Miles Mathis' Charge Field
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons)

3 posters

Go down

The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons) Empty The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons)

Post by Ciaolo Wed May 13, 2020 3:07 am

Hello!

Long time no see.
Today I found a new science paper by Miles Mathis and, halfway through it an idea came to me, and I wanted to see what you think about it.
The link to the paper is: http://milesmathis.com/lighterrors.pdf

My idea is about seasons. I live in Italy, and also went to the UK for a bit, so I could observe the difference in seasons between the two latitudes. Before knowing Mathis theories I always thought Summer was hotter because of the Sun being more "perpendicular" to the surface. I know Mathis wrote about seasons too, but I don't remember very well what his conclusions were.

Today I thought that the reverse is true actually. The Earth aligns the poles to get as much charge as possible, and during Summer in the northern emisphere, the South Pole is aligned to the Sun position. So the reason Summer is hotter here is because of the charge that enters the South Pole and exits here, from underground. In Winter the North Pole gets a boost from the Sun and discharges it in the southern emisphere, with us only getting a limited discharge from the tuned down South Pole.

Of course the Earth being massive means that we get discharge also from the North Pole. In Italy it's a bit more since it's nearer the Equator, in the UK it's much less. That discharge is barely nonexistent in Winter, and in Summer it just adds a bit of warmth to the hotness from the South Pole. It causes Winters to be slighly less cold and Summers to be hotter in Italy than in the UK.

What are your thoughts on this and also on Mathis summary paper?


Last edited by Ciaolo on Wed May 13, 2020 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total

Ciaolo

Posts : 143
Join date : 2016-09-08

Back to top Go down

The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons) Empty Re: The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons)

Post by Ciaolo Wed May 13, 2020 3:26 am

There are a couple of things I want to add, that maybe are in contrast on what I wrote above.

Thinking about the latest Mathis theory about the source of Gravity, I can add that the effect of the Sun charge and the earth discharge on us is different (if you consider that theory to be true). The charge from the Sun is pushing, the charge from below is channeled through us and is energizing. There is more charge in Summer and less in Winter.

There is something elusive about this, since I can't see why the gravity itself shouldn't also change even if slightly. But does it really remain constant? I don't know.

Ciaolo

Posts : 143
Join date : 2016-09-08

Back to top Go down

The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons) Empty Re: The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons)

Post by LongtimeAirman Wed May 13, 2020 3:57 pm

Ciaolo wrote. What are your thoughts on this and also on Mathis summary paper?

Hi Ciaolo, it’s good to hear from you. I hope by 'your thoughts', you don't mind me answering.

I agree, Miles’ latest, The Nature of Light http://milesmathis.com/lighterrors.pdf, is a summary paper. Rather than describing some specific aspect of light in terms of the charge field as he has done hundreds of times in the past, in this paper Miles lists the most important commonly accepted mainstream explanations of light and counters those false notions with the basic charge field light mechanics one should always keep in mind. Organized by mainstream errors with plenty of links to his more detailed papers makes this paper a handy guide and a good place to begin, allowing one to see the forest through the trees. Given Miles’ extensive writings, this summary paper can help make Miles charge field ideas more organized and accessible to more people.

Ciaolo wrote. The Earth aligns the poles to get as much charge as possible.
After a quick review, as I understand it, you’re absolutely correct. The planetary tilt maximizes the charge received, averaging over annual orbits. There are two basic charge field mechanisms which determine the earth’s surface temperatures: direct emissions from the sun; and earth’s own recycled charge emissions coming up through its surface. The two mechanisms are functions of latitudes. I’ll stop there, rather than risk confusing you with my way less than perfect understanding, I must direct you to a fine paper, Climate and the Seasons.
135b. Climate and the Seasons. http://milesmathis.com/season.pdf. I just found a paper from more than a year ago that I posted but forgot to link into this Updates page. So it is new to you, I think. 14pp.

Ciaolo wrote. Thinking about the latest Mathis theory about the source of Gravity,
With respect to gravity. Of course you’re referring to The Cause of Gravity the next major chapter.

182a. The Cause of Gravity. http://milesmathis.com/gravitycause.pdf I show perhaps a better way to create the vector of gravity, without expansion. 5pp.
As you know, Miles expansion theory mathematically describes gravity perfectly well. The only problem is, even us charge field believers tend to reject the notion that matter is actually expanding. It took me some years getting used to it.

Given the unsatisfactory physical interpretation of expansion theory, Miles suggested that universal spin might be the true cause for gravity. Many of us liked the idea, but Miles never came up with any clear mechanism to explain how.

Likewise, Miles indicated “perhaps” charge is the source of gravity. Here at the site we certainly had a good discussion on the topic.  Friday, 22 February 2019.
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t543-the-cause-of-gravity-the-next-major-chapter#5009  
Unfortunately, I'd say that that discussion ended without success. To the best of my knowledge, Miles hasn’t followed up that paper with any further thoughts on the subject one way or the other.

Definitely read the Climate and the Seasons paper for a better understanding of the interacting emission fields. Whether that leads to a better understanding of gravity or not isn't clear.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons) Empty Re: The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons)

Post by Chromium6 Thu May 14, 2020 2:43 am

Hi LTAM and Cialo,

I agree this is a great capstone paper summarizing incongruencies with current "text book" theory and the Charge Field. I think gravity is still requiring a bit more finesse or just basic grounding in the average understanding to make the clarity around it "radical". Most find an issue to call out for doubt in Mathis' works but in the long run, Miles illustrates limits on current theory and belief with papers like this one. At the end of the day what is reasonable and what can be accurately calculated as the truth?

I think if Miles could focus a few papers with the charge explaining noted gravity anomalities on Earth and planets it could be useful in terms of convincing. His moon-earth C.F. observations are revolutionary out of the box.

Here is something that could use a Mathis perspective:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-air_gravity_anomaly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouguer_anomaly


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity


"Introduction to Potential Fields: Gravity"
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf

Gauss' Electrical Law Gauss' Gravity Law -
Miles Mathis

Http://milesmathis.com/gauss2.pdf

Overall, this paper is great.


Last edited by Chromium6 on Fri May 15, 2020 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

Chromium6

Posts : 712
Join date : 2019-11-29

Back to top Go down

The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons) Empty Re: The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons)

Post by LongtimeAirman Thu May 14, 2020 5:08 pm

Ciaolo wrote. Thinking about the latest Mathis theory about the source of Gravity, I can add that the effect of the Sun charge and the earth discharge on us is different (if you consider that theory to be true). The charge from the Sun is pushing, the charge from below is channeled through us and is energizing. There is more charge in Summer and less in Winter.

There is something elusive about this, since I can't see why the gravity itself shouldn't also change even if slightly. But does it really remain constant? I don't know.
Airman. Gravity as charge binding makes sense to me. I like the idea. Most but not all the Earth's upward emissions passing through us will be bound, the remainder will repel and push us upward. Much less binding/repulsion is due to the direct emissions from the sun.

I agree there are changes in our own weight between summer and winter. There must be a changing gravitational strength for all objects in the earth's field following any changes in the Sun’s emissions - either directly to us or recycled through the Earth. It is complicated.
 
As I recall, our discussion probably went overboard trying to define charge binding and come up with the ‘attraction mechanism’ but that was not a proper way to approach the problem. All the non-bound, (I prefer non-coherent) photons from all other directions supply the gravitational acceleration toward the primary body. Until the object gets very close and the charge density exceeds some maximum coherent density and pushes the smaller object up like a cork leaping out from under water.  

Airman wrote. Unfortunately, I'd say that that discussion ended without success. To the best of my knowledge, Miles hasn’t followed up that paper with any further thoughts on the subject one way or the other.
Airman. Let me explain that.

In The Cause of Gravity. http://milesmathis.com/gravitycause.pdf Miles mentions coming up with expansion gravity and writing the Third Wave series before developing his charge field ideas. The topsy-turvy difficulty of resolving the gravity vector and his previous work. He knows that it takes a good deal of charge field thought and understanding to arrive at understanding how the charge field creates the gravity field. He admitted details still needed to be worked out, and a few papers needed some rewriting.

Over a year has passed without further mention. I would guess Miles is still confident charge binding is the source of gravity.

Hi Chromium6. It sure would be nice to have 'a few' clarifying papers. I hope Miles wasn’t put off by our discussion.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

Back to top Go down

The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons) Empty Re: The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons)

Post by Ciaolo Mon May 18, 2020 4:48 am

Thank you very much for your answers. I'll re-read the seasons paper when I have time.

Particularly interesting is your mention about weights changing between Summer and Winter. Considering all measures just compare objects to standard weights, it's perfectly reasonable to not having detected that. A different matter is trying to setup a sort of experiment to see if that's the case.

Ciaolo

Posts : 143
Join date : 2016-09-08

Back to top Go down

The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons) Empty Re: The Nature of Light (and thought about seasons)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum