Brant replied to my 20 questions yesterday on the Mathis' Errors thread. BC below means quotes of Brant. LK means me.

BC: Heat is the motion of molecules or atoms.. IR would be considered radiation.

LK: I don't think heat is ever detected without IR photons.

BC: If everything emits photons you should be able to detect them everywhere from everything.
http://www.livescience.com/7799-strange-humans-glow-visible-light.html

LK: I think everything does emit photons, but mostly in the IR range. Biophotons is an interesting subject, which deals with photons produced in DNA or something and which guides all chemical reactions in the body, I think.

BC: I disagree with the premise the photons are the prime mover and the lowest energy field in the universe... Zero point, or aether or background energy is the lowest energy.

LK: Why can't photons be the aether and the background energy? I guess Mathis was the first to propose that the aether moves at the speed of light (because it is light).

BC: How come there are no photons detected for a static electric field.

LK: Have the fields been observed through the entire spectrum? How would you sort out the electric field photons from the normal photon density? I think it's just hard to set up an experiment to do that.

BC: You also read the Tesla summary by Aetherometry concerning near field Tesla coil operation... If Mathis performed experiments to back up his theory that would go a long way. Yeah I get the part about no money but you have to do a little something.

LK: It seems to be more productive to correct errors in the experiments that have already been done and in those still being done, as well as the errors in the math of science.

BC: What transmits gravity? What is responsible for FTL information transmission if photons go the speed of light?

LK: Probably the spin of the universe (produces gravity). Or, in my opinion, it might be partly or entirely the result of inward photon flow to all matter. Where's the evidence for faster than light motion?

BC: There is something else beside photons that transmits information...

LK: What do you mean?

BC: There are experimental forces measured that can account for plasma leaving the solar surface. "Anomalous cathode reaction forces varying in proportion to the square of the input current were first identified separately by Tanberg and Kobel, in 1930, during studies of cathode vaporization in "vacuum"-arc discharges (VADs) and stationary cathode spots (1,2). In his original paper, Tanberg made a case for the presence of longitudinal forces on electrodynamic interactions, which he attributed to the counterflow of vaporized cathode particles (1), but K. Compton demonstrated that the vapor jet only accounted for <2% of the reaction force's magnitude (3). He suggested a different interpretation of the the electrodynamic anomaly, arguing for a mechanical rebound, at the cathode, of charge-neutralized gas ions that hit the cathode in the course of the discharge (bombardment rebound) (3).'
http://www.aetherometry.com/Labofex_Plasma_Physics/Archive/PwrfromAEemissions.html
 
BC: LK: "Solar radiation produces the solar wind by levitating electrons, protons off the surface."

BC: You mean the electric field causes electrons to accelerate from the solar surface dragging ions along with it? (From the Cathode spot paper).

LK: No, the photons drag along the electrons and protons etc.

BC: "It turns out that the photons which make up a static electric or magnetic field are "virtual" — their energy and momentum doesn't satisfy the relationship for "real" photons — E=p*c (E is energy, p=momentum, and c is the speed of light). The virtual photons are constantly emitted and reabsorbed. A charged object with an electric (and possibly also a magnetic) field is surrounded by an entourage of photons, constantly being emitted and reabsorbed. "
So how could a real photon be used in this scenario?

LK: I believe only real photons can have real effects on real matter. Virtual ones are imaginary. Are you willing to read a Mathis paper on that? Or do you want it summarized?

BC: There are mechanisms in place for most of this stuff... I dont see how Mathis model helps.

LK: The mechanisms in place seem to be awful rickety, or there wouldn't be so many alternative theories. Would there? I think his model explains proton-proton repulsion etc much better than any other theory.