· Uncategorized

Well, it seems that what is happening is a reversal.


Those just getting here will have some questions, like “where is this charge coming from?” It is coming from the Sun. We receive sunlight from the Sun, of course, but we also receive stupendous amounts of charge. Some of what we feel as heat comes directly from the Sun, falling down upon us from above. But an even greater portion of infrared and other low-energy radiation is recycled in the form of charge at the Earth’s poles. It is pulled in by spin vortices at both poles. This charge goes through the body of the Earth, giving it its internal heat. It is then re-emitted at the surface, giving us heat from below. It is this charge that Tesla made use of in his most famous experiments. He knew

that the Earth was emitting a charge field, and that this field had a vector straight up at the surface of the Earth. Almost no one else has recognized that.


As such, it easily explains the force and the force field they are seeing in the recent data from Colorado.  This rising field of real photons has a real density, and that density is capable of turning these electrons at lower altitudes. Obviously, given a real field of real particles and a real density, there will be some altitude at which the density dissipates enough to no longer exclude the electrons. At that altitude, you will find the electrons, but not below it. In other words, we would expect a sharp boundary.

I would also suggest that the electrons we find at the boundary are not (mainly) electrons coming in from the Solar Wind. No, they are electrons created on the spot by photons being spun-up in these real collisions. A spun-up photon is an electron. As I have proved with

my quantum spin equation , an electron is just a photon with a certain number of spins stacked onto it. I will have more to say on the source of electrons in the Van Allen belts in upcoming papers.

Miles say is incoming not outgoing, based on his charge recycling coming in at the poles and crossing over at the equator and emitting at 30 degree N and S of the equator.


So what we are ultimately seeing here is the production of matter from photons. Or, to be more precise, we are seeing the production of what we call leptonic matter and baryonic matter from

photonic matter. I don’t find the word baryon and lepton that useful anymore, but I use them because they are still current. Yes, the galaxy is the largest known matter engine in the universe (except for the universe itself), and it processes charge into matter directly. This means that all the matter in the galaxy was created from charge. All the matter in the galaxy was originally nothing but photons.


In this paper,

A New Galactic Structure is

more Evidence for my Charge Field

by Miles Mathis

Miles discusses the Fermi Bubbles, a picture of which graces the area between the title and his name but did not display when I copied it to this page.  Nowhere in the paper does he name the Fermi bubbles he is discussing.

No, nothing in mainstream theory can begin to explain icecaps on Mercury. But with my charge theory, the answer is simple. If Mercury is recycling charge like the Earth and Sun and galactic core and protons , then he must be taking in photons at the poles, by the normal method I have diagrammed dozens of times already over the years.


Since these photons are moving the reverse direction of emitted photons (in rather than out), they cause cooling rather than warming. In other words, if emitted charge photons are defined as heat, then photons coming in must tamp down the emission. Tamping down heating is the same as cooling. It is this intake of charge that acts to prevent heat at lower latitudes on Mercury from moving up to the poles. The incoming photons block this movement by straight bombardment. True, photons cannot be stopped or even slowed, but they can be diverted. Photon collisions are real, they cause diversion, which causes a longer path (or an escaping path for a percentage of photons). This is what is happening at the poles of Mercury.

Since these experiments took place on Earth, they are indication that the photon field is twice as prevalent here as the antiphoton field. So we would expect our own south polar region to be about twice as big as the north—which is indeed what we find. But at Mercury we find the south four times the north, indicating an even greater prevalence of photons over antiphotons nearer the Sun. This can be explained as due to the fact that Mercury is nearer the Sun. The nearer the Sun we go, the more the ambient field is determined by the Sun alone, and the less it is determined by the galaxy and galactic core. Since the Sun is spinning one way on his axis and not the other, his charge emission is forced into one profile. This indicates that the further we get from the Sun, or from the Solar equator, the

more antiphotons we will find in the field. Physicists have been mystified as to why our near environs are so poor in antiparticles, but this is the reason. It is strictly a local phenomenon, determined by the fact that the Sun cannot be spinning both directions at once.


Actually, I think it can.


Here on Earth, science says there is melting at both north and south poles and that then would mean that heat is the cause.  This would be the opposite of incoming photons at the poles.  This would indicate the energetic photons are being ABSORBED at the EQUATOR and EMITTED at the POLES.


It may mean that the discussion of carbon dioxide produced by our tech is misleading.

It may mean that the supposed solar reversal has NOT OCCURRED and this ‘delayed magnetic solar reversal’ period of emissions at the solar equator is continuing and is responsible for the polar heating.


NASA does not identify the paper on A Star With Two North Poles as a reversal of what we understand as the expected behavior of our sun, Sol, but that is exactly what it is, a reversal of expected activity in a solar cycle…..




Cohen, Zhang, and Haule’s new work shows that the cause of about half of the resistivity generated was long neglected: it arises from electrons scattering off of each other, rather than off of atomic vibrations.


Read more at:


Well, more and more science is looking at explanations outside standard theory.

Magnetic fields rub against each other to generate unsurpassed amounts of magnetism.


This would power my theorized time/space rift allowing an overload of energy to transport an entire galaxy center to a different location in  space/time.

Because these elements have more atoms per unit, this creates more energy—specifically, heat and radiation, NASA says. The star begins to blow out winds reaching 2.2 million to 5.4 million miles per hour (3.6 million to 9 million kilometers per hour). Over time, the winds strip away the outer layers of the Wolf-Rayet. This eliminates much of its mass, while at the same time freeing its elements to be used elsewhere in the Universe.

Eventually, the star runs out of elements to fuse (the process can go no further than iron). When the fusion stops, the pressure inside the star ceases and there’s nothing to stop gravity from pushing in. Big stars explode as supernova. Bigger ones see their gravity warped so much that not even light can escape, creating a black hole.


Read more at:


New research says an inner-inner core exists about the size of the Moon with a magnetic field aligned E/W inside the inner core of N/S magnetic field.


In our Earth’s past science has found a 90 degree change and here is the cause.


(—Researchers at Western University have discovered where the equator was “precisely located” 450 million years ago, which is an important breakthrough for paleontologists and planetary scientists, as well as private and public mineral resource companies. The findings have been published in the journal Geology and were highlighted in today’s Editor’s Choice section of Science.


Read more at:

Mitchell and his colleagues think that this is part of a pattern: Pangaea formed at about 90 degrees to the previous supercontinent, Rodinia, and Rodinia at about 90 degrees to Nuna, which existed around 2 billion years ago.


I suspect that the clustering of land masses makes it to the pole every time and then quite simply the Earth turns 90 degrees to put its weight on the Equator.  Is that not what our geologic history shows?


It would be correct to say that 300 million years ago, the equatorial land mass known as Pangea began to break up from its site on the Equator where it had been reloed after its collection at the North Pole region.
Conveniently the mass extinction of 265 M Y occurs then.  One wonders how quickly the Earth rolled over to present the polar mass at the Equator.

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

%d bloggers like this: