Use the charge field

I always thought about a question but still don't know how to ask it.

Earth is continuously emitting charge, infrared light most probably.

A lot of animals and vegetables, most noticeably so the basic organisms, use this field directly.

Is there a way for us humans to benefit from it? I'm not talking about electrical power, I'm talking about doing something to give our cells and bacteria the right amount of charge to be healthy.

Also how to notice we're receiving too much or too little charge.

Man, this is so strange, it's like I'm talking about magic.

Any thoughts about it?

.
Ciaolo, Your question involves all life on Earth. At one thousandth the force of gravity it may seem we are removed from the charge field, but we are not. The charge field is so ubiquitous it’s easier to ask, what would existence be like without it?

Our fluid-like atmosphere is the result of the charge field. Changing the charge field directly affects the altitude, or ‘ceiling’ at which specific gases will be found. The altitude of ionosphere’s surface is thus the best indicator of the Earth’s charge field strength. We monitor that continuously. Turn down the charge field and the atmosphere collapses in increasing density closer to the Earth’s surface. I believe all fluids are affected. All atomic matter spacing is a function of the charge field’s balance with gravity.

There are many physical differences between living on a mountaintop or under the sea, a reasonable charge field variation. I can imagine charge-spas that promise either increased charge vigor or shielding from radiation. Lots of room for exploitation, perhaps even beneficial and justifiable. We would certainly need such awareness before we could colonize space.  
.

All organisms require a range of heat to survive and infrared light is heat apparently. You can do a web image search and find pictures of Earth taken with IR, visible and UV light. It appears that Earth gives off all of those frequencies more than it receives.

I never found UV, only IR and that was quite difficult.

Anyway, all planets and satellites give away much more light than they receive.

I've also found it extremely difficult to find UV or IR imaging of the Earth, most likely because it would demolish half their theories in an instant. We have these images of the sun every day, for example, in every spectrum. We have images of the Jovians and their moons in multiple spectrums, but finding the same images of the Earth is difficult and I only find garbage-low resolution pics, myself. And I can find an image of just about anything, if it exists.

Solar images like this, as I said, are stored daily on the SunToday site, and in really nice, large resolutions of 4K or more:

But when we say that planets and satellites emit more charge than they take in, are we sure about this? Is this again the moon/Enceladus topic, where the visible emission is many, many times over unity?

Is it possible that the spectrums being monitored aren't full enough, and that incoming measurements are wildly off (since for example, we don't have any real sensors at these places to measure charge and up until the last decade, nobody really knew what to measure anyway) and are just guesses?

To compound the issue, what if most of the incoming charge were simply axial-spin B-photons and thus below most normal spectrums? Or if the incoming higher-spin photons get spun down in the Van Allen belts or ionosphere into regular old B-photons? What if most of our detectors require a certain level of magnetism (spin, or stacked spins) to really "see" the B-photons?

Just some ideas. It seems like the Earth, for example, should emit as much charge as it takes on, with a few adjustments from those chief inputs (sun, Jupiter, galactic core) or other factors.

Or is this as Nevyn said, the main reason for expansion?

Wait! What did I say?

Nevyn wrote:Wait! What did I say?

Sorry, Nevyn. I have been scrolling through multiple threads at once again in tabs, and it's actually really helping me see things more clearly. In several threads, people have discussed the charge field as being the component of expansion theory that repels all matter, and keeps the relative distances from also expanding (and filling up empty space, for example). One of your statements really drove that home for me earlier, and I should have quoted that exact thread but I lost it now.

This big gravity thread is one I'm digging through and it's pretty good stuff.

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t10-gravity

Ciaolo wrote:[...]Anyway, all planets and satellites give away much more light than they receive.

I meant just that they aren't only reflecting the Sun light like the mainstream bs tells us, because they emit light. Obviously we propose that they recycle photons received at the poles, in addition of reflection which is to be expected after all.

As of non-spinning photons, we can say that a 1-spin photon has a certain wavelength and that is the limit below which we have 'infinite wavelength' = no oscillation. Can we observe that? Can we measure it at all? If so, that is how we can say if B-photons with 0 spins exist.

But we're going extremely out of topic

I have an idea, I think it's better if I open a new thread and link it here: Recycling-

Just wanted to throw this in from the Kortvelyessy thread where he points to filaments that are currently a "non-modeled" form of the charge field. It is essentially packed photonic tubes? He was into Black Holes which Mathis has pretty much dismissed:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t62-dr-laszlo-kortvelyessy-s-electric-universe#531

The attractive and repulsive forces in microcosm and macrocosm show the elegant simplicity and beautiful symmetry of the Universe. This was not understood in the 20th century. The main problem was, how could the Universe still have e.g. positive matter which should eject another positive matter as the Sun its proton-flares? Yes, positive and negative matter continually neutralize each other. But the sun-like stars continually produce new charged matter, too, e.g. negatively charged wind and proton-flares. They do it via 43 times quicker thermal motion of the plasma-electrons related to that of the protons (Eddington 1925). Therefore, electron-jumps outwards are in average longer than those inwards. In addition to this thermoelement-effect, the solar photons and the solar neutrinos also push outwards the electrons to longer jumps but the ions to shorter ones. The solar surface is charged negatively. Neutron stars, cosmic rays and black holes have more violent electric functions. This is shown in the book and in the homepage of "The Electric Universe".

Are we looking for an analysis of Kortvelyessy's physics, here? It's pretty easy to demolish philosophically, though specifically he may have some good stuff. I don't want to dismiss anyone out of hand about black holes, but yeah. They're a complete fraud as far as I can tell. But that doesn't mean he may not be correct in other ways.

For example, his first sentence is pretty bad. We know of no attractive forces, nor of any symmetry in the universe or whatever. To say this was not understood in the 20th century is also just terrible, coming from a writer who doesn't understand them even in the 21st century, and the physics field is still in the dark in general as well, even today.

And:
"In addition to this thermoelement-effect, the solar photons and the solar neutrinos also push outwards the electrons to longer jumps but the ions to shorter ones. "

Since solar photons and neutrinos are the same thing, we can simplify that. And since an electron is smaller and has less mass than larger, ionized matter it follows that they would be pushed out further than this larger matter, given the same pressure from the sun's photons.