B: An electric field is typically said to be composed of virtual photons.... How is Miles model different than that?
>L: In his model the electric field consists of real photons, with real radius and mass or mass-equivalence and the field (of photons) is emitted by all matter, especially ionized matter. I think of protons as sump pumps that suck photons in at the poles and pump them out mostly equatorially. Photons and all particles are constantly spinning. I think photons' angular velocity is c. Protons are arranged a bit differently in each element, so some elements are more efficient electrical conductors or more magnetic than others. And I posted Mathis' latest info on heat capacity of elements lately.

B: Do you think that there is information transfer in the universe faster than light?? If so what is the mechanism that allows that?
>L: I read Van Flandern's material before. It seemed to make sense, but I don't remember Mathis addressing that point. I'll try to check asap and maybe ask him. Mathis found that Newton's gravity equation is actually a unified field equation, part of it calculating gravity and part calculating charge. --- Okay, I checked Mathis' site. He had a paper that said the speed of gravity is infinite and it discussed Van Flandern and other theorists. But it seems it's not on his site now. So I'll try to ask him about that.

B: T: Tom Van Flandern [said]: [] gravity [] has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target.
>L: Do you have access to his pulsar data? Does "sources of gravity" mean the pulsars? Do you know what is meant to be accelerating so much? And what is it that's going faster than c?

"L: It's photons emitted by the Sun that accelerate the solar wind and photons emitted by plasma, I think, that accelerates particles in accelerators etc."
>B: No, its the electric field (virtual photons - what ever virtual photons are).
>L: They're not virtual, they're real.

B: In the cathode spot paper it specifically says that experiments? indicate [] the electrons drag the ions along for the ride which is what I am saying for my Iron Sun model....
>L: I take it you're talking about the solar wind. The ionized matter (of the Sun or the cathode) emits a dense field of photons that drags along the electrons and the ions. You and Mathis both consider energy or aether to be derived from the galactic centers and then from objects in the galaxies, esp. stellar objects. Your explanation of aether seems vague, but Mathis explains it as photons. What's wrong with that? Why can't photons have radius and small mass, as his reasoning shows? And how can anything without radius exist and how can anything without mass transfer energy or momentum to anything else? Mathis explains in detail where other physicists went wrong in their theorizing and in their math etc.

Here are some of Mathis' statements that may help explain how virtual photons should be replaced with real photons.

The Electron Orbit (the greatest hole in Quantum Mechanics)
I have shown in a series of papers that if we make the charge force mechanical, we must get rid of the messenger or virtual photon that is now said to mediate it. We must replace that virtual photon with a real photon, and give it mass equivalence. Moreover, we must make all force repulsive. There is simply no way to explain attraction mechanically, so we give up on attraction, at the foundational level. Underlying both electricity and magnetism, we have the charge field, or what I now call the foundational E/M field. Although electricity may be either positive or negative, the foundational E/M field is always positive. It is always repulsive. This means that all protons and electrons are emitting real photons, and that all protons and electrons are repulsing all other protons and electrons, via simple bombardment. Attraction is explained by noticing that protons repulse electrons much less than they repulse other protons. In this way, the attraction is a relative attraction. Relative to the speed of repulsion of protons with one another, electron appear to move backwards. If protons are defined as the baseline, then electrons are negative to this baseline. - Classically, this can be explained by the size difference alone. Due only to surface area considerations, electrons are able to dodge much of the emission of protons and nuclei, and so they seem to swim upstream.

Magnetic Reconnection and Coronal Temperatures
_[Re the solar wind:] While the plasma people don't have much, they do have something here the mainstream doesn't. They have the possibility of a second field. Most plasma physicists understand that space isn't anything close to a vacuum. They understand the huge potential of space, though most can't say what causes it. Refreshingly, most plasma physicists don't seem to give this potential to a Dirac field, a Higgs field, or any other sort of virtual field. Those that do aren't helpful at all.
_Which brings us to why I am here. I have shown my readers in scores of papers the cause of this potential in space. It isn't a Dirac field, a Higgs field, a zero-point energy field, a nebulous or mysterious ether, dark matter, hidden-sector field, neutrino field, or WIMP field. Nor is it some undefined field differential between the Sun and distant objects or distant space. It is simply charge — the same charge in Coulomb's equation, the same charge that is moving through the nucleus, the same charge that is "on" the electron. This charge isn't carried by virtual photons, messenger photons, neutrinos, or any other mysterious particles unknown to us. It is carried by the real photons we already know about in the spectrum. The "hidden-sector" actually exists in the known spectrum, and it is "hidden" only in the sense that it is poorly understood. Nothing remains as incomplete as our knowledge of real photons, that is, and it is this incomplete knowledge that rears its head on a daily basis, stopping all new theory in its tracks.
_It is probably worth mentioning here that part of the problem has always been that we have named the photon spectrum the "electromagnetic spectrum." As I have shown, that is beyond imprecise. It is simply wrong. When drawing and theorizing about the electrical and magnetic fields, physicists have always been following ions, not photons. We see that again here, with the diagram above.
... Modern theory acts like charge and E/M are the same thing, but they aren't. Charge is photons, E/M is ions. They are far from equivalent.
_Modern theory conflates photons and electrons in its field theory. This was always true back to Maxwell

GALACTIC PROOF of my QUANTUM SPIN MODEL
... _Charge is photons, E/M is ions.
_In other words, spinning photons in huge numbers cause ions to spin.
_But when we measure the E/M field, we are measuring the spin of the ions, not the photons.
_The photons are too small for our machines to measure directly, and we only infer the spin of the photons based on the spin of the ions.
_Since photons are about G times smaller than ions, it takes a lot of photons to affect ions.
_Normal light levels don't change the ambient charge field that much, since the ambient charge field, though invisible to us, is so strong.
_We happen to be living on a largish planet which recycles a staggering amount of charge, and we are near a Sun that recycles even more.
_We are in the vicinity of lots of matter, in other words.
_In the vicinity of matter, the ambient charge field actually outweighs the matter field by 19 to 1.
_That's right, the full E/M spectrum outweighs baryonic matter by 19 to 1.