Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[D_Archer]

What do you think pushes the ions?

The electric field, which is not proven to be photons. I don't know what it is, but desperate need to know does not allow me to overlook MM's lack of logic.(see previous posts where I take on MM's logic.)

To overlook the imagined charge photons actions is to lack imagination in that area or chose to not see that they will not behave as MM says.

But if you care to explain in detail how E field is produced, I will study it and respond. There is a great deal that I just do not understand.

If MM's math ever does coincide with his charge model, it is coincidence. Like I said, my desperate need to know does not allow for wild, speculative models.

How is saying that light is physical and interacts with matter speculative? The photoelectric effect was already experimental proof. And for a more simple proof, just go out and let the sun shine on your face, do you feel the heat? Do you think the light also pushes you a bit?.. we can take it further, a laser can definitely push objects, proof enough for you that light is physical?

Now the E-Field, a normal candle points upward, why is that?, when you apply an horizontal E-Field, the candle points to the direction of the negative plate, why is that? What does negative physically mean? Do you think there is charge build up in the positive plate? Is the negative plate less charged? Would that not create a density imbalance? (the more go where there is less). What is charge physically if not photons? Or how do you think the ionic wind starts without photons?

There are many questions and i think a physical photon field as the basis for electric and magnetic fields can answer a lot of them.

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

Yes, photons exert force. It is speculative that the E field is photons.

a normal candle points upward, why is that

I would guess that it has something to do with heat rising.

The flame points toward the negative plate because..... ?
What mechanical action would cause that? Why not point toward the positive plate?

Moving ions, for whatever reason, constitute an electric current.
What is the source of electricity? Has to do with charges is all that I know.

If a type of photon is part of the vacuum energy aether, then that I would consider.

But photons move in all directions, and the sun hitting my face is probably not the E field. And photonic force upon a particle would come from every direction, outside the local source. So if E field is photons, what is the B field?

[D_Archer]

Yes, photons exert force. It is speculative that the E field is photons.

a normal candle points upward, why is that

I would guess that it has something to do with heat rising.

And what is heat?

The flame points toward the negative plate because..... ?
What mechanical action would cause that? Why not point toward the positive plate?

The E-Field has direction, from the positive plate to the negative plate, what is moving. Photons due to charge imbalance. Ions are pushed by the photon field (or dragged along)

Moving ions, for whatever reason, constitute an electric current.
What is the source of electricity? Has to do with charges is all that I know.

The charges are separated (charge is photons), it just means there is a place where there are more photons and a place where there are less, the more will move to the less (entropy).

If a type of photon is part of the vacuum energy aether, then that I would consider.

You are getting it, Miles Mathis has said that his charge photon field is a sort of aether.

But photons move in all directions, and the sun hitting my face is probably not the E field. And photonic force upon a particle would come from every direction, outside the local source. So if E field is photons, what is the B field?

Easiest way to explain by Miles: "One [E-Field] is caused by linear motion, and the other [B-Field] is caused by the spin on the particle in linear motion" (inserts added by me)

The charged plates set up a direction for the photons, then they are no longer moving in all directions.

The sun hitting your face was just to help feel/visualize what is happening, to spark(y) imagination

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

Daniel:

And what is heat?

My understanding is that it is excited, random particles. Such a gas is lighter than the atmosphere, so it rises, floats.

The E-Field has direction, from the positive plate to the negative plate, what is moving. Photons due to charge imbalance. Ions are pushed by the photon field (or dragged along)

Yes, E field can be measured. Ions are moving"?. Hasty, Illogical conclusion that photon field is source of force.
\

The charges are separated (charge is photons), it just means there is a place where there are more photons and a place where there are less, the more will move to the less (entropy).

Entropy? Plates are supplied with more and less electrons.
A measured E field is established.

Why electrons Ions, follow the E field, through the plasma flame, could be force, influenced by aether. Photons that I know of have mass, energy, frequency, and are detectable.

Whoa! While I was washing my spoon, knife, fork, and dish, it hit me that I'm probably off on a tangent. I took charge photons too literally! They are not photons as I understand them.

If the E field is mechanical, but on a smaller level, and quite different than photons, then ions would be moved by these smaller particles in a coherent manner. Let's call it aether.....And let's move to a small magnet.....

As we can detect, there is a force around a magnet. It appears to go from end to end. Probably through the magnet.

I suggest that the force is the aether, lined up and held together by a force similar to the "strong force". The magnet warps and concentrates the aether field, and in some experiments, draws energy from it.

The movement of the aether, through a wire, will align electrons in the wire and establish a B and E field of aether. The E field tends to follow in the direction of the conductor. The B field curves, as it does in and around a magnet connecting via the '
"strong force" in a close association of spiraling aether particles.

The aether in such configurations is movement.

Did I go too far for you?

[D_Archer]

Did I go too far for you?

No, not at all, there is no spoon

but on a smaller level, and quite different than photons

I think you are not really understanding how small photons are, Miles Mathis B-photon radius is > 2.74 x 10-24m, 2 spin levels below the electron.

As said, a photon field could function as an aether, a background or field beneath E/M.

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

I have difficulty with the "entropy" explanation for E field effect.

Need to go to a more basic level with B field. MM's magnetic field is photons of differing spins, from what I remember.

Where did the spins come from? What in a magnet would set up differing spins that connect through the magnet and from N to S? And the curving of photons trajectories need to be addressed.

[Lloyd]

Sparky said: Where did the spins come from? What in a magnet would set up differing spins that connect through the magnet and from N to S? And the curving of photons trajectories need to be addressed.

I'm fairly satisfied with MM's explanation of the magnetic effect of photons, but I'm not satisfied with the very incomplete explanation of stacked spins. So far, it's much easier for me to picture photons doubling or pairing up to make bigger photons, instead of a single photon doubling its mass by making wild gyrations in empty space which gyrations are called stacked spins.

Daniel said: The charges are separated (charge is photons), it just means there is a place where there are more photons and a place where there are less, the more will move to the less (entropy).

I think areas of more photons are areas of higher photon pressure. When a photon is emitted by a proton, there's a slightly lower pressure in or on the proton, so photons from higher pressure areas outside the proton are pushed into the low pressure area. I said before that this may explain gravity too, i.e. why matter attracts other matter, i.e. it's by photon pressure.

[LongtimeAirman]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=15364
LLoyd asked, "Does space insulate or conduct?". He further clarified, "Does the vacuum of space resist current or not resist current? If it does not resist, then it is not an insulator. Is it?".

I would respond at that string but since my answer requires MM's charge field theory I will answer here.

First, we must redefine and clarify some terms. Current has historically been defined as electron, ion, or hole (haha) flow. But that movement is secondary, not primary. Electron or ion flow only occurs when they are pushed by photons or antiphotons. Photons and antiphotons are the true source of charge, not electrons or protons. Electrons and protons only exhibit charge behavior due to their constant recycling of photons and antiphotons. At the lowest level, photons and antiphotons comprise the charge field. Current should thus be redefined as a net charge flow (photon and/or antiphoton) over some time interval.

Insulators and conductors are historically defined in terms of impeding or enabling electron or ion flow, and are, in fact, irrelevant to photonic charge flow. Photons can flow in the complete absence of electrons or ions (or through higher matter).

Answer. The vacuum of space does not resist charge current flow.

Your question is rooted in mainstream. Your clarification helps, but you still include "insulate". Historically, how can there be current in the absence of electrons or ions? There is no satisfactory answer in mainstream theory and in mainstream terms.

REMCB

[David]

I'm not satisfied with the very incomplete explanation of stacked spins… wild gyrations in empty space with gyrations which are called stacked spins.

Careful Lloyd, questioning the Mathis orthodoxy is akin to blasphemy. Someone might mistakenly assume you are one of those dreaded non-believers. You best suppress any further thoughts of doubt; otherwise your Mathis lifetime club membership will have to be revoked.

[Sparky]

Daniel:

field beneath E/M.

Yes, charge photon is very small. Beneath E/M field? I thought that the charge photon was the E/M field?

Others have jumped in with conclusions that have already been stated. Their "beliefs" are not scientifically logical. They are conclusions that they have accepted from illogical reasoning by MM.

I would like to go as far back into that line of reasoning as possible. I suggest the magnetic field, as we can measure and observe that and draw some inferences from such,.

[Lloyd]

E/M Field

Daniel:

field beneath E/M.

Yes, charge photon is very small. Beneath E/M field? I thought that the charge photon was the E/M field?
- Others have jumped in with conclusions that have already been stated. Their "beliefs" are not scientifically logical. They are conclusions that they have accepted from illogical reasoning by MM.
- I would like to go as far back into that line of reasoning as possible. I suggest the magnetic field, as we can measure and observe that and draw some inferences from such,.

Sparky, I think MM refers to the photon field as the foundational E/M field, but calls the ions and electrons in an area the E/M field. The photon field organizes the E/M field.

A problem with theories is that it's difficult or impossible to state every step of logic. Many of us try to find every major logical step for a theory, but it takes a lot of work to come up with all the relevant data and facts and put them together in proper order.

MM seems to have started by analyzing Newton's law of gravity and finding there that the equation actually contains symbols for both gravity and the electric or electromagnetic force.

When he later analyzed charge, the force between charged particles, he noticed that "virtual photons" were used in the theory to explain charge. But he asked why not use real photons, instead of imaginary ones? When he tried it himself, he found that a lot of problems in physics seemed to resolve. So, instead of virtual photons mediating charged particles, real photons seem to be emitted by the particles and that's what pushes them apart, i.e. why protons repel each other. Neutrons are the same size as protons, so they should be repelled by protons too, so that may be a problem for MM's theory. Hopefully Airman can comment there.

Magnetism
Photons would normally spin due to collisions with other photons. If 2 pool balls collide off-center, they will both spin in opposite directions. Friction makes them stop spinning pretty soon. Air friction is enough to make pingpong balls stop spinning pretty quick too. There's no friction to make photons stop spinning.

The spinning photons collide with ions and this causes the ions to spin too, but it takes a lot of photon collisions to do that. When most of the ions are spinning the same direction, they act as a magnetic field. That makes sense to me, but then I don't understand offhand why this magnetic field wouldn't affect every object that enters the field. Instead, the field only affects iron and some other metals, I think.

So I don't have clear ideas on this either, but the theory has the beginning of a sensible model. Maybe Airman can help here too. I could also check MM's paper on magnetism again, but I don't remember him going into that.

[Sparky]

I don't understand offhand why this magnetic field wouldn't affect every object that enters the field.

There is some effect on many substances. It is a force that can be felt, measured, observed in several ways. That is where I started. What makes up a magnetic field
that would exhibit all observed phenomenon.? If we could go back to square one, with a magnetic field investigation that would be as simple as I can see.
Logic:
It has force.
It must be moving.
It is directional.
But can be distorted.
It has ability to energize electrons in metals.

What's next? I see no conclusion from this so far.

[LongtimeAirman]

Hi Lloyd, I thought I was addressing your post on another string, but it seems I interrupted your discussion here. Thank you for inviting me to join. I’ll try to answer your comments with my own limited understanding.

E/M Field

I think MM refers to the photon field as the foundational E/M field, but calls the ions and electrons in an area the E/M field. The photon field organizes the E/M field.

Yes, the charge field is the foundational E/M field. Miles refers to the charge field aggregate (vector summation of all photons' and antiphotons') linear direction as the pre-electric field, and the aggregate spin as the pre-magnetic field. The pre-electric and pre-magnetic fields will not be detected until they are manifest by their effect on electrons or protons. What we call the E/M field. There is no E/M field without the presence of electrons or protons.

A problem with theories is that it's difficult or impossible to state every step of logic. Many of us try to find every major logical step for a theory, but it takes a lot of work to come up with all the relevant data and facts and put them together in proper order.

Agreed. No one I know of has ever come up with a complete theory on the scale of the charge field alone, yet somehow the fact that Miles has not answered all the details has become a major line of attack against him. What’s the fun in working with new ideas if there’s nothing left to work on?

MM seems to have started by analyzing Newton's law of gravity and finding there that the equation actually contains symbols for both gravity and the electric or electromagnetic force.

Along somewhat the same line, I thought that Miles started with Newton’s mass variable, and recognized that it was reducible to volume times density. He concluded that volume was the basis of gravity, and density was the basis for the charge field.

When he later analyzed charge, the force between charged particles, he noticed that "virtual photons" were used in the theory to explain charge. But he asked why not use real photons, instead of imaginary ones? When he tried it himself, he found that a lot of problems in physics seemed to resolve. So, instead of virtual photons mediating charged particles, real photons seem to be emitted by the particles and that's what pushes them apart, i.e. why protons repel each other. Neutrons are the same size as protons, so they should be repelled by protons too, so that may be a problem for MM's theory. Hopefully Airman can comment there.

Neutrons are certainly pushed by photons. I suppose the reason we don’t detect neutrons in electric current is the fact that they are unstable and do not last 15 minutes outside a nucleus under the most benign conditions, and far shorter under electron collisions .

Magnetism

Photons would normally spin due to collisions with other photons. If 2 pool balls collide off-center, they will both spin in opposite directions. Friction makes them stop spinning pretty soon. Air friction is enough to make pingpong balls stop spinning pretty quick too. There's no friction to make photons stop spinning.

Agreed

The spinning photons collide with ions and this causes the ions to spin too, but it takes a lot of photon collisions to do that. When most of the ions are spinning the same direction, they act as a magnetic field. That makes sense to me, but then I don't understand offhand why this magnetic field wouldn't affect every object that enters the field. Instead, the field only affects iron and some other metals, I think.

As I understand it, the magnetism of iron and other metals is not due to spinning nucleui, nor soley to the spins of the photons channeling through the neucleus. Magnetism also requires the coherent addition of the antiphotons spin passing through the same neucleus, in the opposite direction. Few elements have that coherent dual spin property. All the photons and antiphotons emitted by those elements are also coherent, creating the pre-magnetic field.

So I don't have clear ideas on this either, but the theory has the beginning of a sensible model. Maybe Airman can help here too. I could also check MM's paper on magnetism again, but I don't remember him going into that.

Starting at (http://milesmathis.com/index.html ), the following are good references:
100a. How Magnetism works Mechanically (http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html ) With spin and the unified field. 11pp.
230a. How to Build the Elements. (http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf ) Explaining the periodic table, with nuclear diagrams. 16pp
240b. Period Four ( http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf ) of the periodic table, where I analyze the nuclear structure of many important metals. 20pp

REMCB

[Lloyd]

Magnetism

This is from MM's magnetism paper.
When magnets meet, they do not need to have stronger charge fields or extraordinary charge fields, or anything else. They only need to have charge fields that are ordered in a particular way. This is already known, in a way, since we know that the domains have to all be aligned by some external magnetic field. If they aren't, the magnet won't work or won't have its full strength. This was known, but it wasn't known precisely what was aligning. Up to now, it was thought that it was something to do with electric current, but it isn't. The electric current in a magnet and around a magnet is an effect of the alignment, not the cause of it. What is actually aligning is the charge field. It is not unpaired electrons creating alignment either, it is the nucleus. The nucleus is channeling charge, and with certain elements the nuclear poles align, creating magnetic conduction. See my recent paper on Iron for more on this.

In short, with magnetic attraction, we have two opposite spin fields meeting, and these fields are a creation of the nucleus. Some elements create much stronger spin fields via magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole, and these elements are the most magnetic. When these strong spin fields meet from opposing directions, we get high spin cancellations. When the two charge fields meet in fairly well-ordered straight lines, head-to-head, the photons will cancel their spins, canceling the magnetic component of the E/M field. The photons will not annihilate one another, but they will annihilate one another's spins. In other words, the electrical field will not be canceled, only the magnetic field. Nor will all photons be affected, since we don't imagine that all will collide. But the field coherence creates an unusually high number of collisions and spin cancellations, and the result is greatly reduced charge field. A greatly reduced charge field is the same as a greatly strengthened gravity field, and the result is an apparent attraction. There is too little repulsion to counteract gravitational expansion, and the magnets come together.

I can understand photons shooting out from each magnet pushing them apart by photon pressure (= magnetic repulsion). But I don't see how canceling many of the photon spins can make the gravitational attraction between 2 magnets stronger. If you hold one magnet above a loose magnet set on a table top, the loose magnet is "pulled" up to the one you're holding. That pull surely can't be gravity, since it's more than equal to the pulling force of the whole planet Earth (since the loose magnet is moving upward against Earth gravity). I also don't see how the spins on the photons would cancel and don't see how the photons would have any effect on the attraction between the magnets.

Electric Currents in Space
Airman, it's fine with me to bring up that issue here too. I think the answers to that problem may be in scrutinizing MM's Anderson paper, which is the latest one, and the links in it to two or more other papers, and also in our earlier discussion of how a battery circuit works.

Above you said: Insulators and conductors are historically defined in terms of impeding or enabling electron or ion flow, and are, in fact, irrelevant to photonic charge flow. Photons can flow in the complete absence of electrons or ions (or through higher matter).

In our battery circuit discussion didn't you suggest that electricity is work done by electrons that are pushed by photon streams? In the Anderson paper and others it seems that MM says electrons and other particles aren't seen to flow at all, or almost not at all.

Here are links to those 3 papers.
http://milesmathis.com/ander.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/drude.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/dielec.pdf

[Sparky]

Lloyd and airman---- Repeating nonsense is still nonsense.

What you posted were conclusions from illogical positions. I was attempting to work through the logic from a simple premise, but that seems impossible with the cult following of ideology presented by MM and others in this world.

David has successfully taken down MM's math. If he were to address the logic alone, I am sure he could do better than I.

With MM's math and logic in serious question, if not completely nullified, what use is talking to dupes that keep throwing up (vomiting) the same ole MM nonsense?

I do hope that David comes back here to introduce much needed logic*math).