Mathis' Condensed Theory Macrocosm
  2. If there were really a ten tonne column of air above every square meter, nothing would rise no matter the density of it.
  3. There is a lot of air above you, but it doesn't weigh anything, as I have shown.
  4. It has no net vector down.
  5. It has mass, but that mass is resisted by charge [so] the air has buoyancy.
  6. More velocity sideways in the field gives you more buoyancy per unit time, and this creates lift.
  7. If heat from the Sun or the temperature were the main factors, we would see the sky literally fall with a large drop in temperature, and we don't see that.
  8. Since the atmosphere does have mass, there must be a vector up to keep it from falling.
  9. [I]t can't have an unresisted vector down of 10 tonnes or it would fall.
  10. The charge field has an acceleration up of .009545m/s^2.
  11. It will automatically lift anything with an acceleration down that is less than that, which is why smaller ions are lifted into the ionosphere.
  12. This is what causes atmospheric pressure, since as the photons keep the air up, they do so by collisions, and those collisions also keep the kinetic energy up.
  13. Fluids and gasses resist compression because they are full of charge [and] [c]harge resists compression.
  15. [D]ue to linear momentum, charge coming in at the poles tends to make the Earth a bit smaller, and charge going out at the equator tends to make the Earth a bit larger.
  16. [T]he Earth is flatter at the poles due to photon pressure from without.
  17. The angular momentum of the photons is transferred to the Earth [] causing [Earth's] spin.
  18. Since [] we have more photons than antiphotons, [t]he south pole has a fraction more flattening than the north pole [].
  19. [T]he same cause [] obliterates the nearside crust of the Moon: charge photon bombardment.
  20. The Earth's angular momentum obviously can't answer [] more flattening at the south pole [], nor can centrifugal forces.
  21. [The] small bulge at the north pole [] means that anti-photons are coming in [] there meeting a body composed of matter, [so] [t]he flattening effect of the incoming particles is lessened, since they don't have an angular component to their momentum.
  22. Nothing in mainstream theory can begin to explain icecaps on Mercury.
  23. If Mercury is [] taking in photons at the poles, [] these photons [] cause cooling rather than warming.
  24. In other words, if emitted charge photons are defined as heat, then photons coming in must tamp down the emission, [which is] the same as cooling.
  25. It is this intake of charge that acts to prevent heat at lower latitudes on Mercury from moving up to the poles.
  26. [B]ecause the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field) is composed of more photons than antiphotons, more charge must enter the south poles of normal planets [which] explain[s] higher terrestrial temperatures in the north, more magnetic activity, more storm activity, more hurricanes, and so on.
  27. On both the Earth and Mercury, more charge comes in via the south pole [and] is then emitted heaviest 30o north
  29. http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf (STAR FORMATION)
  30. [S]tar formation, like everything else, is a unified field phenomenon.
  31. [A]s a function of mass equivalence, the photons in the area outweigh the hydrogen protons and electrons by 19 times.
  32. The [] hydrogen gas is a plasma to start with, [] a cold plasma, [] because the electrons and protons are disassociated by a magnetic field.
  33. Stars form in galaxies because the plasma requires the magnetic input from the galactic core.
  34. Which just means the cold gas needs to be bombarded by the right photons.
  35. [T]he Jeans mass [relation] isn't a matter of mass, it is a matter of volume and density.
  36. A big plasma has enough cross section to capture free electrons and other ions arriving from outside.
  37. We must assume that given the distribution of radiation sources in our galaxy, the Jeans mass is the mass at which the plasma achieves an efficiency of capture of ions to initiate collapse.
  38. [B]ecause the gas remains ionized, it has a way of capturing other free ions.
  39. [S]ince free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were.
  40. The charge field inside the plasma [] is denser and more magnetic [], so it tends to capture ions even without the ions being attracted to one another.
  41. Normally, this would make the plasma tend toward a molecular gas, since the electrons and protons would eventually join.
  42. But the high-energy photon traffic from the galactic core continues to knock the protons and electrons apart.
  43. It continues until the entire original field has gained enough mass that gravity really does kick in and overpower the charge field repulsions.
  44. Smaller clouds may indeed collapse [], but if they don't have enough [radius? of] curvature to begin with, [] the collapsing particles miss one another in the collapse, and simply disperse, [un]able to get any feedback.
  46. http://milesmathis.com/pause.html (The Magnetopause calculated by the Unified Field)
  47. Protons are accelerated by the [solar] Wind in an even manner, passing the Earth in numbers and at velocities that can be predicted from various models by the temperature of the corona.
  48. But electrons behave in an unpredictable manner, not being accelerated at the proper velocity [but] moving too slowly.
  49. They have also been found to be diverted by magnetic field lines, while the protons were not.
  50. At first glance, you would think the electrons and protons would be driven equally, or that the electrons would be driven faster because they are smaller.
  51. But on looking closer, you see that the size difference between the electron and proton causes just the opposite effect, in a simple mechanical way.
  52. The electrons are driven less by the [Sun's] photon wind, because they can dodge greater parts of it than the proton[s].
  53. The radius of the electron is some 1800 times less than the radius of the proton, so large parts of the photon wind simply miss it.
  54. Therefore, the proton is driven more efficiently.
  55. This explains in a direct manner the data from the Solar Wind.
  56. It also explains the deflection of the electron by planetary or Solar magnetic fields.
  57. Magnetic fields are caused by the spins on the photons, not by the linear momentum.
  58. The proton feels more of the linear field, since it gets hit more often, but it resists the spins of the photons better because it is larger.
  59. [C]ontra the standard model, the proton actually has a greater charge than the electron, simply because it has a greater radius and therefore a greater angular momentum.
  60. This greater angular momentum allows it to resist the much smaller angular momentum of the charge field [photons].
  61. The electrons, although hit less often, are more likely to be deflected (as a statistical matter on individual ions), because they feel a much greater relative force from the angular momenta of the photons.
  62. Due only to pressure differences, [the Sun] attracts the charge field at its poles and emits the charge field everywhere else.
  63. You can now see this with your own eyes by watching a NASA film called The 3D Sun.
  64. At minutes 19:40 to 20:20 you will see the heaviest emission near the Solar equator and the lightest at the poles.
  65. On a smaller scale, this also applies to the Earth.
  66. The Earth's spin makes it both anode and cathode to the charge field.
  67. It recycles the charge field, and the charge field drives the E/M field.
  68. This explains the genesis of the Earth's E/M field without postulating dynamos in the Earth.
  69. This also explains why the Earth, like all macro-bodies, often seems to be an infinite well of negative charge [which n]either the standard model nor the electrical/plasma model can explain [].
  70. For example, it absorbs a huge amount of mainly positive cosmic rays each year for billions of years with no drain.
  72. http://milesmathis.com/mars.html (THE MAIN CAUSE OF ALL SOLAR SYSTEM INSTABILITY)
  73. [Mathis says small dense planets can get and remain closer to the Sun than large light ones, because of the photonic charge field.]
  74. A resonance is a cycle, and at some point in the future Jupiter and Saturn must come back together.
  75. Both mass and radius matter in the E/M field, because the E/M field is emitted by mass and felt by mass.
  76. It is a straight bombarding field, at the foundational level, so size matters.
  77. This explains Saturn wanting to go below Jupiter.
  78. Saturn feels less E/M repulsion from the Sun than Jupiter, so it wants to go below Jupiter.
  79. ==LK: That's not true if Mercury and Saturn are at optical equivalence from the Sun and if Mercury is as close as it can get to the Sun. Instead, Jupiter should be tending to move higher. On the other hand, it's probably only the gas giants' solid/liquid surface areas, not their atmospheric surface areas, that seek to be at optical equivalence, so it may be Jupiter that is at optical equivalence, and Saturn may be able to go lower than Jupiter. But if Mercury and Earth are also at optical equivalence, and if Venus is as close to the Sun as it can get, then Mercury must be able to get closer, because Venus is nearly as big as the Earth and Venus is much closer to the Sun than the Earth is.
  80. Given the asteroid belt, Mars [] must have been bigger [than the asteroid planet and destroyed it] coming from below.
  81. To come from below, it must have been in the bounce part of a resonance with the Earth.
  82. Which means Mars may have been the cause of terrestrial catastrophes in the past.
  83. Regardless [], it is certain that Mars remains a danger to us.
  84. Its orbit has a high eccentricity, which is increasing.
  85. Due to the basic equations of motion, Mars must want to go below the Earth, and at some point and in some manner it will attempt to do so, either with eccentricity or with a resonance.
  87. http://milesmathis.com/jup.pdf  (Music from Jupiter a song of the charge field)
  88. [T]he 2 trillion watts [] of current flowing between Jupiter and Io [] couldn't be [electric] current as we know it, since that would require a heavy electron or ion density in the space between Io and Jupiter.
  89. But space in the Solar System simply doesn't have ion densities like that, not even near big planets like Jupiter.
  90. There is nothing to mediate a current of that strength, as they admit when they say that it is "unlike the ordinary kind of DC circuit we know using batteries and wires."
  91. This is precisely why Space Today falls back on plasma explanations, and finally admits plasma physicists believe that current in the Io-Jupiter system is carried by a type of magnetic plasma wave called Alfven waves.
  92. They don't know how it works.
  93. They give it new names: plasma and Alfven waves, but don't tell you what those are composed of or where they fit into the old equations.
  94. The current can only be a photon current, which is a charge current, not an electrical current.
  95. I am telling you they are composed of photons, are equivalent to charge, and fit into the old equations as charge. This is the unified field [similar to Brant's aether].
  96. Just so you understand, this 2 trillion watts is acting not only as a sort of sub-electric current, it is acting as a repulsive force of 10^20 N between Jupiter and Io.
  97. So when mainstream physicists say they have no evidence of a second field in celestial mechanics, they are simply ignoring very clear evidence in plain sight.
  98. [T]he measured energy has nothing to do with vulcanism on Io or the "gaseous donut": the energy is the charge field in that vicinity, and it would be there even without volcanoes or gases.
  99. In other words, it is not the volcanoes and gases that are causing the energy, it is the energy that is then causing the volcanoes and so on.

↑ UP Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US