Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[Chromium6]

Mathis is like listening to Fred McDowell after a classical guitar tutoring, IMHO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54GNI2K3-ec

[LongtimeAirman]

Lloyd,
3A..A. Disagree. This is a difficult follow-on, confused question.
4A..A. Disagree. Confused wording (carrier of charge). The photon is real.
5A..A. Disagree. Change wording to, "The photon has no mass, no radius, and no energy in conventional theory."
6A..A. Negative. This repeats question 2.
7A..A. Negative. Repetitive.
8A..A. Negative. I have no idea. Is there is a condition that respondents read a paper whilst answering this set of questions?

Otherwise, agreed. I think it might be a bit condescending, but I'm sure I'm being blinded by hindsight.

REMCBx

[john666]

I would like to thank Sparky for his ideas concerning the polar configuration theory, but I have to say that I am disappointed about the fact that no else commented about this issue.
Is it because the polar configuration is a dogma on this forum, that cannot be questioned because Talbott said so, or what?
Let me repeat my question.
Is the polar configuration theory compatible with the charge field theory of Miles Mathis, or not?

[LongtimeAirman]

john666, I never heard of the polar configuration theory before reading your words. It's not dogma to me. If it's about Saturn, I must admit I haven't looked into the subject. If you're talking about a string of objects, planets included, traveling through space, I don't see why not.
REMCB

[john666]

LongtimeAirman, if Saturn was fixated above Earth's North pole - like Talbot and many others on this forum think - than that would mean that the charge fields of the magnetic poles of Earth and Saturn, were attracting each other, but according to MM, charge field only repulses.
That is a problem for the polar configuration theory.

[LongtimeAirman]

john666
"if Saturn was fixated above Earth's North pole ... than that would mean that the charge fields of the magnetic poles of Earth and Saturn, were attracting each other".
Is Earth fixated above Saturn's south (?) pole at the same time?
The only "attraction" that Miles allows is the acceleration of gravity.
The charge field "repulsion" and gravity arrive at an equilibrium that we usually see in orbital configurations.
Pole alignment comes up routinely in Miles' nuclear models, where the charge field photon recycling provides bonding strength.
I would assume there is a stable planetary polar configuration as well.
REMCB

[john666]

john666
"if Saturn was fixated above Earth's North pole ... than that would mean that the charge fields of the magnetic poles of Earth and Saturn, were attracting each other".
Is Earth fixated above Saturn's south (?) pole at the same time?
The only "attraction" that Miles allows is the acceleration of gravity.
The charge field "repulsion" and gravity arrive at an equilibrium that we usually see in orbital configurations.
Pole alignment comes up routinely in Miles' nuclear models, where the charge field photon recycling provides bonding strength.
I would assume there is a stable planetary polar configuration as well.
REMCB

These are two different things.
At the atomic, and subatomic level, the charge field is much stronger than gravity, while in the case of celestial bodies, gravity is at least equal to, if not stronger than the charge field. Mathis himself, had said this in his papers, many times.
Also, there is not a single known example of planetary polar configuration anywhere.
In fact, the shape of our galaxy is the indication, that near-equatorial planetary configuration, is universal.

[LongtimeAirman]

I see a recent topic on this subject.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15004
How it's possible planets align in polar formation ?
Last comment made was on 10 May.

john666
"These are two different things."
Agreed.

"At the atomic, and subatomic level, the charge field is much stronger than gravity, while in the case of celestial bodies, gravity is at least equal to, if not stronger than the charge field".
Gravity and the charge field are in equilibrium at all scales.

"Also, there is not a single known example of planetary polar configuration anywhere".
Just because we haven't seen one yet doesn't mean that they don't exist.

"In fact, the shape of our galaxy is the indication, that near-equatorial planetary configuration, is universal".
Disagree. I would like to assume that the "equatorial" configuration is standard, but there is no proof that it is universal.

REMCB

[Lloyd]

This isn't about Saturn Theory. Let's stick mainly to the topic of Mathis' Charge Field please.

Airman said: 3A..A. Disagree. This is a difficult follow-on, confused question.
4A..A. Disagree. Confused wording (carrier of charge). The photon is real.
5A..A. Disagree. Change wording to, "The photon has no mass, no radius, and no energy in conventional theory."
6A..A. Negative. This repeats question 2.
7A..A. Negative. Repetitive.
8A..A. Negative. I have no idea. Is there is a condition that respondents read a paper whilst answering this set of questions?
Otherwise, agreed. I think it might be a bit condescending, but I'm sure I'm being blinded by hindsight.

Airman, were you commenting on the Atomic Bonding list of statements? If so, could you explain your comments more clearly? Does Negative mean the same as Disagree there? Mathis was stating the conventional view and I don't know if you were disagreeing with the conventional view, or with Mathis' assertion that those are the conventional view.

MM Team Chat. Would you like to use the Miles Mathis team chat room one of these days to discuss collaboration on MM related matters? If so, I'm thinking of inviting other MM supporters too, like Cr6 and the Facebook group.

[LongtimeAirman]

Lloyd,

Sorry, I was being facetious. I agree with Miles' argument.

I would chat if I had a high speed connection. I need an excuse to upgrade and you've given me the best one yet.

REMCB

[Chromium6]

Hello all,

I just wanted to say something at this point. I just wanted to clarify from Mathis' and Distinti's papers what is not the charge field? Since it is Mechanical, it is photon based and atom-channeled with spins. Are we looking at something beyond this? Or something that in a greater "sum" creates phenomenon treated as not the Charge Field at work? Just something to think about if we use this as a foundation to build from.

[john666]

"At the atomic, and subatomic level, the charge field is much stronger than gravity, while in the case of celestial bodies, gravity is at least equal to, if not stronger than the charge field".
Gravity and the charge field are in equilibrium at all scales.

According to Mathis(and i agree with that), gravity and the charge field are in equilibrium, only when we are talking about stable orbits of celestial objects.
But when we are talking about atomic and the subatomic level, the charge field is far stronger from gravity.

Anyway, I think that because MM is the person that seemingly understands the best celestial mechanics, we should use his theories, when thinking about the problem, of possibility, or non-possibility, of the "polar configuration".

[LongtimeAirman]

I'm posting my current Charge and Charge Field list for feedback.
1. I'm drawing mainly on Miles' paper, http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html, What is "Charge"?, but I'm including many other bits as well. Please feel free to comment or add to it. It could certainly use more citations.
2. The standard definition of charge, with small additions, has been with us for over two hundred years.  Electrons are negative charge, and protons are positive charge. Opposite charges attract. Modern theories recognise the impossibility of 'action at a distance'. They all seem to involve including moderating virtual particles to explain attraction.
3. Miles has completely redefined Charge and the Charge Field. It is the central idea behind Mathis' physics contributions. It is the collection of photons, all with mass, radius, and spin, moving in a given volume of space. It is a discreet particle field that defines how matter interacts.
4. "Charge is a sort of wind that blows the same direction for all free particles, electrons and positive ions". "The charge field is a bombarding field only, it is always repulsive, never attractive. It is caused by radiation of the so-called b-photons, by contact.
5. "It is this charge we are seeing at the quantum level when we think we are seeing vacuum fluctuations. The fluctuations are there, but they are not in the vacuum and they are not virtual. They are real photon fluctuations in the ambient charge field".
6. Within the charge field, there is no charge attraction. "All attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions. The pluses and minuses of E/M theory are not only empty attributes, they are impossible attributes". 
7. The only "attraction" is the acceleration of gravity. On all scales,  from micro to macro, gravity and the b-field (charge) can reach equilibrium in vector opposition. Given that vector oposition, charge can now be explained mechanically.  
8. The gravity we feel is the sum of actual gravity minus charge.
9. Charge has two differentiating qualities, radius, and spin. (Note: Mass (Is this not determined by radius? Correction anyone?)). The radius determines the photon wavelength, and the spin direction contributes to the pre-magnetic field.
10. B-photon impacts consist of a forward  component vector called e, and the orthogonal component (caused by the spin tangent) vector called h. Net charge field e and h contribute to the overall pre-electric and pre-magnetic fields.
11. Any E/M field will only be visible if ions are available. The charge field drives the E/M field, but the E/M field is strictly composed of ions or electrons. The charge field is primary, and is mathematically the same as Maxwell's displacement field D. It can exist even when no ions are present.
12. Charge is not "between" charged particles in some abstract sense. Charge is real photons that are being recycled through nucleons, atoms, and molecules at all times.
13. Charge is also the same as heat. Heat is caused by the motion of photons.
14. Charge attraction is only apparent. "We can now create opposite potentials simply by size differentials. Consider a small electron and a large proton (to simplify). Both are radiating B-photons. Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton". The acceleration of gravity is causing the particles to move toward one another."
15. The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near. 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". This means that while the proton's b-field is keeping other protons well away, electrons are able to approach the proton much closer (than a larger proton) before they reach equilibrium. This differential has been interpreted as "attraction".  
16. The orbits of the planets can now be understood as the equilibrium of gravity and the charge field. Tangential orbital motion and distance is due to the vast accumulation of the individual photon h and e  components.
17. Tides are now explained by the solar and lunar charge field impacts on the earth's oceans.
18. Charge fields can overlap, interpenetrate and interact. There is a charge field surrounding us due to our corporeal nature. Another field is given off by the earth we stand on. Another is due to the sun's pressence.
19. Miles has calculated that the combined mass of individual charge field photons exceeds all visible matter larger than bosons by 19 times. Science's mysterious dark matter is actually charge field.
20. Some declare the charge field is an aether. If so,  it is active, and in constant motion within and about all matter in the universe. 

[Sparky]

Science's mysterious dark matter is actually charge field.

A hasty conclusion fallacy. You don't know what has not been discovered. And charge field of MM is repulsive. Yet he has it attracting with magnets. Be consistent.

[Chromium6]

Nice summary LTAM!

This is straight Mathis with no chaser. A glass is being slid down the bar to you Sparky:
------------

Let me show you some more misdirection. Wouldn’t it have been more logical to explain the electrical field in the same general terms as the gravitational field? In both cases we have a basic force between two particles. In both cases we create a field to help explain it. Why then vary the logic when expressing these two fields in scientific language? Why choose to express the gravitational field in terms of mass and acceleration, and the electrical field in terms of charge?

     Given two large bodies, we see an apparent attraction and we assign the cause to mass. Given two very small bodies, we see a repulsion and we assign the cause to charge. Why not assign it to mass? Or, to put it another way, with large objects we immediately assign the cause of the attraction to the matter involved. The matter either acts directly or creates the field, therefore we call the causation “mass.” Why not do the same thing with small particles? Why avoid mass and matter so persistently? Why create this nebulous thing called charge and never allow it, decade after decade, to be explained mechanically?

     With gravity, we assign the term directly to the force. Gravity creates the force or is the force. Mathematically, gravity is an acceleration caused by the force.

g = F/m = N/kg

     But the electrical field is expressed without mentioning either mass or acceleration. Instead we have a characteristic called charge, which is either equivalent in dimension to mass (in the case of the statcoulomb) or which has no dimensions (in the case of the Coulomb). Let us skip the Coulomb as a mechanical non-entity and focus again on the statcoulomb. Remember that the statcoulomb is defined as a force at a distance. Well, gravity is also a force at a distance. Or, a statcoulomb is that thing that causes a force at a distance. The charge is not the force or the distance. It is the cause of the force, and the distance just gives us the magnitude.

     Again, the same can be said for gravity. With gravity, mass is not the force or the distance, it is the cause of the force, and the distance just gives us the magnitude of the acceleration.

m = F/g = N/a = N/m/s2 = Ns2/m = (Ns/m)(s)

     You may ask, why did I go on to express mass like that? Well, watch this. The Ampere is also defined as 2 x 10-7 N/m. A Coulomb is an Ampere-second. Therefore a Coulomb is

1C = 2 x 10-7 Ns/m

     So mass may be thought of a Coulomb-second.

The problem with all this is that using current definitions, a Coulomb has no dimensions or the dimensions of mass/second. But a statcoulomb has the dimensions of mass.

statC = L3/T2
C = L3/T3

     Can both be right? It is clear that we need to forget about current and finally define the charge mechanically. We must know what physical interactions are causing the forces, in order to clean up this mess.

     To do this, the first thing we may notice is that when speaking of the gravitational field, a force does not have to include the distance at which it is felt. A Newton at a distance of 1 meter is the same as a Newton at a distance of 10m. A Newton is a Newton. Admitting this, why do we have as part of the definition of a Coulomb that it is a force at a certain distance?

     The reason, of course, is that the electrical force is caused by a large number of subparticles and (according to my theory) the gravitational force is not. If we assume that a static repulsion is caused by the bombardment by a huge number of tiny particles, then the total force is a summation of the individual forces of those particles. To obtain this summation, we must know a particle density.

    And that is why we need to know a distance and a speed, in order to calculate a charge using the present theory. The distance gives us an x-separation between the two objects in repulsion, and since we assume the density is constant or near constant, the y and z density must be the same as the x-density. This gives us the size of the “field” that is creating the force. The speed gives us the density of the field at a given dt. In this way, the electrical field acts as a third particle moving from one object to the other, imparting the force by direct contact. But this third particle is much less dense than the two main objects. It acts like a discrete gaseous object, moving from one place to another at a given speed. This speed is of course c.

     If we define the field this way, instead of as lines, we can obtain a mechanical explanation of the E/M field. Mechanically and operationally, what we are interested in is the force imparted. Mass and charge are just characteristics invented to explain the force we measure. The force is the experimental fact; mass and charge are just abstractions, or ideas.

     What we need to do to clean up the historical mess is a way to explain charge as mass. We need to jettison the whole ideas of charge, since it is not mechanical. It is needlessly fuzzy.

     Quantum physicists will say that charge is not the equivalent of mass, since mass is caused by the ponderability of matter, or by its inertia, or by other equivalent ideas. Charge is thought to be caused by spin. I actually agree with this distinction, but I don’t think it matters here, mechanically or operationally, and this is why. If the electrical force is caused by a gas of ejected sub-particles, as I proposed, then the term “charge” applies to the summed mass or momentum of those sub-particles. It does not apply to the spin. We don’t need to know the mechanics of the spin in order to sum the momenta of the sub-particles. It doesn’t matter what caused the momentum. In measuring and explaining the force, we only need to be concerned with the sum of the momentum.

Of course, once we have found a way to mathematically sum the momemtum of the gas, we may ask how the gas is created. Then we are taken back to the spin of the elementary particles in the repulsing objects. It would appear that the spin causes the ejection or radiation. This would mean that charge is caused by spin; but charge is not spin. Charge is the mass or momentum of the ejected gas or radiation.

     The only truly important distinction here is that mass is a quality that is normally applied to the main two repulsing particles (protons or electrons, say), whereas charge must apply to the mass of the field—the summed mass of the sub-particles. By this way of looking at it, protons and electrons do not “have charge.” Protons and electrons radiate sub-particles, and the summed mass or momentum of these sub-particles is the “charge.” Definitionally and logically and mechanically, charge is the summed mass of the sub-particles. In short, charge is mass.
....
Once you absorb that, it is time to consider the fact that calculating the true mass in this way must vastly increase the total mass of the universe. Over any dt, the mass of a given object is given by the expansion of the object in that time. But we can only measure the force due to expansion (gravity) minus the force due to the mass or momentum of all the radiation in that same time. Therefore the true mass must be the measured mass plus the mass of the radiation.

     Also notice that this change in mechanics gives us a double addition of mass to the universe, since we gain both the mass of the radiation itself as well as the higher true mass of the radiating particle.

     Both these statements are true:
1) The mass of the radiating particle must be greater than the mass measured by our instruments, since our instruments measure a compound mass.
2) The radiation itself has mass or mass equivalence due to energy, which is a second addition to the total mass of the universe. A radiating particle does not lose mass, which means that the “holes” left by radiation are filled by some creative means.

Radiating quantum particles do not dissolve or diminish. This is known. Therefore "creation" happens at all times, from every material point. The universe is banging all the time.

Of course this immediately and simply explains the "mass deficit" in the universe and in current theory. We don't need massive amounts of dark matter or any other ad hoc fixes, since I have just shown the missing matter and energy. All we had to do is define our electrical field as a mechanical field instead of as pencil lines and we could have avoided this mess from the beginning.

http://milesmathis.com/charge.html