NASA Discovers my Charge Field …again



by Miles Mathis
I occasionally get emails asking me where my charge field is in the data. I have answered that in
 dozens of places in my papers (it is in the electromagnetic spectrum we already have), so I usually
 ignore it as pestering from the peanut gallery. But if a portion of my readers cannot digest my words,
 maybe they can digest mainstream data from NASA. Today [October 24, 2012], the UPI published a
 press release from NASA announcing “a mystery glow of infrared light seen across the entire sky.”
NASA and JPL are admitting that “the glow is too bright to be from the first galaxies.” Meaning this is
 neither a remnant of the Big Bang nor a remnant of early galaxy formation. Theorists are showing their
 usual desperation by now assigning this glow to “lonesome stars,” or stars not within galaxies. This is
 a convenient theory because—as with core theory—all the data is permanently out of sight. We are
 told by Eric Smith at NASA that, “The keen infrared vision of the James Webb Telescope will be able
 to see some of the earliest stars and galaxies directly, as well as the stray stars lurking between the
 outskirts of nearby galaxies.” But that simply isn’t true. The Webb is a beautiful instrument, but it can’t
 detect most lonesome stars. Due to their faintness, we can’t detect these proposed stars unless they are
 quite near. We can detect a few of our own lonesome stars (outside the Milky Way) but we can’t detect
 most lonesome stars even as far away as Andromeda. We can’t even detect lonesome stars on the other
 side of our own galaxy, since most of them would be in the plane of the galaxy. The rest of the galaxy
 is in our way in detecting them. Therefore the new theory is just another stab in the dark, with no
 possible way to confirm it.
Re-read that last quote closely, and you will see they kind of admit that. Smith tells us that the Webb is
 able to see “some” of the earliest stars and stray stars. With regard to the “earliest stars,” I would say
 that sentence is strictly false. I don’t know what he means by earliest, but the earliest stars have long
 since burned out. There are no early stars, in the same sense as he is talking about early galaxies.
Since stars live much shorter lives than galaxies, all stars we are seeing are relatively young. You will
 say we can see “early galaxies,” and since galaxies are made of stars, we must be seeing early stars.

Yes, but early galaxies are by definition very far away. We can’t resolve stars in galaxies that far away.
 Therefore we can’t “see” early stars. And we certainly can’t resolve lonesome stars outside early galaxies. Logically, we are seeing
no early lonesome stars which makes Smith’s statement a push. Smith’s quote also includes the admission that we can see “some” stray stars on the outskirts of “nearby” galaxies. That’s a double backpedaling. It utterly destroys any link the theory had to data,
 since it admits that the theory requires a huge extrapolation from near-zero data. So the theory cannot be confirmed by data. This reminder of mine is, however, a way to disprove the theory. If the glow were from lonesome stars, it would have to be weighted by our own lonesome stars (the Milky Way’s lonesome stars). Since these stars are very much nearer, their glow would be stronger
 than the glow from more distant lonesome stars. They would act as strong forward data. This is a
 problem because, as I said, there should be more lonesome stars in the plane of the galaxy. A large
 portion of them would be cast-offs, and they would tend to be cast off in the plane, for obvious reasons.
 A majority of intra-galaxy stars are in-plane, so a majority of extra-galaxy stars would be, too.
Therefore, the infrared glow should be weighted toward the galactic plane. It isn’t. There are a lot of
 other problems with the theory, but this will get you started. Once you realize the idea is absurd, you
 will be able to falsify it with your own observations. So what is causing the glow? NASA is simply detecting the charge field. The initial tip-off is the fact that it is in the infrared. I have shown exactly why the charge field is in the infrared, even supplying
 the full math. I have been able to calculate the average energy of the charge field straight from the
 radius of the photon, which I calculated from G (as well as from other places, like the Dalton). Ironically, this also disproves
another recent survey, which claimed to find no evidence of Dark Matter in the near environs. This glow
could be called a discovery of Dark Matter, in the sense that both Dark Matter and the glow are explained by charge. The glow is charge and Dark Matter is charge, therefore discovery of the glow is discovery of Dark Matter. La Silla Observatory simply applied the wrong math to the data, not realizing that they were looking in the wrong place.
A close reader will say, “Wait, why isn’t your charge weighted to the galactic plane, too?” Because
 charge is not just in the galactic plane. Think of it this way: what they are really seeing with this glow
 is a second cosmic background radiation. But it doesn’t fit the profile of the first CBR, so it is a
 mystery. Well, it isn’t mysterious, it is just caused by the near field of charge rather than the far field. It
 is mainly an extra-Milky-Way background charge, or MWBC. It isn’t planar because it is incoming,
 not outgoing. The Milky Way casts off
in the equatorial plane, as with all charge recycling. But the Milky Way pulls in charge from all around. It is this incoming charge we are seeing, obviously. Remember this NASA Goddard diagram I borrowed for a recent paper?

I showed that purple glow is caused by a reaction with incoming
charge. The spinning galactic core is pulling in charge at the poles, just as the Sun does and the Earth does and the proton does. The galactic plane is then caused by the same charge exiting the galaxy, in a cycle. As with these other objects, the charge channeling looks something like this: reader will say, “But, there again, we should be seeing charge mainly in the plane.” Well, we do,
 but we don’t see that charge as background
. We see that charge as foreground, and already assign it to other things. It is masked out of this current experiment when they mask out heat from the Milky Way stars.
You see, since charge is photons, and since photons go everywhere, the galaxy can only recycle the
bulk of the extra-galactic charge. It can’t recycle all of it. Some appreciable percentage of charge will
 avoid the charge channels and travel more or less directly into the galaxy. Think of Feynman’s sum-
overs, which assume the same thing about light traveling everywhere. My charge channels are only an
 average or sum. The average charge will follow those channels, but not all charge. What we are seeing
 with the glow is extra-galactic charge that is missing the charge channels, coming directly into the

galaxy and Solar System from all directions. Since it is infrared, it is dark. Since I have shown charge has mass or mass equivalence in the unified ield, it fills the hole that Dark Matter now fills in the field equations. e = 1.602 x 10 19 C 1C = 2 x 10 -7
kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10 -26 kg/s
Since that is 19 times the mass of the proton, it means the proton is recycling 19 times its own mass in
 charge every second. Since 19/20 = 95%, the Dark Matter problem is solved.
My tough reader will say, “Aha, but if this glow is caused by your charge field, which is 19 times more
 massive than the normal matter field according to you and your new equations, why isn’t this glow
 extremely powerful? It shouldn’t be a background glow: in that case, it should swamp everything.”
Well, in some cases, it does swamp everything, as when the mainstream finds Dark Matter taking over
 95% of their equations. But in this case, it doesn’t tip the scales at 95% for the reason I just gave. The
 glow is what is left over after you subtract out the galactic charge channeling. Since most of the charge
 is recycled through the galactic core and spit out into the plane, where it energizes all the stars in the
 galaxy, most of the charge is going to be found there. It isn’t in the glow, it is in the core and stars.
And that is the main reason the lonesome stars theory is so ridiculous: it isn’t necessary. Once I remind
 you that the charge field is out there, we don’t need lonesome stars to explain this. The fundamental
 problem that physics and astronomy keep bumping up against is that they have forgotten the charge
 field. Most physicists and astronomers seem to think it only exists at the quantum level, between
 protons and electrons. But if it exists at the quantum level, it must exist at all levels. The macro-level
 is composed of the quantum level, remember?
The reason they have forgotten it is that it was never defined as a real field to begin with. It has been
 virtual since the time of Ben Franklin. It has existed in the equations only as non-mechanical field
 potentials, as pluses and minuses on a sheet of paper. Even today, it exists only as a field of virtual
 messenger particles, which has no mass. The entire field has no mass in the current equations, and they
 never even bother to give it mass equivalence, using the energy equation. So when we get to the
 macro-field of astronomy, it is left out of the equations almost entirely.
The problem keeps coming up because, as I have shown, the mass equivalence of photons is included
 in some of the field equations and always has been. It is in Newton’s gravitational equation, hidden in G, and so it is in Einstein’s field equations as well. It is also in the Lagrangian Problem is, no one but me knows it is there. Because it is in there without anyone realizing it, the equations end up having a huge hole in them when we look at some data—a hole that is about 95% of the total data. But once I point out that charge is in the field equations, that hole is completely filled. The answer was hiding in the fundamental charge all along.

One response to “NASA Discovers my Charge Field …again

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s