to the discovery of radioactivity in 1896.

Ironically, white phosphorus (from which phosphorescence takes its name) does not actually exhibit this property, but rather chemiluminescence.

Simple

In simple terms, phosphorescence is a process in which energy absorbed by a substance is released relatively slowly in the form of light. This is in some cases the mechanism used for "glow-in-the-dark" materials which are "charged" by exposure to light. Unlike the relatively swift reactions in a common fluorescent tube, phosphorescent materials used for these materials absorb the energy and "store" it for a longer time as the processes required to re-emit the light occur less often.

Quantum mechanical

After an electron absorbs a photon of high energy, it may undergo vibrational relaxations and intersystem crossing to another spin state. Again the system relaxes vibrationally in the new spin state and eventually emits light by phosphorescence.

Most photoluminescent events, in which a chemical substrate absorbs and then re-emits a photon of light, are fast, on the order of 10 nanoseconds. Light is absorbed and emitted at these fast time scales in cases where the energy of the photons involved matches the available energy states and allowed transitions of the substrate. In the special case of phosphorescence, the absorbed photon energy undergoes an unusual intersystem crossing into an energy state of higher spin multiplicity (see term symbol), usually a triplet state. As a result, the energy can become trapped in the triplet state with only classically "forbidden" transitions available to return to the lower energy state. These transitions, although "forbidden", will still occur in quantum mechanics but are kinetically unfavored and thus progress at significantly slower time scales. Most phosphorescent compounds are still relatively fast emitters, with triplet lifetimes on the order of milliseconds. However, some compounds have triplet lifetimes up to minutes or even hours, allowing these substances to effectively store light energy in the form of very slowly degrading excited electron states. If the phosphorescent quantum yield is high, these substances will release significant amounts of light over long time scales, creating so-called "glow-in-the-dark" materials.

Equation



where S is a singlet and T a triplet whose subscripts denote states (0 is the ground state, and 1 the excited state). Transitions can also occur to higher energy levels, but the first excited state is denoted for simplicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence

---------

PHOSPHORESCENCE

Many minerals that fluoresce will at times also phosphoresce. Phosphorescence is the ability of a mineral to glow after the initial activating ultraviolet light is removed. The electrons in the mineral have essentially stored the energy of the initial activating light and then re-emit the phosphorescent light on a delayed basis. The reason for the delay is because a certain amount of the electrons are prevented from returning to their lower energy states quickly, at least not as quickly as they were initially energized by the UV light. Most children are familiar with "glow-in-the-dark" toys, t-shirts and stickers that make use of phosphorescent chemicals. It is quite a unique thing to see this occur in a natural mineral. Some phosphorescent intensity is very low and actually beyond the capabilities of the human eye to detect. But specimens that have been exposed to UV light and then placed in front of sensitive photographic film can be reveal to be phosphorescent for some time after the initial activation, by producing an exposure on the film. In some extreme cases for years afterward. This is not a consistent property to observe and is not very diagnostic for this reason.

THERMOLUMINESCENCE

Thermoluminescence is a property of some minerals to glow when they are heated. The minerals contain chemical bonds that emit light when thermal energy (heat) is applied to them. It is well know that steel becomes luminescent when it has been heated and is being worked. Some minerals glow when they are subjected to temperatures of between 50 and 475 degrees C. Activator elements must be present in these minerals just like in UV fluorescence. In some minerals, they will glow only once during heating and then never glow again. This is because the excited electrons were trapped in a higher state during crystallization and only when heated were they allowed to lower their energy state by emitting the photons of light.

TRIBOLUMINESCENCE

Triboluminescence is a property of some minerals to glow when they are crushed, struck, scratched or even rubbed in some cases. The minerals contain chemical bonds that emit light when even mechanical energy is imparted to them. This is not a reliable property as it is not generally consistent from specimen to specimen although sphalerite has shown this property very well. This property must be tested in the dark