Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[moses]

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
I doubt very much that Miles has mastered the charge field yet. And I can produce better answers to questions than Miles using his ideas, like the prism. So it is certainly not a matter of anyone being slow - we are all slow.

Protons and neutrons are made up of electrons, which are a type of charge photon. So one can say that protons are made of charge photons. Spinning protons emit charge photons so why would not charge photons be made up of smaller particles and emit these smaller particles when spinning, just like the proton. Then these smaller particles (gravs) could explain magnetism perfectly, and could also be responsible for gravity.

Of course I have been trying to make charge photons responsible for gravity and even wrote to Miles with my ideas about 2 years ago. He replied but disagreed. The big lead sphere would convert light photons into infrared photons, but this would be very unlikely to account for the gravitational attraction. However converting gravs into charge photons has a big chance of doing it in my opinion.

It is a rich field and answers await, not that I am sure that humanity is ready for such answers.
Cheers,
Mo

[Sparky]

Moses, thanks, but I am lost in all of your charge photons, electrons, and protons...

I guess there is a charge field of some kind, and MM has a model that seems to work, so I guess I need to see how he uses it and just accept it.

[LongtimeAirman]

Chromium6,

I must say I know little to nothing of the lives of scientists, experimentalists or theoreticians beyond the fictions I've collected or imagined. Thanks for the Ken Shoulders video; a must-see indeed. A micro-electronics giant, a most-respectable credential, pursuing his goals while leaving the mainstream behind. I can now take him to heart. I wish only to express my respects. I apologize if I offend anyone who knew him.

Ken left us - society - a surprising legacy of hard data, that he saw could lead to bad or good. He didn't come up with a progenitor or scientist to compare himself with, he was unique.

I think that Miles can best interpret and explain Ken's work.

Moses is right. Are we ready?

REMCB

[Chromium6]

Chromium6,

I must say I know little to nothing of the lives of scientists, experimentalists or theoreticians beyond the fictions I've collected or imagined. Thanks for the Ken Shoulders video; a must-see indeed. A micro-electronics giant, a most-respectable credential, pursuing his goals while leaving the mainstream behind. I can now take him to heart. I wish only to express my respects. I apologize if I offend anyone who knew him.

Ken left us - society - a surprising legacy of hard data, that he saw could lead to bad or good. He didn't come up with a progenitor or scientist to compare himself with, he was unique.

I think that Miles can best interpret and explain Ken's work.

Moses is right. Are we ready?

REMCB

Hi LongtimeAirman,

These are great questions.

I did hear at least one thing that "shocked" me in the Ken Shoulders interview with John Hutchison -- he mentioned that sonoluminescence was just a manifestation of an EVO. I had a link on this thread back in March on sonoluminescence, and low and behold Ken Shoulders just says flat out that it is a natural manifestation of an EVO. (Perhaps an EVO is the Charge Field ala Dr. K in only one direction to boot. Just a thought since they just apparently appear from "nowhere" under the right conditions and can look like little lightening streams.)

About the celt I mentioned earlier as well, I believe that too is an effect from Mathis' Charge Field. This video has Boyd Bushman discussing the celt and the Hutchison effect. It is also worth a look. I think Bushman probably worked on a few "projects" over the years and hence has understandings that he isn't at liberty to directly share.

(BTW, I don't personally subscribe to UFO talk or "beings" talk very much though they are mentioned in these videos.--Cr)

Boyd Bushman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf5DOpWtRfg

[moses]

About the celt I mentioned earlier as well, I believe that too is an effect from Mathis' Charge Field.
Chromium6
celt or rattleback: I don't know about the reverse spin being a charge field effect. I remember long ago I saw a piece on someone demonstrating a Noah's ark type rattleback and ascribing it's properties to there being another dimension which meant that the equations for motion of a spinning body were incorrect, and he actually produced another equation. I now believe that man to have been Charles W. Sherburne. If anyone knows that equation I would be most interested.


Tired light is caused by photons losing energy. Miles has collisions or interactions doing this and then we get different spins in specific formations. But I am wondering whether the photon actually emits one or many gravs ( gravity photon-like things ). Then the energy loss in specific amounts would be attributed to how many gravs were emitted. But gravs may be emitted all the time by spinning photons anyway - it is just that the emitted gravs would be equal to the incoming gravs.

The problem with collisions is that the photon might be deflected. Whereas if emitting gravs occurs all the time then this seemingly would not deflect the photon. And if some more gravs were emitted so that the photon falls to a lesser energy then one could see that those extra emitted gravs would not deflect the photon.

Perhaps I am going too far talking about charge photons being made up of gravs. It would explain the discreet frequencies of photons. As well as gravity and magnetism, possibly.
Cheers,
Mo

[LongtimeAirman]

Moses,
Let's say that photons are made up of gravs. I don't think that gravs themselves could be photons, pretty much for the reason you've given above, the photons we see would be deflected, and images of distant objects would lose coherence and smear.
Also, we detect photons from distant objects from across the entire E/M spectrum, infrared to x-ray. Wouldn't higher energy photons emitting lower energy photons from more distant objects average to lower energy levels, i.e. red-shifted to eliminate the higher energy (x-ray) components?
If the photon size is on the order of 6.67 x 10^-11 times smaller than the hydrogen atom, can we fit in a whole new field below the charge field before hitting some quantum limit? Where gravs are to photons as photons are to nuclear matter, such that a grav field could be the pre-charge field. I would assume that the grav field would be super luminous and gravs could recycle through photons as photons recycle higher matter.
There could be a strong grav field even in the absence of either a charge or E/M field. A field around every photon yielding a more continuous energy spectrum. It could explain how photons maintain the light speed limit. Given the grav dimensions, it is unlikely to ever be detected. If you accept a charge field, why not a grav field as well?
REMCB

[moses]

Let's say that photons are made up of gravs. I don't think that gravs themselves could be photons, pretty much for the reason you've given above, the photons we see would be deflected, and images of distant objects would lose coherence and smear. REMCB
Then protons would be deflected by emitting charge photons. Same for atoms. I guess the gravs are emitted in all directions perpendicular to the direction of motion. Thus any minor deflections even out over time.

Also, we detect photons from distant objects from across the entire E/M spectrum, infrared to x-ray. Wouldn't higher energy photons emitting lower energy photons from more distant objects average to lower energy levels, i.e. red-shifted to eliminate the higher energy (x-ray) components? REMCB
The higher energy photons would decay into lower energy photons. So are you saying there should be very few high energy photons detected. Well we would need a very good theory on how much high energy photons are produced in an electric universe.

A field around every photon yielding a more continuous energy spectrum. It could explain how photons maintain the light speed limit. Given the grav dimensions, it is unlikely to ever be detected. If you accept a charge field, why not a grav field as well? REMCB
I don't know about a continuous spectrum when we have individual units (gravs) seeming to explain the discreet spectrum we find. Yes, gravs could feed energy to photons, just as photons could power the spin of a proton. Of course we also want gravs to be absorbed by protons, to produce gravity. If we have protons made up charge photons then that is not a problem. If gravs give energy to photons then we still have the issue of why the photons don't travel faster than the speed of light. Perhaps it is simply a matter of the interaction between the gravs and the photons becomes inefficient at that speed.

If the particles are made up of smaller particles, and the particles are spinning, then it is not unreasonable to expect the smaller particle to be thrown off at the equator. If this happens then there are these smaller particles everywhere and one has to consider the interactions of these smaller particles with the bigger particles. Simple enough.
Cheers,
Mo

[LongtimeAirman]

"So are you saying there should be very few high energy photons detected." Mo.
I think you said it better, high energy photons decay to lower energy photons. I'm trying to figure the relative sizes and interactions between gravs and photons. I believe that Miles said that as photons increase in energy (add gravs), they add radius. If energy is increased beyond light speed, the photon adds a new spin. Is there a maximum radius? Do gravs explain that?

"If gravs give energy to photons then we still have the issue of why the photons don't travel faster than the speed of light." Mo
Photons can travel faster or slower than light speed, but they will settle at the light speed as a sort of terminal velocity within the grav field media.

"I don't know about a continuous spectrum when we have individual units (gravs) seeming to explain the discreet spectrum we find." Mo.
Now you lost me. Do we find discreet changes in the spectrum? Aren't all energies possible? It seems clear that gaining or losing larger gravs would appear more discrete. Would the lowest energy photons exhibit the most discrete behavior?

A grav field, to me, seems like a fractal extension/complication of the charge field, but, as you already noted, due to the spinning photon emissions, gravs add a new perpendicular vector to the mix, something that I've been looking for.

REMCB

[LongtimeAirman]

"Perhaps an EVO is the Charge Field ala Dr. K in only one direction to boot."  Cr

Who's Dr. K? Dr K has a charge field? REMCB

[Lloyd]

I'm trying to compose a summary paper on Mathis' theory of charge at:
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-50 ... 7050-12998

How to Comment
- Mathis' theory of charge makes much more sense to me than any other theory I know of. But it's not real clear to me, so I'd like to make it clearer for myself and for those who favor the standard model of charge etc.
- Regardless of what model readers favor, it should help to comment on any of the numbered statements below, to say especially if a statement is likely false or just unclear. It's probably not worth commenting on statements that are agrred with, unless there's important info that's not well-known.
- My plan is to use the comments to help complete and update a summary of Mathis' theory of charge in the OP on that page.

WHAT IS CHARGE?
_1 The idea of attraction is non-mechanical.
_2 This means all attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.
_3 We can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive.
_4 It is caused by radiation of messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).
_5 The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact.
_6 Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
_7 We have a small electron and a large proton (to simplify).
_8 Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton.
_9 The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.
*_10 But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.
_11 Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field.
_12 What about current in a wire?
*_13a Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire, or any conductor,
*_13b because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.
*_14 The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact.
*_15 This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.

HOW A BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS
.16 A reader sent me a link to an article from 2002 by Ian Sefton of University of Sydney, who tries to explain how a circuit works.
.17 However, Sefton's explanation of the circuit is still not mechanical, as I think he would admit.
_18 Can we fill in his field model? Yes, since we now have photons to work with.
_19 In a series of papers, I have resuscitated the old spinning corpuscle of Newton, or the vortex of Maxwell, updating past centuries more fully than anyone thought possible.
_20 If you read the page at Wiki on electrical circuits, you get the impression that electrons travel through the circuit, creating the energy transfer.
_21 Sefton shows us that is false, and I have nothing to say against him. His argument in that regard is convincing.
*_22 The electrons are simply moving too slow.
_23 The flow of electrons isn't causing the lightbulb to light up, and the field doesn't explain it either.
_24 It is thought that the circuit acts as a medium through which charge can pass, but Sefton has already shown that isn't really the case.
_25 Whatever is passing is passing both through the wires and through the space between them directly, so it would appear that charge photons don't require the wires to pass from battery to bulb.
_26 The wires are providing some link, but they are not providing the path.
*_27 We should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path.
_28 If we think of charge as a density difference instead of abstract potential, we can clarify the mechanics here.
*_29 The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field.
_30 The photons are much denser on one side of the battery than the other.
*_31 Why._It could be any number of reasons, but a common reason in normal batteries is that chemical reactions separate large ions from small ones.
_32 In other words, if free protons are pushed to one side and free electrons to the other, the protons will be recycling far more photons.
_33 The photon density will be far higher on one side than the other, and by the rules of entropy or statistics, they will move from high density to low.
_34 Now, if we extend wires to the bulb, we haven't provided the path to the bulb that the photons must take, since the photons need no path of that kind.
*_35 What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission.
_36 The wires allow for an initial induction or matching of the present fields, so that photons leaving the battery can affect the photons in the bulb.

My comments
10 doubtful, so prove it please
13a uuntrue and contradicts Battery Circuit paper next
13b-15 contradicts Battery Circuit paper next
22 true, but it contradicts 13a
27 unclear, the wire isn't ionized, is it?
29 I think it does separate ions from electrons, doesn't it?
31 please specify which ions are large and small in batteries
35 The description that follows 35 doesn't seem clear enough for me.
(To be continued, if I have enough time.)

[Chromium6]

"Perhaps an EVO is the Charge Field ala Dr. K in only one direction to boot."  Cr

Who's Dr. K? Dr K has a charge field? REMCB

Dr. K is Dr. Koertvelyessy


http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... ent.html#I
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =60#p94331

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... atter.html (I suspect this form of matter 5th state may be involved with EVOs since Ken Shoulders described them as non-thermal and very powerful.)

The 5th state of matter
published: Coronae 2001 NL Nordvijk

INTRODUCTION

Ice is transformed to water at 0°C when the energy of its molecules (particles) increases. Water is similarly transformed to vapor at 100°C (Fig.1). Much stronger zigzag motion of the particles separates and ionizes hydrogen and oxygen i.e. plasma comes into existence (above 13 000 K). Do all bodies fit one of these four states of matter? The answer is: no, e.g. the solar corona does not!


Fig. 1 The temperature scale. It starts at 0K. Is it infinitely long or does it have a highest end?



The solar corona-problem is about 60 years old. The temperature of the corona of 2MK is much higher than that of the Sun i.e. the corona does not obey the thermodynamic law that heat does not flow uphill (Lang). Moreover, the solar corona - which floats visibly during the solar eclipse as a pale green fire - does not fall onto the solar surface. Thousands of other solar filaments seem not to obey gravity, too. Also, since decades, nobody can understand that millions of sun masses can be ejected with almost light-velocity via jets against the extremely strong gravity of a black hole.

----

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/i ... nt_big.png

Characteristics of bodies in the fifth state of matter:

They all have a filament-form, their particles fly parallel to the filament axis. They mostly have particles of higher energy than those of the plasma bodies. In spite of the very high particle-energy, they all do not emit heat. They all have a circular cross section and, therefore, a more or less bent cylindrical body. Like crystals, they have a deeply organized form, also in their smallest branches (Fig.2). Like crystals, they can oscillate with more frequencies. They move as if gravity would not exist even in the very mouth of a black hole. Their electric charge is either positive or negative. They dissolve in space at zero charge.

Lightning, mass ejections are perhaps in no state of matter rather in a flight of matter !? However, particles in all states of matter also move, often with high velocity. The only difference is that particles move in the fifth state of matter in only one direction, in thermal states, however, in all 3 dimensions. Jets at black holes and young stars are transformed to lobes i.e. positively charged and hot - therefore quickly expanding – gas when they are braked to zero velocity. The motion is essential in all states of matter, the measured very quick motion in filaments can be produced only electrically. The particles are electrically charged not only in the fifth but also in solid and plasma states of matter.

[moses]

If energy is increased beyond light speed, the photon adds a new spin. Is there a maximum radius? Do gravs explain that? REMCB
According to Miles photons become electrons with enough added spin.

Do we find discreet changes in the spectrum? Aren't all energies possible? It seems clear that gaining or losing larger gravs would appear more discrete. Would the lowest energy photons exhibit the most discrete behavior? REMCB
Standard theory has, I think, a continuous E/M spectrum but discreet photons. I think Miles wants his photons to have a specific set of spins, so discreet.

Cheers,
Mo

[seasmith]

[P.S. Thanks to Hertz, Robert McBride, Lloyd Kinder, and all the others who defended my ideas…MM

[at end of paper]
http://milesmathis.com/david.html

[moses]

I'm tacking off in a new direction. Please consider Tom Bearden:
http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch5.htm

He goes into transmutation, which must be reconsidered in the light of Miles' nuclear models. Although unlikely to be weaponising, turning copper or lead into gold would surely lead to great financial instability, etc.

Then he touches on Rife and then the Kaznacheyev Experiments where photons from one cell affect another cell, especially photons emitted on the death of that cell.

What is relevant is that Tom's description of photons feels very like that of Miles. Tom has time-reversed photons whereas Miles has anti-photons. I do not think that they are actually time-reversed, but rather they are the opposite of photons. And it is found that reflecting photons in a mirror and amplifying them makes things that have emitted the photons, go backwards. This is the fundamental mechanism of the Priore healing machine, because reversing disease leads to a previous healthy state.

Now this means that photons harbour information about the momentum of the object that emitted that photon. But the movement of atoms is heat, but Miles tells us that heat is photons, mostly in the infrared. Does this mean that there is a direct link between the movement of nuclei and the photons emitted. So that if we amplify the opposite of those emitted photons then we are producing a reverse movement effect on the object. I touched on resonance before, and I feel that this is related. A ringing bell outside a vacuum will start a bell ringing inside the vacuum. There is momentum information transferred by photons.

And I have a clue how this could happen. Each moment, all of the universe dematerialises, or moves into another dimension, and then the next moment the universe is created again from information created when the universe dematerialised the moment before. So momentum is just a change of that information. If that information was in the shape of a photon then it would be easy to see how this information could be reversed and thus have movement reversed.

In fact, extending this idea leads to the possibility of generating photons that transmit information on movement in a different direction, and possibly very quick movement in that different direction. Maybe this is how John Keely did it.

Cheers,
Mo

[Lloyd]

Hey you guys. Do us all a favor and comment on any of the 36 Mathis statements in my previous post (http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =90#p95194).

Why? Because the comments can help us better understand Mathis' charge field, which, if you haven't noticed, is the subject of this thread.

Don't you all think it makes sense to get a little organized around here? If you comment on those statements (to begin with), we'll see which ones we all disagree with or don't understand and then can try to understand them better or challenge Miles, if needed.

Maybe yous thought I wanted yous to comment on Charles' website instead of here. But no, I meant I'd like to have your comments here. It would be okay to comment there, but mainly I need the other site for continually updating a summary paper there, since that can be done there, but isn't possible on this forum.

If we can come to a good understanding of his charge field, won't that help us in pursuing all of the other issues you guys are bringing up here?

(Oh, how about that. Mathis dropped my name. Thanks, C.Smith.)