Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[Lloyd]

Dinosaur Extinction & Gravity Control by Photon Density
Cr6, regarding "Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field ...", I didn't read the material, but Mathis said not long ago in one of his papers that the mass of subatomic particles may increase where photon density increases. I had said not long ago that this may explain the apparent possible increase of gravity on Earth which made if impossible for large dinosaurs to live on land (although a thicker atmosphere on Earth may have supported larger animals too).

No Big Bang
Since the Big Bang was brought up above, I want to point out the evidence against it. Namely, the high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy proves that redshift does not indicate distance. Therefore, the universe is not expanding and there's no evidence of a Big Bang, since the redshift evidence didn't pan out.

Too Much to Read
I don't know if I'll take the time to try to read the large amount of material recently posted here, since I'm running short of time. So, if there's anything especially notable that I missed, feel free to summarize.

[moses]

A Faraday Cage will cancel the effects of charge field emissions, or it does not. If it does work then the charge field emissions from Earth would be cancelled. So why not weigh something outside the cage and then take the scales inside the cage and weigh that something again. The weight should increase because the charge field from the Earth is not pushing anymore. Thus the charge field of the Earth would be measured.

If the Faraday Cage does not cancel the charge field emissions then the universal charge field emission would not be cancelled either. And so this universal field could be used to explain gravity. So either way we get very useful information.

Anyone got a big enough Faraday Cage ?
Cheers,
Mo

[LongtimeAirman]

Thank you Cr6.
Here, why not drink from this fire hose.
I can't make sense of the gravity control cell paper.
Charge and gravity are equivalent. The Faraday Cage will block a small part of the total charge field. Combine that with transmission or radiation of an E/M field (from the Cage's outer surface) and then I think you'll be doing a better blocking job.
REMCB

[Lloyd]

Faraday cages don't block everything. I find online that they block radio waves and electricity. Nothing blocks IR because nothing can stop heat transfer. A non-solid cage, made of mesh, obviously doesn't block the visible wavelengths.

[moses]

Faraday cages don't block anything. Just consider bringing a statically charged object up to near a blob of conducting metal. Somehow the side of the blob near the charged object gets charged oppositely to the charged object, and the far side of the blob gets charged the same as the charged object.

One may prefer to think of a wire rather than a metal blob. Anyway the potential difference across the blob produced by the charge separation is equal and opposite to the potential difference produced by the charged object over that distance (across the blob).

And Faraday Cages do not need to be grounded to work - it is just that it can collect a total static charged which may well discharge when one touches it ! So clearly the blob is now a mesh cage which now gets a potential difference across it which is equal and opposite to the imposed potential difference, whatever it is that caused this.

Cheers,
Mo

[Chromium6]

Thank you Cr6.
Here, why not drink from this fire hose.
I can't make sense of the gravity control cell paper.
Charge and gravity are equivalent. The Faraday Cage will block a small part of the total charge field. Combine that with transmission or radiation of an E/M field (from the Cage's outer surface) and then I think you'll be doing a better blocking job.
REMCB

Yeah, sorry about that guys. I don't mean to keep over posting snippets of Mathis' papers. Unfortunately, when it comes to gravity, a lot of his points are spread out over several papers. I think he has developed his ideas in a few different directions over the years as well.

As for the Gravity Control Cell paper, I posted that as a bit of an intriguing idea. The author is a Brazilian researcher that tries a lot of arcane formulas to match "gravity control" with quantum theory. Looks like he "stretches" a few formulas to make it all work. The only thing that really got me interested is that he does have a few very simple experiments with ELF waves to "prove" his math. It would probably be a great waste of time to try these experiments in a home type lab but who knows. With Mathis' Charge Field surprises happen everyday like the weird compounds formed under a diamond anvil that aren't supposed to exist and current Chemistry has difficulty explaining using current orbital theory. Mathis is has a pretty interesting take on that experiment. If De Aquino's Mercury lamps and ELF waves experiment by works, it might prove something more along the lines of Mathis than quantum theory. I don't hold a lot of belief that they will turn out as "real" gravity control devices --- but they do appear fairly simple to construct. Mathis in his later papers points to "density" and "radius" as determining scalar G to an extent.

Sorry if this leads to a false trail. I do think most aspects of Push-Gravity fits best with Mathis and centripetal forces. I'm not that "advanced" in these fields to make a careful assessment so take my postings with a grain of salt. I do think that Mathis has an intriguing idea with the Charge Field pushing against the force of Gravity... and "Gravitational" deficits like in the Hudson Bay of Canada.

[moses]

Well I have been reading the 2012, 2013 and 2014 papers of Miles over the last week or so. I am extremely impressed with the nuclear models, and giving photons real substance with mass and spin is obvious really. And one has to love the way he pulls apart the mainstream theories. The mainstream would be lucky to get 1% right.

However Miles has flaws. He, like everyone else it seems, is not happy with his gravity explanation in that he is always on the lookout for other theories. Also he admits that he cannot explain very strong magnetic fields which strongly suggests that his magnetism theory is not correct either.

But it is his belief in the explanations of natural phenomena that is worrisome. Like rainbows are a reflection of the Sun, instead of refraction and then reflection off the back of water droplets. And his explanation of ice on a pole of Mercury. He has his charge field incoming on the pole as causing cooling. I'm sure that if he thought about it he could consider that Mercury was very conductive of the charge field and so the heat went with this charge ( or the heat is the charge ) and efficiently transported to the equatorial regions.

And then there is his paper on Venus where what he descibes as happening is very near what Wal had described, but because Wal was not not using his charge field Miles cans Wal's explanation. If anyone contacts Miles try to get him to use his charge field to explain double layers in a plasma. Once he has done this he might start considering the possibility of double layers in the Solar System.

But all told, Miles is a revolution. I hope humanity is ready.
Cheers,
Mo

[Chromium6]

I agree with your sentiments there moses. I do think Mathis has a few explanations/theories that he is "developing" while others are pretty much "in the bag" so to speak.

The thing I like the most about Mathis' papers is that they give kind of a "fresh" perspective. For example, the old "celt" is this getting affected by the "Charge Field" or is there another conclusive explanation for it. It is a fairly "simple" observation, but a lot of "ink" has been spilled to explain it. Mathis may provide a few extra clues.

The future looks exciting.


Celt or Rattleback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattleback

Physics

The spin-reversal motion follows from the growth of instabilities on the other rotation axes, that are rolling (on the main axis) and pitching (on the crosswise axis).[3]

Rolling and pitching motions

When there is an asymmetry in the mass distribution with respect to the plane formed by the pitching and the vertical axes, a coupling of these two instabilities arises; one can imagine how the asymmetry in mass will deviate the rattleback when pitching, which will create some rolling.

The amplified mode will differ depending on the spin direction, which explains the rattleback's asymmetrical behavior. Depending on whether it is rather a pitching or rolling instability that dominates, the growth rate will be very high or quite low.

This explains why, due to friction, most rattlebacks appear to exhibit spin-reversal motion only when spun in the pitching-unstable direction, also known as the strong reversal direction. When the rattleback is spun in the "stable direction", also known as the weak reversal direction, friction and damping often slow the rattleback to a stop before the rolling instability has time to fully build. Some rattlebacks, however, exhibit "unstable behavior" when spun in either direction, and incur several successive spin reversals per spin.[4]

Other ways to add motion to a rattleback include tapping by pressing down momentarily on either of its ends, and rocking by pressing down repeatedly on either of its ends.

[Lloyd]

Mo said: I am extremely impressed with the nuclear models, and giving photons real substance with mass and spin is obvious really.

I'm glad to hear you've finally looked over his material more thoroughly. And I agree that his nuclear model etc makes great sense. I.e., it's when the subatomic particles are unbalanced that spin causes them to fly apart into pieces that are more balanced.

He [] is not happy with his gravity explanation in that he is always on the lookout for other theories.

I haven't noticed him looking for other theories, except I think in Jan. 2012, when he suggested that the outward vector for gravity may come from spin of the whole universe. That makes a lot more sense to me than expanding matter, but I think the vector is obviously inward and Cr6's recent post linked to a video that apparently proves it's a push from outside inward. Was that from Blaze labs or de Meyl?

Also he admits that he cannot explain very strong magnetic fields which strongly suggests that his magnetism theory is not correct either.

Can you tell us where he said that? I don't remember it.

But it is his belief in the explanations of natural phenomena that is worrisome. Like rainbows are a reflection of the Sun, instead of refraction and then reflection off the back of water droplets.

You don't like his explanation of rainbows? It made sense to me.

And his explanation of ice on a pole of Mercury. He has his charge field incoming on the pole as causing cooling. I'm sure that if he thought about it he could consider that Mercury was very conductive of the charge field and so the heat went with this charge ( or the heat is the charge ) and efficiently transported to the equatorial regions.

On the LloydBlog thread I discussed that with John and Steven maybe 2 months ago. I showed them data that shows that ions from space travel all the way to the surface of Mercury's poles. It makes much more sense that the poles are cold because of those cold ions than that photons somehow cool the poles. His paper also failed to mention that the dark side of Mercury is about as cold as the poles, so it's not really surprising that the heat from the sunny side don't reach the poles and warm them, since the dark side is also a heat sink and also connected to the poles.

And then there is his paper on Venus where what he descibes as happening is very near what Wal had described, but because Wal was not not using his charge field Miles cans Wal's explanation.

I think his paper on Venus made sense. What parts do you disagree with him on?

If anyone contacts Miles try to get him to use his charge field to explain double layers in a plasma. Once he has done this he might start considering the possibility of double layers in the Solar System.

I concur, but it may be quite a while before he gets to considering that. Have you read Charles Chandler's model of double layers? His explanation is almost totally complete, not counting below the scale of ions. And have you read the Mathis discussions on Charles' site at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9754?

[moses]

http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html
"My analysis of magnetism is just a beginning, and is simply a signpost to a fuller explanation. The biggest problem I currently have is explaining the great strength of magnets."
Although Miles may go on to explain it, I think the above is the correct state.

About Mercury - Ions coming into the pole probably have huge speeds and would heat the pole. The whole heat balance at the poles should have been considered. Just dreaming up an explanation and then believing it, is a poor show.

About Venus - Without a consideration of double layers I cannot be thrilled about any of his planetary explanations. But it was the way that he canned Wal because Wal did not use his charge field model, that irked me.

Thanks for the link to the discussions on Miles. He thrills me and then leaves me cold, then he thrills me and then leaves me cold, ...

Cheers,
Mo

[Sparky]

He thrills me and then leaves me cold, then he thrills me and then leaves me cold, ...

Ahhh, well understood. The refrain of those women who left me...

[Chromium6]

How about this one? What is the "high" and the "low"? I like Mathis' straightforward logic and simple explanations but he doesn't "fill-in-the-blanks" with equations nor does he expand the "scope" of each paper's focus. I keep asking myself.. "what comes next?".

As for Mercury, I too found the "other" side of Mercury as very cold independently of his papers and was kind of curious as to why he didn't address the "dark side" of Mercury with his Charge Field. I guess Mathis needs photons to really shine.

I am also a fairly strong believer in Dr. K's Filaments. I don't think this is on the map for Mathis and most others.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... ament.html
http://www.thermo-control.com/en/suppor ... raxis.html

BTW, thanks for posting Charles Chandler's site again. It is a great resource.
--------

With all that to work with, we now move on to explain a magnetic attraction. Many in history and some few now have claimed that magnetism and gravity are linked. Since they are the two field attractions we know of, this claim is and always has been fairly sensible. I will show that it is true, in a way, but not in the way anyone thought. Magnetism and gravity are two completely different things, fundamentally, but magnetism works by either driving the E/M field out of a small area of space between the magnets, allowing only gravity to remain, or by augmenting the angular part of the E/M field, creating a greater repulsion than before.

The mechanics of this could not be shown until the unified field was understood mechanically, which is why I am now able to explain it. My work on the unified field4 allows me to show the basic mechanism for magnetic attraction. In a series of papers I have shown that both Newton's gravitational equation and Coulomb's electrostatic equation5 are simple unified field equations. Both contain gravity and E/M. In Newton's equation, G is simply6 a scaling constant between the two fields, and if we rewrite each mass as density times volume, we can apply the volume to the gravity field and the density to the E/M field. G then scales between the size of the photon and of the proton, allowing the E/M field to be integrated to the gravity field in the same equation.

Once we pull apart the equation, we find that the two fields are in vector opposition. At the foundational level, the E/M field is always repulsive, since it is caused by straight bombardment of photons. The gravity field, however, creates a pseudo-attraction. The compound field is found by subtracting the E/M field from the solo-gravity field. In large objects, the solo gravity field is stronger, since the photon is relatively smaller; in smaller objects, the E/M field is stronger, because the photon is larger relative to the object. As we get nearer the size of the photon, the E/M field gets stronger, for reasons of size alone.

Since the E/M field is always a repulsion, if we take it away, the attraction of the unified field will become greater. Yes, if we could block the charge field, attractions would increase. All objects on the surface of the Earth are in equilibrium, as regards this unified field. Each object has settled into some state where the two fields balance. If the object is not moving, it is because it has balanced the unified field and friction and all the other forces upon it.

So what happens when we bring a north magnet to a south magnet? First I will tell you the result and then I will tell you the cause. The result is that the two charge fields of the two magnets meet head-on and cancel eachother: not by some mysterious field lines or by pluses and minuses, but by colliding and canceling the angular momenta of the photons. This reduces the E/M field by removing the M component of the field. Because the magnetic field and the electric field are about the same size, the E/M field is reduced by almost 50%. Since the solo gravity field is unaffected, and since we have just turned off half the repulsion, the objects come together. Magnetic attraction is not really attraction, it is a loss of half the repulsion, you see.

Before I get to the mechanical cause of this, let me answer a question that I know is on your lips. You will say, “I thought you were trying to explain this without attraction. But here you just used gravity, and gravity is an attraction.” No, not in my unified field, it isn't. I have reversed all the gravitational accelerations in the universe. I have taken Einstein's equivalence principle as a physical fact, not just a mathematical reversal or a theoretical game. I have assigned7 the acceleration of gravity to a real motion, not just a field inclination or a hovering gradient or a mathematical curve. That is to say, all objects are expanding at a rate defined by their gravitational presence, i.e, their volume. Note that: their volume, not their mass.

I can explain magnetism mechanically, without attraction, only because I can explain gravity mechanically, without attraction. If you entered my site on this paper, you have joined us in the middle of the movie. You have to read my papers on gravity7 and on unification4 before any of this makes sense.

[Lloyd]

Koertvelyessey
Cr, I'll discuss Koertvelyessey's paper briefly. Here's the outline.
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... ent.html#I
I. Theses
- 1 The future form of the Universe in its largest-scale will be more and more the filament-form.
- 2 All filaments of the Universe are made electrically, via motion of electrically charged matter.
- 3 All filaments of the Universe have a circular cross section.

1.0 Introduction -- 2.0 Nature of the filaments
[False] 3.0 What is the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe?
4.0 What is the origin of separated electric charges in the Universe?
5.0 What can be the model of the clustergases?
5.1 Last explosion of a smaller star: the GRB
5.2 Development of bigger stars: supernovae, neutron stars, young stars, radiogalaxies fill the halo with positive matter.
5.3 Positive halos are the cold cemetery of the dead stars. They form the Universe.
6.0 SUMMARY : FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSE

Expanding Universe Falsified
Do you agree that the high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy proves that redshift does not equate to distance or expansion velocity and that the university is not undergoing accelerated expansion?

General Filament Theory
Would you say one of his basic arguments is that charged matter takes a somewhat spherical shape due to charge repulsion when stationary, but takes a filamentary shape when moving? I assume the charges continue to repel, so does he explain, or do you have an idea, why they take a filamentary shape when moving? Could it really be because the ions follow Mathis' charge streams? And what would cause photons to move in streams? Could it be because things that move have lower pressure, like when blowing between two suspended balls produces lower pressure between them, causing surrounding air pressure to push them closer together?

[Chromium6]

Koertvelyessey
Cr, I'll discuss Koertvelyessey's paper briefly. Here's the outline.
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... ent.html#I
I. Theses
- 1 The future form of the Universe in its largest-scale will be more and more the filament-form.
- 2 All filaments of the Universe are made electrically, via motion of electrically charged matter.
- 3 All filaments of the Universe have a circular cross section.

1.0 Introduction -- 2.0 Nature of the filaments
[False] 3.0 What is the cause of the accelerated expansion of the Universe?
4.0 What is the origin of separated electric charges in the Universe?
5.0 What can be the model of the clustergases?
5.1 Last explosion of a smaller star: the GRB
5.2 Development of bigger stars: supernovae, neutron stars, young stars, radiogalaxies fill the halo with positive matter.
5.3 Positive halos are the cold cemetery of the dead stars. They form the Universe.
6.0 SUMMARY : FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSE

Expanding Universe Falsified
Do you agree that the high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy proves that redshift does not equate to distance or expansion velocity and that the university is not undergoing accelerated expansion?

General Filament Theory
Would you say one of his basic arguments is that charged matter takes a somewhat spherical shape due to charge repulsion when stationary, but takes a filamentary shape when moving? I assume the charges continue to repel, so does he explain, or do you have an idea, why they take a filamentary shape when moving? Could it really be because the ions follow Mathis' charge streams? And what would cause photons to move in streams? Could it be because things that move have lower pressure, like when blowing between two suspended balls produces lower pressure between them, causing surrounding air pressure to push them closer together?

According to the general Filament Theory, at least what I can make of it, is that the filament is something like Mathis' charge field moving in only 1 direction with a twist. I kind of see it as the reverse of Mathis' explanation of Super Conductivity at absolute zero. Charge goes in 1 direction without a lot of spin cancellations. Here at the Filament level, it is the "reverse" at these energy levels. Everything in the charge field is packed so "tightly" that the Charge field activity is similar threads in a rope. Hence filaments are described as "cold" like Mathis' Superconductivity -- the charge field is in 1-direction without collisions, there is no spatial "room" to cycle charge with Dr. Koertvelyessey's Filament? The rope twists though as it grows, and it can keep adding "threads". This is purely speculation. Plasma is the Charge field in 3-directions, Filaments are only 1-direction like Absolute Zero for Dr. K. and hence not hot.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... tates.html

Taking this into consideration, the filaments should belong to "the fifth state of matter". Sparks, electron beams in TV, lightnings, ion jets in the spacecraft Deep Space 1, in accelerator machines like CERN, ions in the future fusion-reactor, solar coronae, flares, jets of young stars, jets at black holes and at neutron stars (electric magnetars) belong to this most energetic state of matter. Solar flare-particles have 1010 eV, those of the hottest plasma (in supernovae) only 105 eV. Filaments are the largest bodies of the Universe. These filaments and jets have an exact circular cross section, can oscillate and are produced electrically from e.g. plasma. Its particles move in only one direction i.e. without the thermal zig-zag. The fifth state of matter is also a non-thermal state! Interestingly, particles in the most energetic state of matter do not emit heat due to their flight along straight lines. These particle-motions in filaments were already named recently: "non-thermal motions". For example, the solar wind has a "non-thermal velocity" of 750km/s which would need a solar surface of 24 million Kelvin. Solar mass ejection of a "non-thermal velocity" of 1500 km/s should have 96 MK.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
http://milesmathis.com/conduct.html
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8914.html

-Each particle is spinning, and this spin pulls in photons at the poles and spits them out at the equator.
-But when heat approaches absolute zero, motions slow down near a stop.
-When motions slow down, collisions decrease, and when collisions decrease, the spins cannot be maintained.
-The baryons and electrons slow their spins, and nearly stop recycling the charge field.
-Since the photons are not being sucked in, they are free to pass.
-The vortices around all particles are diminished, and the field has less resistance.
-The substance minimizes its collisions, and the charge field therefore maximizes its efficiency.
-If the charge field is carrying ions of its own, these ions will pass through the substance with minimal collision.

-----

As for Red Shift, I'm actually a believer in Ray Tomes' (Burbidge) explanation for it. Perhaps the "universe" as we know it had never had a beginning or end if you take it to the logical conclusion with the measurement of quasar distances. As for "expansion" I can't really say. Some equations need it apparently to be logically consistent. I don't know if they ever considered with their equations that the "universe" is never ending in size and without a beginning? Endless in time and energy essentially that is constantly on the move. Perhaps our little galaxy in this corner of the universe did have a beginning at some point with a "let there be light" type moment.

http://ray.tomes.biz/bigbangbung.html

[Lloyd]

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.