Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[Lloyd]

Paused Light?
1. Deep Freeze Pauses Light at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-50 ... 10691-6875
2. On the tv show The Universe on 1/31/2013 on the H2 History channel, the episode title was Deep Freeze. Toward the end was mentioned these statements paraphrased, now on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjoW2kdQ8Q4 (at 36 min. mark) by Alex Filippenko, UC,Berkeley:
3. Luciana Walkowicz, Princeton U says The lowest temperature reached is half a nanoKelvin. At such temperatures atoms clump together and synchronize motions, all behaving the same way. These super cold substances can stop light in its tracks. We can stop a beam of light, or slow it down, play with it and release it again. You can stop light, turn it into an electrical signal, and then release it and turn it back into light, which has all kinds of applications in electronics. 4. ---
5. Earlier Method to Pause Light:
6. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... sa/2002/2~

Reality
In his paper on Designer Electrons at http://milesmathis.com/desig.pdf Mathis explained that what they actually did was change photons into electrons. I have the main statements ready for analysis at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-50 ... 0691-10660. It's doubtful if photons can normally change speed much, because their collisions should be elastic, so they change direction upon collision, but shouldn't change speed.

[Aristarchus]

Just beginning to read through this interesting topic. Fairly tired right now, and this might have been added already, but wanted to add something ... and later want to concentrate on the spin of the particle ... defining itself depending on the circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDd4QkQMRe8

[Aristarchus]

Cool stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVysGpCT4PQ

[LongtimeAirman]

Hello Aristarchus, That sample of Russellian Science is quite interesting. It suggests to me that the most stable part of a nucleus is the photon/antiphoton pairs. While Miles has described photons migrating from a pole to emerge on the far side of the equator, there must be cases where photons and antiphotons meet and join without diminishing spin. How is the nature of matter affected by these pairs?

Cr6, Thanks for the information of slow photons. I imagine curves within nuclei, or curves toward poles that I could not reconcile with c. Photons can travel at less than c and still be photons traveling at "light speed". They can be slowed by by all sorts of things, like cold temperatures, liquid crystals and electrical effects.

Mo, "charge photons describe everything that is physical". Gravity is still a problem.

Lloyd, "it's doubtful if photons can normally change speed much, because their collisions should be elastic, so they change direction upon collision, but shouldn't change speed".
I must respectfully disagree. I do not see how these tight curves can be formed except by near continuous collisions, which I cannot see happening over a planet's poles.

And to keep me secure, knowing I have much to learn, There's this:
http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
NEW PAPER, 4/18/2014. The Fourth Phase of Water. Part 2 of my analysis of Gerald Pollack's book. http://milesmathis.com/poll2.pdf

"This may be the most important part of this paper, and although I have taught you this before*, I want to pause and stress it again here. The mainstream has assumed-against much strong data-that potentials are caused by charge or ion densities, but as we have just seen they are caused by summed charge motion.
.
*See my paper on the battery circuit, for one example."

In interpreting the battery circuit paper, I'm guilty of replacing the voltage differential with a charge field density differential. I must replace that idea with summed charge motion. From one terminal (including attached wire conductor) to the other, and vice versa. I just don't quite see how yet.

REMCB

[Lloyd]

Pollack. Airman, speaking of MM's analysis part 2 of Pollack's book, can you explain what MM's explanation of the exclusion zone would be. I don't think he really explained it well in part 2. All he said was that the zone is caused by light instead of ions. He explained well why it's not caused by ions, but he didn't explain how light forms the zone.

I read about Pollack's findings maybe 2 years ago. As I recall, he found that when water in a container is exposed to light, a zone is set up near the walls of the container, which is of negative charge and is pure water, while the water beyond the zone is positively charged and includes contaminants. So he had devised a simple setup that would drain away the clean water into a separate container. The water left behind I think would then form another exclusion zone, which could again be drained away.

How? I suppose the light that the water is exposed to can be either sunlight or various kinds of artificial lighting. Since all of the water would be exposed to the light, can you see why the exclusion zone would form only by the walls and probably the bottom of the container? Do you think the walls themselves would be reradiating the light, pushing pollutants away from them? I don't see why the dirty water and positive charges would be pushed away from the walls, do you?

Work Group. I'm waiting for Charles to set up an MM work group on his site. It's started, but it doesn't seem to be ready yet for working. I hope to work on the MM Glossary and MM Summary Papers there. I hope you and other interested persons may like to join the group.

[larryduane100]

Miles Mathis still has room for a couple of more people at his conference in Taos, New Mexico.June 16-20. Contact him at
mm@milesmathis.com

Larry White

[LongtimeAirman]

Lloyd wrote:

Pollack. Airman, speaking of MM's analysis part 2 of Pollack's book, can you explain what MM's explanation of the exclusion zone would be. I don't think he really explained it well in part 2. All he said was that the zone is caused by light instead of ions. He explained well why it's not caused by ions, but he didn't explain how light forms the zone.

I'll try, but I reserve the right to be wrong.

Pollack had provided experimental data on strange water behavior that he called the Exclusion Zone (EZ). The mainstream ignored him, his work was misrepresented, and he was slandered. Miles would like Pollack to receive proper recognition, and he sees the EZ as clear proof of his charge field.

The EZ was defined in Miles' first Pollack paper.

"It turns out that any hydrophilic surface can create strange properties in water, with no necessity of compression into a small cross section and no necessity of a solute (the EZ forcibly excludes solutes of all sizes). These strange properties include an unexplained rise in viscosity."

Pollack himself was unable to provide an adequate explanation for the EZ behavior, limited as he was to ionic and covalent bonds and standard charge theory, subjects that Miles has completely overthrown and redefined. Most significantly, with respect to this paper, Miles has provided a new nuclear model of the water molecule that is based on recycling his charge field.

Miles says that the hydrophilic surface is emitting primarily infrared photons (heat) into the water. The water channels the outward flow of the photons (charge field) with high efficiency, to several hundred nanometers. That area is the EZ.

I read about Pollack's findings maybe 2 years ago. As I recall, he found that when water in a container is exposed to light, a zone is set up near the walls of the container, which is of negative charge and is pure water, while the water beyond the zone is positively charged and includes contaminants. So he had devised a simple setup that would drain away the clean water into a separate container. The water left behind I think would then form another exclusion zone, which could again be drained away.

In my reading of these two papers, I believe that the "surface" was that of the gel, (nafion (?)), and not the container, but I'm sure the EZ effect is present to varying degrees in any water/surface interface. The EZ zone presents a voltage potential that can be either positive or negative, which is strong evidence of photon charge field motion which pushes both electrons and ions, "negative" and "positive", along with solutes and contaminants, out of the EZ.

How? I suppose the light that the water is exposed to can be either sunlight or various kinds of artificial lighting. Since all of the water would be exposed to the light, can you see why the exclusion zone would form only by the walls and probably the bottom of the container? Do you think the walls themselves would be reradiating the light, pushing pollutants away from them? I don't see why the dirty water and positive charges would be pushed away from the walls, do you?

Add heat to the list of charge field sources. The EZ is the result of net charge field motion. It is strongest at the water/surface interface, pushing the water born contaminants along the charge field lines. As the charge field penetrates further into the water the net charge field motion diminishes, to be replaced with random, all directions at once motion, until we reach zero net motion.

Work Group. I'm waiting for Charles to set up an MM work group on his site. It's started, but it doesn't seem to be ready yet for working. I hope to work on the MM Glossary and MM Summary Papers there. I hope you and other interested persons may like to join the group.

I joined. I'm just getting warmed up.

REMCB

[Lloyd]

Larry, I hope Miles gets a full house at the conference. If not, you could always invite NPA members who express interest in Light or Aether topics.

Thanks for your remarks, Airman, and for joining our MM team. I asked Charles to add you to the list of members.

Atomic Bonding. I'm changing course a little. I realized today that MM's explanation of the illogic of conventional theory about atomic bonds seems rather solid and is likely an important argument for his theory. So I did a hasty condensing of his paper on Electron Bonding and posted it at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-50 ... 7050-13413. Below is the first half of it. I don't remember having serious questions about any part of the paper. I may not post the rest of the paper here, since it may be too hard to understand with just text. And the part I'm posting here seems to do a good job of discrediting standard theory.

If anyone disagrees with any of these statements, please mention which ones you disagree with and why.

1. _Electron Bonding is a myth
2. _The original reason electron bonding was invented was to explain the coming together and bonding of atoms.
3. _Since the charge field was not considered to be a real field, it wasn't used for this purpose.
4. _The current carrier of charge is the messenger photon, but [their] photon is virtual.
5. _It has no mass, no radius, and no energy [in conventional theory].
6. _With no field to explain the bond, early particle physicists had to explain the bond with the electrons.
7. _But electron bonding has been illogical and contradictory from the beginning.
8. _We see the state of the art very quickly when we begin to read about ionic bonds: The formation of an ionic bond proceeds when the cation, whose ionization energy is low, releases some of its electrons to achieve a stable electron configuration.
9. _But wait, the ionic bond is used to explain the bonding of atoms, not ions.
10. _For instance, in the given example of NaCl, it is a Sodium atom that loses an electron to become a Sodium cation.
11. _But the Sodium atom is already stable.
12. _It doesn't need to release any of its electrons to achieve a stable configuration, because it is already stable.
13. _So what causes it to drop an electron in the presence of Chlorine? We aren't told.
14. _This problem becomes even bigger when we ask the same question for Chlorine.
15. _Has Chlorine dropped an electron to become an ion? No, we don't want Chlorine dropping electrons, we want Chlorine adding electrons.
16. _So in the beginning, Chlorine is just an atom, and as such is stable.
17. _Why should it want to borrow an electron from Sodium? We are told it is because Chlorine has an “electron affinity,” but that is just a statement.
18. _In fact, Chlorine can't “want” an extra electron, because that would be a stable atom “wanting” to be unstable.
19. _That makes no sense.
20. _It is even worse if we ask for an explanation of electron affinity.
21. _The Electron Affinity of an atom or molecule is defined as the amount of energy released when an electron is added to a neutral atom or molecule to form a negative ion.
22. _But that is clearly circular. You can't define an affinity by a release of energy.
23. _The release of energy is the result. We want a cause.
24. _As a sort of answer, we are told Ionic bonding will occur only if the overall energy change for the reaction is favourable – when the reaction is exothermic.
25. _The atoms apparently have some desire to release energy.
26. _But that isn't an answer, either; it is another diversion.
27. _All that tells us is that there is a release of energy during the bond, but that energy could be released in any number of mechanical scenarios.
28. _As you will see, it happens in my scenario, which has nothing to do with electrons being shared or borrowed.
29. _So it is indication of nothing.
30. _We are told that all elements desire to become noble gases, and that this explains why atoms want to gain or lose electrons.
31. _But that is strictly illogical, and we have no evidence for it anyway.
32. _It is implied that Chlorine wants another electron to be more like Argon, but if that is true, what it really should want is another proton.
33. _Another electron won't make Chlorine into Argon, it will only make Chlorine an ion, which is unstable.
34. _Elements don't want to be ions, which is why ions take on electrons to become atoms.
35. _It is ions that want to be atoms, not the reverse.
36. _If there is any affinity, it is for having the same number of electrons and protons, as we know.
37. _Atoms have no affinity for becoming ions.
38. _Once I remind you of the fact, you can see that we have loads of evidence that atoms do not want to gain or lose electrons.
39. _It is ions that want to be atoms, not atoms that want to be ions.
40. _And it is positive ions that attract free electrons, as we know, not negative ions or atoms.
41. _Once Sodium becomes a cation, it should attract the free electron, not Chlorine.
42. _So there is no reason for Sodium to start releasing electrons just to suit theorists.
43. _There is no reason for a free electron to move from a cation to a stable atom.
44. _But there are lots of reasons for Sodium not to release electrons.
45. _free electrons do not move from cations to stable atoms.
46. _That is strictly backwards. 20th century theorists have sold you a contradiction.
47. _The anion, whose electron affinity is positive, then [supposedly] accepts the electrons, again to attain a stable electron configuration.
48. _ remind yourself that anions are given a negative sign. And so are electrons.
49. _So the theory of ionic bonding is that electrons move from plus to minus? So much for field potentials.
50. _The Na and Cl aren't ions until the electron moves over, I am told.
51. _And it moves over because Cl has more affinity for it.
52. _But that doesn't work because the Cl atom can't have more electron affinity than the Na ion.
53. _It might possibly have more affinity than the Na atom, and that is the way affinities are assigned.
54. _But the Cl atom cannot have more affinity for an electron than a Na ion.
55. _As soon as the electron is “released” by the Na, the Na is an ion.
56. _We then have the electron hovering over the Na+ and the Cl atom.
57. _Which way will it go? Are you telling me the electron will move from a cation to a neutral atom? It will move away from an open proton? Look at this diagram of the process.
58. _I have drawn the moment after the Na has released the electron, but before it is accepted by the Cl.
59. _Do you still think the electron will move to the Cl?
60. _Do you really think an atom can have more electron affinity than a cation?
61. _How could an atom be more receptive to a free electron than a cation?
62. _That goes against the definition of cation, of ion, of atom, and of field potential.

[Chromium6]

On Atomic Bonding keep in mind how the definition of cation/anion came about by Faraday for ions. This also makes me think of how Mathis would describe an air ionizer?

Electrostatic neutralizer in electronics

Air ionizers are sometimes used in electronic work environments to eliminate the buildup of potentially damaging static charges on insulators or conductors. This is sometimes necessary when ground straps cannot be used.[9]

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

This term was introduced by English physicist and chemist Michael Faraday in 1834 for the then-unknown species that goes from one electrode to the other through an aqueous medium. Faraday did not know the nature of these species, but he knew that since metals dissolved into and entered a solution at one electrode, and new metal came forth from a solution at the other electrode, that some kind of substance moved through the solution in a current, conveying matter from one place to the other.

Faraday also introduced the words anion for a negatively charged ion, and cation for a positively charged one. In Faraday's nomenclature, cations were named because they were attracted to the cathode in a galvanic device and anions were named due to their attraction to the anode.

Natural occurrences

Ions are ubiquitous in nature and are responsible for diverse phenomena from the luminescence of the Sun to the existence of the Earth's ionosphere. Atoms in their ionic state may have a different color from neutral atoms, and thus light absorption by metal ions gives the color of gemstones. In both inorganic and organic chemistry (including biochemistry), the interaction of water and ions is extremely important; an example is the energy that drives breakdown of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The following sections describe contexts in which ions feature prominently; these are arranged in decreasing physical length-scale, from the astronomical to the microscopic.

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

--------

Here's a comment on Mathis on Colors related to the ion-color described above:

A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics

This is also the reason the neutron has more mass: it doesn’t lose the energy of emission. Since energy is mass, we may deduce that the mass equivalence of the emission of a baryon is 2.3 x 10-30 kg. The neutron traps this emission; the proton emits it.
Finally, this also explains the slight mass difference between the neutron and anti-neutron, in a direct mechanical way. The emission is trapped by both particles, making them neutral; but in the anti-neutron, the trapped emission does not cancel its own energy precisely. A clockwise spin will cancel a counter-clockwise spin, when two particles of equal mass meet head-on. But if two particles of equal mass meet head-on, and each has a clockwise spin, the spin is not canceled. No, it is doubled. Which means that B-photons trapped in anti-neutrons cannot cancel out completely. Only their kinetic energy, or energy from forward motion, cancels. But the spin energy of the emission remains. Depending on which of the four anti-neutrons we are talking about, this spin energy can either augment or tamp down the spin energy of the particle. So the anti-neutron can weigh slightly more or less than the neutron.

This mass difference also ties into the color problem. In his Nobel Lecture, David Gross tells us,

Color had been introduced by O. W. Greenberg (1964), Y. Nambu (1965, 1968) and M. Y. Han and Nambu (1965). Nambu’s motivation for color was twofold; first to offer an explanation of why only (what we would now call) color singlet hadrons exist by postulating a strong force (but with no specification as to what kind of force) coupled to color, which was responsible for the fact that color-neutral states were lighter than colored states.4

My explanation above provides a simple mechanical cause of this mass difference, without the need of the theories that have been pasted together since the '60's. To understand both mass and chirality differences, we look at the stacked spins, and the way these four spins channel the emission. Once we understand this very powerful analysis and learn to use it, we don't need the idea of color at all.

Besides explaining mass differences, the stacked spins also explain the magnetic moment of the neutron. QCD cannot explain this in a straightforward manner. As usual, it requires a lot of ad hoc theories and new non-mechanical terms and interactions. But my spins explain it simply and immediately. Just study the stacks above, for neutron and proton. A neutron is always a proton with a reversed outer spin. Since the outer spins are reversed, the action in the magnetic field must be reversed. The magnetic field is caused by the spins on the charge photons that make up the field, and these spins must interact directly with the outer spins of baryons. This is why, if we define the magnetic moment of the proton as positive, the magnetic moment of the neutron is negative. But why is the value of the magnetic moment of the proton about 1.5x that of the neutron? Shouldn't the neutron's value be zero, since it is not emitting the charge field? No, the magnetic moment is not a measure of the baryon's own field; it is a measure of how much the baryon reacts to the given charge field that is already there. Since the neutron has a radius and a spin, it has a presence in the field. It cannot dodge the charge photons in the field, so we would not expect its magnetic moment to be zero. It value is lower than the proton because it is not emitting itself, but it is not zero. From the difference in values between the proton and neutron, we may calculate that the proton (and anti-proton) supplies about 1/3rd of the charge field at its own surface. This makes 2/3rds of the charge field ambient or residual. This will be very important in later papers.

---

Also, do you all think Mathis can develop something like a Z-Matrix Chemistry for his atoms?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-matrix_%28chemistry%29

[john666]

Hello smart people. I have a question for you.
The question is concerned with the so called "polar configuration theory", and how it relates with the charge field theory of Mathis.

I myself do believe in the charge field, but I don't believe, in the polar configuration.
The reason for that is the following:

"It is absolutely impossible that Earth was in the so-called "polar configuration", with Saturn.
It is impossible, because if it would be possible, that would mean, that the charge fields of the magnetic poles, of Earth and Saturn, would have acted, as a "pair of hooks", of sorts.
In another words, they would have have acted as a force of attraction!
But that is clearly impossible, because Miles Mathis has shown that the charge field of a body, acts as a force of repulsion!"(copy-paste from a different topic)

I want to hear your opinions, about whether I am interpreting, the charge field theory of Mathis, correctly or wrongly.

Thank you in advance.

[Sparky]

Hello smart people. I have a question for you.---------But that is clearly impossible, because Miles Mathis has shown that the charge field of a body, acts as a force of repulsion!"

Well, clearly disallows me, but fools rush in where------------

I'm still working at understanding the bar magnet, but maybe that is all we need here..

A magnetic field is much stronger than the charge field. So, why not look at the magnetic fields coupling planets together..

The planets were in polar configuration, N-S-N-S-N, sorry , got lost in the n-s...how many were there? anywho....the magnetic fields would intermingle and bind the Saturn configuration together... ithink.ireallydonno..

[john666]

Hello smart people. I have a question for you.---------But that is clearly impossible, because Miles Mathis has shown that the charge field of a body, acts as a force of repulsion!"

Well, clearly disallows me, but fools rush in where------------

I'm still working at understanding the bar magnet, but maybe that is all we need here..

A magnetic field is much stronger than the charge field. So, why not look at the magnetic fields coupling planets together..

The planets were in polar configuration, N-S-N-S-N, sorry , got lost in the n-s...how many were there? anywho....the magnetic fields would intermingle and bind the Saturn configuration together... ithink.ireallydonno..

The charge field is the basis, of the magnetic field, according to Mathis.

[Sparky]

Well, Mathis needs to make up his mind.. Magnetic field is both attractive and repulsive. You say the charge field is repulsive. So, which is it?

What kind of spin will be used to explain this problem?

[john666]

Well, Mathis needs to make up his mind.. Magnetic field is both attractive and repulsive. You say the charge field is repulsive. So, which is it?

What kind of spin will be used to explain this problem?

http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html

But I have to say, I am not sure that his use of gravity in this paper is correct.

[Sparky]

explaining the magnetic field as a force produced by the spin on photons.

I knew it!!!! Using "spin" to explain magnetism...

Edit: More WHAT?!

Magnetic attraction is not really attraction, it is a loss of half the repulsion,

In short, it is gravity that makes magnets come together, by removing repulsion..

Oh, come now!!!