Hey JeanTate, you don't get it do you ?
Miles Mathis was for the MATH MATH MATH guys on here
Feel free to knock yourself out on his Electric Sun stuff below (charge is electrical right?)
From my post
HERE ...
Originally Posted by Haig
Can you Tom debate Miles Mathis on these ? or can anyone else ?
Don't go for the man (I doubt you can resist) what are the arguments against his math and logic in these three papers.
Miles Mathis isn't in the EU / PC crowd and he certainly isn't in the mainstream, he's kinda unique but in discussions of an Electric Sun and with his focus on "charge" as one of the overlooked factors of an electrical nature should / must be included IMHO
The Cause of the Solar Cycle PDF
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
It has been known for a long time that the main Solar cycle is about 11 years, but that is just an average. It goes from a minimum of about 9 years up to about 14 years. Although some theories have been presented, the cause of all three numbers is unknown. I will show you the correct answer here.
The reason I so quickly hit on the right answer is that I knew where to look. In my other long paper on Sun cycles (ice ages), I have already shown that Jupiter is the cause of the secondary variance. In this
case we will see that Jupiter is the cause of the primary variance. Upon reading the NASA data, Jupiter is the first place I looked. The NASA writers even give us a hidden clue, though it is doubtful anyone but me tripped over it.
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
The fact that the alignment of Jupiter/Uranus is determining this maximum in 2012 is what has made it strange and small. In 2012, we finally hit our first peak of the cycle, and that is when Uranus is still near the line, Saturn is near the line, and Neptune is moving toward it again. Although none are strictly aligned with Jupiter, this near alignment of all four planets is about the best we are going to get in this weak cycle.
Saturn is now (late 2014) moving toward 90, so we are moving toward a minimum. But we are not moving very positively toward it even this late in the cycle, since Neptune is going to opposition. This will stretch the peak of cycle 24, pushing it well into 2015. The slope of the graph won't really start to drop strongly until after Neptune moves off the line. This will cause a pretty precipitous drop from 2015 to 2018. In 2018, Saturn will be at about 45, Neptune will at about 90, and Uranus will be at 90. So you can see easily the cause of the minimum there.
Magnetic Reconnection and Coronal Temperatures PDF
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
At any rate, I have long had a simple mechanical theory for charge effects: it has been part of my unified field for years. But until now I have not connected it to the corona. Even when I wrote a paper on the Sun a couple of years ago, I had nothing much to say about the creation of the coronal energy. But now that I have used the charge field to explain the brightness of planets, moons, and comets—via magnetic interaction—I now have a mechanism for the corona. Some of my readers understood me
immediately, and made the connection before I even got here. They wrote and asked me if the brightness of Enceldaus was linked to the heat of the corona. Rather than just say “yes,” I decided to write this paper for all my readers, making the connection explicit.
In those previous papers on comets and moons, I showed how the spins on the photons could cause the unexplained brightness. We only require photons meeting anti-photons, and charge recycling—along with an ambient field—was able to explain both. In short, all spherical bodies from electrons to
galaxies recycle charge. The spin of the sphere in an ambient field naturally creates field potentials which draw photons in at the poles and emit them most heavily at the equator. This emitted charge then rejoins the ambient field at a boundary, and this rejoining can cause spin cancellations. In the right circumstances, these spin cancellations can cause big effects, and that is what we are seeing with increased brightness. It is also what we are seeing with the corona
The Heliospheric Current Sheet PDF
Originally Posted by Miles Mathis
Ethan Siegel and Xiaoying Xu of the University of Arizona analyzed the distribution of dark matter in our Solar System, and found that the mass of dark matter is 300 times more than that of the galactic halo average, and the density is 16,000 times higher than that of the background dark matter.
You know what, they are right, except for one thing. That isn't dark matter they are calculating, it is charge. There is always going to be more charge in the vicinity of baryonic matter, as we have known for 200 years. Benjamin Franklin put the charge signs on matter, and we still do. We have always defined charge as a relationship of matter, so of course it is going to exist with more density around matter. I have shown why this is: matter recycles charge. Spinning protons, neutrons, and electrons recycle charge photons, and the spins and photons are real. Everything involved has mass, spin, and radius. Nothing is virtual. Nothing comes out of the vacuum or returns into it.
But they pretend not to be able to figure this out. In the new articles, they tell us that there seems to be a mysterious link between dark matter and baryonic matter, since there is more dark matter in the vicinity of baryonic matter. They ask, “How do dark matter and baryonic matter interact?”
According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is believed to be composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of subatomic particle. The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.
You have to be kidding me. How about the subatomic particle we call the photon? Like dark matter, it doesn't react with E/M fields, and it creates a field that is “transparent.” It is so transparent, we have forgotten all about it, apparently. It has become transparent to our physics.
All this was caused by refusing to assign charge to a real field. Currently, it is mediated by a messenger photon, which is virtual. Imaginary. Therefore, charge currently has no real presence in the field. Which is why, when we come across new evidence indicating the presence of a powerful field of
particles, we forget about charge. “Charge is nothing, just imaginary field potentials, so we need a new field to explain new data!” Perverse.
To see mainstream physicists continue to assign all new things to dark matter is perverse, considering that they already have a field that contains it and explains it, without mystery. Why would they do that? Well, in addition to the ascendance and takeover of science fiction, we have the longstanding fact that physicists do not want to rewrite their field equations again. They had enough trouble adding Relativity to them, and they don't want to add charge, too. It would require too much work (they think). They think they have proof of the gravity-only field (since their equations work pretty well),
and this allows them to keep the field they inherited from Laplace centuries ago. Besides, they just spent decades belittling all the “cranks” who wanted to add charge or E/M to the field. The Velikovsky affair is still warm in some places, and to admit Velikovsky was even partially right about anything is
too painful for them. So it is easier to hide and misdirect than to look directly at the evidence in front of them.
However, I have done the work for them, and it turns out they can keep a lot of their old prize equations. The revolution will turn out to be a lot less messy than they have thought. It is far simpler than anyone imagined, because their old fields already contained charge. They just didn't know it. The charge field is already inside Newton's gravity field, in the constant G. And since General Relativity was just the addition of transforms to Newton, Einstein's equations already contain charge as well. And charge is already inside the Lagrangian, too, as I have shown.
That's right. The unified field was hiding in plain sight, too. It has been hiding inside G for centuries. Because it was already in the Newtonian field equations, we don't have to rewrite anything. We just have to re-expand and re-interpret what we already had.
I was taught that in primary school and it's the only thing I remember 
