Tharkun,

I experienced a series of enlightenments in reading Miles' papers five years ago. Since then, my goal has been to increase my understanding of his theories. By joining Thunderbolts, (and now qdl) I would force myself to debate as a proponent and add experience to the learning curve. Lloyd and Cr6 are great to team up with, but there is the rejection of gravitational expansion, along with a preference to hedge, pick and choose from among MM's ideas that is frustrating. I've been diligent in reading the various sources suggested, so that my overall exposure and understanding of physics and cosmology has greatly improved.

Breaking down your reply. 

1. Miles posits that charge (photons) are the fundamental drivers of matter and the impetus that creates E/M fields.

1A. Absolutely,  agreed. Ignoring gravity (?).

2. Per Miles, heat is fundamentally charge density.

2A. Agreed, but there is plenty of room for discussion. Heat is a characteristic of matter, and the result of a tiny portion o the charge field interacting with that matter. Heat may or may not be the primary outcome of that charge density interaction. I'm trying to be precise, so dope slap me as necessary.

3. It is the foundational photonic charge field that creates the motion in 'normal' matter that we then measure as 'heat'.

3A. Agreed. I can't find any wiggle room in that statement.  

4. But even that emission of heat from normal matter is an emission of photons (that peak in the near-infrared).

4A. Agreed.

5. It is not so much that vibration increases heat emissions - it is that an increased charge field density creates/increases molecular vibration and atomic throughput of photons which we then measure as increased heat.

5A. Agreed, with the considerations as in 2A. I'm not convinced that heat and vibration/motion are the same.

6. ... But the driving field that creates both (E and M fields) is present whether there are ions present or not.

6A. Agreed. I was trying to make that point when I commented on your original post. We can only see manifestations of the charge field, and not the charge field itself. 

7. Does that help?

Yes. Thanks. I think I can focus a bit better now. Most of my confusion in understanding and describing the charge field involve density/channeling. While the charge field is interpenetrable, with little interaction, there seems to be a contradiction in that channeling photons appear to interact much more strongly. Density and interpenetrability appear reciprocal, as one would expect, but only in the case of channeling. Channeling photons appear to curve due to interaction. These channeling photons seem to be a small subset of the overall charge field, perhaps related to the channel, in say, resonate energy, or wavelength/frequency. I may be overcomplicating it, but I see heat as the manifest of not only the subset of charge field involved, but also of the subset of the charge field that can be involved. I'll restate that. All near IR photons can interact with normal matter; not all charge field photons can interact with normal matter. Therefore there's no direct correlation between charge density and heat. That's the corner I've backed myself into.

Airman