After additional reading on Miles' theory I am left of the opinion that the E/M "charge" field must comprise the 3D extension space out to the gravitational limit and each absolute location in this field must be a (spinning) photon. Miles' E/M charge field IS the progression
and it is described as an "ether" of light (photons) at every location moving outward from every mass (expressed as charge, a mass equivalence). Because of this acceleration outward a corresponding force is developed only
when this motion intersects with another motion, such as gravitational motion. We call this "force," as in "force of gravity." There is no force. Only motion.
More Miles (see here
The charge field is primary, and it sets the ion field. Not the reverse. Light doesn't move in the E/M field. Light moves in the charge field, which is its own field. Light is charge and charge is light. Strictly, light doesn't move in any field. Light IS the fundamental field. The motion of light sets all the fields in sizes above it.
field IS the charge field IS the progression and so relative to the progression light does not move
. The "speed of light" IS the progression. The field must
be a field of something
and that something is photons. How else could you physically
impart a "force?" And Miles doesn't understand RS/RS2 theory? Baloney. He is being purposefully obtuse.
In this way, charge field theory ties into Relativity, since Einstein basically proposed the same thing. In telling us that the motion of light determined the motion of everything else, Einstein was saying the same thing I am.
Uh, huh. Still not sure you understand the full implication of what you're saying, either.
To finetune your understanding of my charge field, we may go directly to Maxwell's paper of March, 1861 On Physical Lines of Force. Early in that paper, we find him explaining the magnetic field as a function of stress (p. 164).
We must therefore represent the magnetic force at a point by a stress having a single axis of greatest or least pressure, and all the pressures at right angles to this axis equal. It may be objected that it is inconsistent to a represent a line of force, which is essentially dipolar, by an axis of stress which is necessarily isotropic; but we know that every phenomenon of action and reaction is isotropic in its results, because the effects of the force of the bodies between which it acts are equal and opposite, while the nature and origin of the force may be dipolar, as in the attraction between a north and a south pole.
Electric motion (current) is 1D-- s/t
; magnetic motion is 2D-- (s2/t2
). Linear motion gives us the electric dipole (1-x). Magnetism, a second power relationship, where motion extends into a second dimension (2-x), must be represented in equivalent space, which is 2D. The first unit of motion being linear; the second must be rotational (energy)... spin.
You should see that my spinning photons solve this problem immediately, since every “point” in the field can be inhabited by a real photon, and that real particle already has potential forces at right angles to one another. Maxwell's problem here never comes up for me. In my field, every point is already sub-magnetic and sub-electric, since every single photon already has the motions that cause both fields.
Miles even puts 'point' in quotes! Confirmation of my above position: real
. Sounds like the rotational base at all points in coordinate space. Nowadays we recognize this as Bruce's work to create a symmetry to the outward linear motion of gravity with a corresponding inward scalar rotation that we call spin.
My God, it's full of quaternions!
In the charge field, the photons are the field.
Excellent. Nowhere to hide now.
Yes, each photon has a tiny magnetic field of its own, caused by its own spin. But that isn't enough to create a magnetic field we can measure.
Makes sense. Photon being a quaternion, a 2D structure.... magnetic. Rotation about an axis, a single dimension in equivalent (2D) space.
I disagree that we cannot measure this affect. We used to call this weight. Weight per speed
or mass. This is primary
mass except we elect to label this charge
. There is no gravitational "attraction," there is no like charge "repulsion" or unlike charge "attraction." Mass and charge are fundamentally same. Mass (t3
) is just 3-dimensional energy (t/s).
If you have photons but no larger particles or objects, your photon spins are chaotic and don't sum to anything, not even locally. Nothing above the size of the photon will feel any magnetic effect.
Why is this, Miles? Perhaps because each photon being located within unit space (Time Region, TR) cannot to interact with anything
outside of unit space? Because the motion does not extend
outside of unit space there is no effect
outside of unit space.
There must be mass to recycle charge from the charge field, as per Miles' theory of operation. No mass, no recycling of charge, no alignment of charge field. This just goes to show there cannot be electric and magnetic fields outside of a gravitational limit (good reason #2 we haven't made these measurements; absolute reason #1: can't be done) as without mass (3D inverse speed) there is no alignment of the "charge" field, ergo no measurable
field. Simply introducing the sensor, made of atoms, creates the field to be measured! The sensor is a sensor both literally and figuratively! Otherwise stated: no observer, no observation.
Light does not move in the E/M field, ions move in the light field. The motions and spin of photons create everything, including ionization, magnetism, current, and so on. The charge field is the fundamental field, and the E/M field is only a creation of it.
Please allow me to make a slight detour...from Etidorhpa; Or, the End of Earth: The Strange History of a Mysterious Being and the Account of a Remarkable Journey
: Chapter XXVI. Motion From Inherent Energy.—“Lead Me Deeper Into This Expanding Study.” Fascinating...
"Perhaps you can accept now that instead of light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and gravitation being really modifications of force they are disturbances."
"Disturbances of what?"
"Disturbances of motion."
"Motion of what?"
"Motion of itself, pure and simple."
"I can not comprehend, I can not conceive of motion pure and simple."
conceive that which is. This is our reality. Abstract change or motion is the underlying basis for all. As motion (or light AS motion) is the basis for everything
(right, Miles?) there cannot
be a further sub-division. What more, motion being the default state, this Universe is in a constant
state of motion. That motion IS the progression (expansion from unity at c) IS the "E/M charge field" much like an incredibly
-high frame rate. Space is an illusion and is but a shadow; nothing
. Rather esoteric, but there it is staring us in the face.
Back to point: once more... so precisely how does light move, Miles? How can light move
(i.e. linear translation) in a medium of light? (hint: it can't) If the speed of light is a limit, as you so claim, then how pray-tell can there be additional (additive) motion in excess of light speed? If photons moving outward (by definition at c; *please
* don't attempt to argue that these
photons are not moving at c) comprise the E/M "charge" field, and the ions move within this field, then ionic motion in the same direction in coordinate space as the outward motion of the E/M "charge" field would exceed c! BIG
Well then, please allow me to save the day. If I'm on a bus that's moving at c (the primary motion that is the E/M "charge" field), and I stand up (in this analogy I'm the ion) and begin to walk to the front of the bus as it continues moving forward at c, am I exceeding the speed of light? YES! Well, not from our relativistic point of view, but yes, this would be seen as inverse
speed as I'm moving FTL! I'm moving in time
on the other side of the unit speed boundary! On the other hand, motion in the reverse direction in coordinate space (i.e. opposite direction) would be at some speed less
than the speed of light. Seems to me this is how "ponderable" energy (mass) comes into existence. First, nullify the outward progression, otherwise you just continuously move out towards "infinity."
In conclusion, Miles is so
close. He sets up the charge field as primary... OK, outward acceleration of primary locations in space with intrinsic spin... good so far. The he overlays the E/M field on top of this being that 1D electric and 2D magnetic motion (don't forget gravitation: 3D motion) have their genesis in the motions that are
the photon. Bing
. Photons and atoms then further interact... check, charge is imparted causing ionization by energy transfered. He calls this a push
outward due to real
bombardment by real
photons which impart real
momentum/energy via spin (torque).
Contra this we have gravity. Miles appears to have this backwards as he does not properly attribute the motion to motion in time
but rather motion in space, claiming we cannot sense the motion of gravity that is the Earth "rising" in all places because all locations are moving uniformly relative to one another and since we cannot sense any change
(yes, Virginia, we cannot sense not-change... change is ALL we sense... cognitive dissonance #2!) we mis-perceive the outward motion of gravity (in time) for the reciprocal inward motion in space. As well, because of this Miles inadvertently flips the space-time units for mass not realizing that the outward speed of gravitation (in time) has as its conjugate an inward linear acceleration (motion) in space we call gravity. The inverse speed (3D energy) that IS mass CREATES the perceived motion that IS gravity (to our material senses).
Both fields (of motion) ARE in the same direction! Progression (E/M charge field) is away from unity in space
. Gravity is toward unity in time, away from unity in space
. The apparent motion
that we call gravity, as observed in space, would be perceived
opposite in direction than that of progression (E/M charge field). But then, you already know this, don't you, Miles?
Fine, you can't wrap your head around motion
for the sake of motion. Well, you can sense change
The only true
units of measure are distance (space) and time. Everything else is an artificial construct of man. The ratio of space to time is speed (s/t)--no direction--and the ratio of time to space (t/s) is energy (also scalar). Light is motion
and motion is light
. Motion is change. Light is change. All is changing. All is light. You are light; I am light. The light is everything.
Motion is all there is. Larson said it best: Nothing but motion.
...all the while acknowledging the equality of space and time (i.e. Minkowski 4D space).... join us in RS/RS2, Miles! The water's great!
The first postulate we must be reminded of is that time and distance are theoretically interchangeable, in some ways. What I mean is that a distance separation implies a necessary time separation. -- Miles Mathis
Not just in some ways... in all
ways. We must recognize that c is not a limit; it's a ratio of proportionality.
x = ct (let's use s for x) → c = s/t, space per time (speed) or 1/c = t/s (energy)