http://milesmathis.com/lighterrors.pdf

user737 wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 5:06 pmMore Miles (see here):

ThisThe charge field is primary, and it sets the ion field. Not the reverse.Light doesn't movein 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 thefundamentalfield. Themotion of lightsets all the fields in sizes above it.fundamentalfield IS the charge field IS the progression and so relative to the progressionlight does not move. The "speed of light" IS the progression. The fieldmustbe a field ofsomethingand that something is photons. How else could youphysicallyimpart a "force?" And Miles doesn't understand RS/RS2 theory? Baloney. He is being purposefully obtuse.

I see Miles has been following what has been said here.

He finally comes around and admits that light does not travel relative to

*anything*including the "E/M charge field."

Now, Miles, when will you concede that light does not travel period?

*(Ed note: I predict no later than May 2021.)*

Hint: You're using the wrong reference system. Light IS the reference. A universe of MOTION.

Note that Miles deliberately chooses the word "background" -- in addition to the pre-existing ether

*(sic)*connotation -- with regard to his "charge field" (which is light as

**charge IS light**as Miles has already stated); this will become important to recall in other posts further down the chain.

No, Michelson-Morley interferometer proved that the aether (i.e. equivalent space -- the equivalent motion in space due to motion in coordinate time) moves along with the Earth just as with the gaseous atmosphere, out to the gravitational limit -- out to the moon. Go USNA. I have many-a-time stood in the very spot in which this experiment was conducted... walked over those grounds more times that I care to recall... some of the most valuable instructions given my professional formation were done in the bowels of Michelson Hall.

Cite:

*Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond*(2/20/2019):

http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/ ... and_beyond

What's spinning, Miles?

You seem to want to spin

*something*without a

*something*there to spin...

Not a problem for RS/RS2 but you're going to have a heck of a time explaining that to the science zombies.

Radius? Huh?

That would require a spatial displacement which is not the case...

It's "stretched out" and so we multiply by c

^{2}? Lol Why?

Disagree. The "spin" (i.e. angular) speed (velocity implies direction for which there is none) would be in theOne of those c's is the linear velocity of the photon and the other is the spin velocity.

*inverse*relation: 1/c

We should really label the speed as

*inverse speed*as that's what it is: energy (t/s) IS inverse speed (s/t).

**Unrolled**would be a better term for what we're doing as we're

*projecting*an unbounded turn in counterspace (time) as recursively bounded structure in space. As time has no direction in space -- and space has no direction in time -- this is a rotationally distributed scalar motion (speed) which when normalized to unity clock time provides for a

*real*radius -- s/t × t = s (distance or length).

Mass as Integrated Power:

1D (Energy): E / (1/c)

2D (Momentum): p / (1/c)

^{2}

3D (Mass): m / (1/c)

^{3}

Relate 3D mass (temporal as non-local field) to 1D "force" vector in space as a

*distributed*scalar motion... this is energy or "force" over a distance where force is t/s

^{2}× s = t/s:

E / (1/c) = m / (1/c)

^{3}→ E = mc

^{2}

Energy, momentum, and mass are the 1-, 2-, and 3-dimensional aspects of motion in time... i.e. the

*real*net "spin" component is captured in linearized form as

*speed*(s/t) as a projection along the

*real*axis.

What observer? Do weBoth stretch the apparent radius of spin relative to an observer at rest.

*need*one?

At rest? What's that?

Relative to what?

Rest doesn't exist... it's all motion.

Miles can't claim that the "charge field" is the primary field and it is a field of photons which

*are motion*and then claim that things built upon the

*motion*that is the photon can be anything but

*in motion*.

Gibberish. Light does not

*always*act as a particle.

I'd like one jar of photon particles, please. What? You're out?

Light is neither a particle nor a wave nor a wavicle; a photon is 3-dimensional (scalar dimensions) of angular (rotational) speed (really energy as inverse speed or motion) or if you have issues with the term motion -- then use ratio (s/t or t/s). The Photon model as a Quaternion -- wherein i.j = -k and (k)(-k) = -k

^{2}= -(√-1)

^{2}= -(-1) = 1 -- captures all electro-magnetic properties: TM, TE, TEM quite nicely.

Yes, heat is charge (light)! What exactly did we think IR was? What we measure as heat is a linear inward vibration in the Time Region (TR) of the atom where primary motion is angular and secondary (compound) motion is linear. The linear vibration that is measured as temperature IS a measure of the shear created between space (positron) and counterspace (electron). Heat is captured photons and the "color" of the heat is a measure of energy (∝√t) of this rotational vibration!

Electron + Positron = [linearly-polarized] Photon (and you can put them together and take them apart in many ways)

Think of it this way: that storm on Jupiter is a result of two linear shifts creating a rotational shear/vortex (i.e. storm). The same can be said for the inverse aspects: two unbounded rotations (a bi-rotation) can cancel in one-dimension to create a bounded, linear displacement. Attach an arm to a radius sweeping out a circle of undefined radius and let that arm also rotate in phase with the primary arm -- a cosine (or sine) curve will be traced out in one dimension.

e

^{ix}+ e

^{-ix}= 2cosθ

Or, my favorite: e

^{iπ}+ 1 = 0

"Imaginary" π rotation (in time -- angular

*inverse*speed or

*energy*) is equivalent to linear (real) displacement (

*speed*) in space where c = 1 (unity). One motion is normalized to clock time, the other to clock space the ratio of which IS the progression.

And yes, e

^{iπ}equals exactly -1 if you use the correct value for π (pi).

Yes! Charge IS light. Photons are that which are captured to produce charge.

This has long been comprehended by those that study RS/RS2.

Coincidentally, this is why heat engenders ionic charge... it's a sympathetic (rotational) vibration, if you will.

*To be continued...*