New Particles? No, Bad Theory

.
Miles has a new paper out, New Particles? No, Bad Theory
http://milesmathis.com/core2.pdf

I must include a quote, here's a good one.

Any spinning sphere acts as a charge engine, using the differences in angular momenta at poles and equator. The spin naturally sets up field differentials in any external particulate field, which is what light is. Potentials from pole to equator drive charge in at the poles and out at the equator. However, some charge passes from pole to pole directly, and it is this charge that generates the magnetic field.

.

After reading a few mainstream papers...we all get tired of the volume of "rehash" in terms of classical theory. I bet though that Miles is getting a decent these days from various people either from various forums or from those into "conspiracy" angles. Looks like this most recent paper affirms the Mathis perspective on the Charge Field.

http://milesmathis.com/wilkes.pdf
and the quote/paper you posed above LTAM
http://milesmathis.com/core2.pdf

He's getting far more attention than any of these mainstream sources, nowadays. He has a paper on the topic too, it's pretty damn funny to me!

All their promotion and reportage and media saturation is going for naught. And rightly so.

I have a problem with the last sentence in that quote:

Miles Mathis wrote:However, some charge passes from pole to pole directly, and it is this charge that generates the magnetic field.

The way I remember it, it is the pole-to-equator that creates the magnetic field of an atom or molecule. With super-conductors, we want pole-to-pole charge for the direct conduction. The Meisner effect is explained by the limiting of the pole-to-equator charge, which drops magnetism.

Nevyn wrote:I have a problem with the last sentence in that quote:

Miles Mathis wrote:However, some charge passes from pole to pole directly, and it is this charge that generates the magnetic field.

The way I remember it, it is the pole-to-equator that creates the magnetic field of an atom or molecule. With super-conductors, we want pole-to-pole charge for the direct conduction. The Meisner effect is explained by the limiting of the pole-to-equator charge, which drops magnetism.

Agreed. I think he had some reason or other to write it like that, but it goes against all the other theories. A photon passing through the Earth directly can't really impart spin on anything, including other photons. One of us should email him about a correction, though it's a minor point. I imagine he'll want to be cohesive with all his theories.

.
I agree, the final sentence seems wrong; of course, magnetism a is total emission field effect, it isn’t limited to the poles. But Miles isn’t saying that magnetism is limited to the poles. As Cr6 cross posted in Bizarre Cosmic Rays Are Shooting Out of Antarctica and Physicists Can’t Explain It
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t515-bizarre-cosmic-rays-are-shooting-out-of-antarctica-and-physicists-cant-explain-it#4435

During ANITA’s time in the Antarctic, it detected never before seen “upward-pointing cosmic-ray-like events.” The rays detected had horizontal planes of polarization, which may suggest they didn’t originate in space.

The emission of photons with horizontal planes of polarization been detected over the south pole. Magnets wouldn't be magnets without such polarization. Perhaps Miles meant that the Earth’s own magnetic field would not exist without the emission of horizontally polarized particles from the entire planet's surface?
.