
return to homepage return to updates
More Proof of the Reality of the Charge Field or how e = 1/c
by Miles Mathis
We are currently taught that the charge field is virtual—mediated by socalled virtual or messenger photons which have no physical presence in the field or space. Of course we should have known that was false from the start. If we are taught nonphysical things in physics, we must be offtrack. But I have shown that the charge field must be real. I have shown my readers precisely where it exists in Newton's equations, so it is easy to include it in our math. Because it exists in Newton's gravity field equations, it also exists in Einstein's field equations. Beyond finding it in Newton's fundamental equations, I have found it in the real world, in many reallife problems. Most recently I have shown that "dark matter" is really the charge field.
We are told that dark matter outweighs normal or baryonic matter by 19 to 1, and I have shown how to get that number 19 right out of current and longstanding equations. To be specific, I have shown that we can get the number right out of the current number for the fundamental charge. The fundamental charge, which we are told is either the charge on the electron or proton, is currently e = 1.602 x 10^{19} C. Since 1C = 2 x 10^{7} kg/s, e = 3.204 x 10^{26} kg/s. If we divide that by the proton mass, 1.67 x 10^{27} kg, we get very nearly 19. We get 19.19, to be precise. This means that the proton is emitting a charge every second that outweighs it by 19 times. And that means that the charge field outweighs normal matter by about 19 times. Yes, photons outweigh everything else by 19 times. That is what those simple equations have always been telling us. Unfortunately, the equations have been hiding underneath abstract terms like the Coulomb and the statcoulomb and so on, and modern physicists have forgotten how to do simple math like this. They are so busy filling blackboards with quaternions and Hamiltonians and tensors, and lecturing on black holes and the first split seconds of the Big Bang, they have forgotten how to do highschool algebra. One comes pretty quickly to the conclusion that they are either very poorly educated or they are hiding this stuff on purpose.
At any rate, we can spin this simple math out a bit further. But before I do that, I will answer a couple of questions. One reader pointed out that my math shows mass/second, so we have a time dependence here. That is a bit confusing, since mass shouldn't have a time dependence. This is how I answered him:
Yes, my calculations are time dependent, as you say, but you still must be impressed that the 19 to 1 ratio is derivable from simple classical equations, matching galactic data. That has to be more than a coincidence. I think the reason my math is showing a time dependence is that mass is already time dependent itself. Since I have shown elsewhere that mass is actually a motion, mass is also time dependent. This would mean that nothing is really time independent. Another way to say that is that the current 19 to 1 ratio of "dark matter/energy" to baryonic mass already includes a time variable, without anyone being aware of it. Since the time variable always used is the second, my new equations match the numbers of mainstream equations. The only difference is that my equations include the second explicitly, and theirs include it implicitly. Since the charge field is an emission field, it has to include time. Not that time varies as we move from past to future, but that emission is a thing that happens over time. Emission is a process, not a static fact. That is why my equations include the second. The mainstream equations don't include the second, because they are equations of mass, and it is thought that mass is static when it is not. It may be STABLE, but it is not static. Mass is motion, and all motion includes time, by definition.
To say it a third way, I have shown that mass, gravity, and inertia are three names for the same thing. There is a fundamental motion that underlies all three and explains all three. There are several ways to explain that motion, but by far the simplest way is by using Einstein's equivalence principle. In explaining relativity, Einstein used a visualization, where he put an elevator car in space, hovering in some gravity field. The person inside feels a force from the bottom of the car, but he does not know and cannot say whether that force is caused by gravity pulling him down or an acceleration of the car up. Gravity down and acceleration up are exactly the same thing, both as math and as mechanics. The only difference is a vector reversal. In one case, we draw the vector up; in the other case we draw the vector down. This was Einstein's own explanation, and I am adding nothing to it so far. But this visualization or thought problem helps us here, because it allows us to reverse all the gravity vectors in the universe at once (that addition is mine, not Einstein's). If we do that, nothing changes. Both the math and the mechanics stay pretty much the same as before. But gravity is now explainable as a motion. Instead of explaining gravity as a mysterious pull, caused by nothing, we can now explain gravity as a real acceleration. To put it even more simply, everything at every size level is expanding, including the Earth, the universe, and the proton. Everything has an acceleration vector out on every point on its surface, and that vector out explains gravity, mass, and inertia, all at once. You will have to read my other papers for clarification on this, but we can use it here to see why mass has a time dependence. If mass is explained as a motion out of the surface of the proton, for instance, then mass now has a time dependence. This is not to say that mass will change with time. It is just to say that if mass is defined by motion, mass must include the time variable, since motion includes the time variable. Motion is meters/second or meters/second squared or something like that, so all motion is time dependent.
This just means that all mass has always had an invisible "t" underneath it. But because that t was constant, we dropped it. The masses of all things stay the same relative to all other things (roughly), so we can drop the time variable. It is there, but we drop it as a convenience. It is implicit. In this way it is like the time variable in geometry. I have shown elsewhere that geometry ignores the time variable. If you draw a triangle in geometry, you do not keep track of how long it takes your pencil or pen to draw it. You just draw it and then take it as given. You take it as existing all at once. In the same way, we have come to think of mass as a thing that exists all at once. We take it as a given. But it is not really that way. Mass is time dependent just like everything else. So when I do these equations and find a time dependence, I am not making a mistake. I am writing down the full variables while everyone else is writing down the geometrical simplification.
OK, next question. We are taught that the fundamental charge applies to both the electron and proton. The proton is positive and the electron is negative. But that can't be right, can it, because according to my theory, the proton should recycle more photons than the electron. Very good. My reader who asked this question saw things clearly. Yes, the fundamental charge can't really apply to the electron in the same way it applies to the proton. The electron feels the fundamental charge, but it does not emit it. In the first instance, we can get this straight from the equations above. The charge field outweighs the proton by 19 to 1, but it cannot also outweigh the electron 19 to 1. The electron and proton have different masses, so it must be one or the other. The electron is in a charge field that has a strength of e, but the electron is not emitting that charge.
Although the electron is not emitting at strength e, it is emitting. The electron is also recycling, but it is recyling photons at a rate determined by its mass. Since the electron is about 1835 times less massive than the proton, it will be recyling 1835 times less charge. The electron is emitting only a fraction of the total charge field, so we will ignore it in most of these simplified theoretical equations. The bulk of the charge field is emitted by the larger particles. We should already know this, because if electrons could recycle a fullstrength charge field by themselves, then electrons flying through space would create their own full charge field, even when far away from all baryons. But we know they don't just from looking at the Solar Wind. Electrons between here and the Sun don't act like the reverse of baryons. They are deflected by E/M fields according to rules of their own. This is proof enough of my theory of charge.
Now, let's do some more math and discover some more things. Another reader sent me some equations showing that my number for e above is approximately 1/c^{3}. Unfortunately, 1/c^{3} is 3.71 x 10^{26}, and e is 3.204 x 10^{26}. Close, but it is about a 13% error. Could he still be right? Could we show the cause of the error, as well as the reason why e is related to c? Let's find out.
The first thing to do is look at the dimensions. The speed of light is measured in m/s, and my number for e is kg/s. So we need a transform from meters to kilograms. Looks like a stumper, but I have already shown how to do that in another paper. In my first paper on the unified field, I showed that 1kg = 1m^{3}/s^{2}. The basic idea comes from Maxwell, but I took it a bit further than he did.* So,
3.204 x 10^{26}kg/s = 3.204 x 10^{26}m^{3}/s^{3} = 3.176 x 10^{9} m/s
[What did I just do? That second equality isn't really an equality. Did I just cheat? Flip out? No, I remembered that mass is motion in three directions, and we are concerned with only one direction here. In my first paper on G, I showed that 1kg = 1m^{3}/s^{2} looks like a threedimensional motion or acceleration. In fact, we must treat it like that, mechanically. But the charge field as a summed field is a vector, and that vector is a vector in one dimension only. The charge field, as a summed field, can only push a real particle in one direction. Or, in a given event, the charge field, as a sum, is one vector in one dimension. Therefore, if we want the velocity vector, we just take the cubed root. That is how we get meters from kilograms, as you see. That is how we write a sort of transform from the threedirectional gravity dimensions of Maxwell to the onedirectional or velocity equations of the charge field.]
So e is not almost equal to 1/c^{3}, it is almost equal to 1/c. 3.176 x 10^{9} m/s ≈ 1/c. And we have a 4.8% error, not a 13% error.
This is of very high interest, because it once again proves not only my theory of charge, but my theory of spins. I have written many papers on tangential velocity and orbital velocity. It was one of the first problems I addressed after my early papers on Relativity. I have shown that since the time of Newton, the two velocities have become conflated. Current physicists think they are the same thing, since they were taught that at the limit, one became the other. But this is not true. Newton went to a limit to find the orbital velocity, but he never said that his new orbital velocity was the same as the tangential velocity. If they were the same, his derivation would have been circular. He takes the tangential velocity as given, then derives the orbital velocity. If they are the same, then he has derived his given, which is circular.
At any rate, I developed an equation to find one velocity from the other, using the radius r, and I later showed that at the size of the photon, a tangential velocity of c was equivalent to an orbital velocity of 1/c. Well, the reason we are finding a five percent error above is that we are monitoring the charge field as it is emitted by the proton, and the charge photon is a bit smaller in radius than a standard or average photon. This is the equation I have been using:
ω ≈ √(2rc)
By that equation, the standard photon would have a radius of about 1.85 x 10^{26} m. Just put 1/c in there for ω, which I have redefined as the orbital velocity (it is currently defined as the angular velocity, but I have shown that angular and orbital are really the same). But I have shown that the charge photon peaks in the infrared, and infrared photons must be a bit smaller than "normal." If we use the orbital velocity above of 3.176 x 10^{9} m/s, we get a value for r of 1.68 x 10^{26} m.
What all this means is that the charge photon, if it has a tangential (spin) velocity of c, must have an orbital velocity of 3 x 10^{9} m/s, which is just below 1/c. What do I mean by that, precisely? I mean that a point on the surface of the photon has a straightline velocity of c. That is the tangential velocity of the spin. Using my equation to go from tangential to orbital velocity, that gives us an orbital velocity of 3 x 10^{9} m/s.
And this means that e can be expressed as the orbital velocity of the charge photon. But why should e be expressing the orbital velocity of the charge photon? Because charge is not charge. Like mass, charge is a motion. Just as mass can be written as the (3dimensional) motion of the surface of the particle out from its center, charge can be written as the spin of the photon. But why is the fundamental charge a function of the orbital velocity, not the tangential velocity? Because the tangential velocity is a real velocity, and cannot cause a (continuous) force. But the orbital velocity is an acceleration, and can. I have written many papers showing that any curve is an acceleration, and that includes the orbital velocity, of course. We already knew that, historically, but we forget it in many cases. I have shown the equation to get orbital velocity from tangential velocity, but the orbital velocity is not really a velocity. It is an acceleration. And so it can cause a force or a force field. The charge field is a force field. It causes motions. Which is why e can be expressed as a function of this orbital acceleration.
Let me hit that one more time, for good measure. Go back to your highschool physics class, and remember how you were taught that circular motion is caused by a centripetal acceleration? According to Newton, circular motion is the combination of that acceleration and of some straightline vector. We call that straight vector the tangential velocity and he called it the innate motion of the body, but in either case, it is just the motion the body had before we turned on the centripetal acceleration. So we have both the tangential velocity and the centripetal acceleration, to cause the circle. But we are taught that these two motions combine to get an orbital velocity? How can you add or integrate or combine a velocity and an acceleration, and get a simple velocity? Well, you can't. Since an orbit curves, it can't be a simple velocity. You probably had some inkling of this in highschool. I know I did. I didn't understand all that I do now, but I wondered how a centripetal acceleration could be an acceleration. It is the only acceleration we were taught where the velocity doesn't change. The number for the velocity never changes, and yet we have an acceleration? We were told that the angle changed, which was enough to create an acceleration, but that never made much sense, did it?
As it turns out, all we were taught was wrong. The orbital velocity is really an orbital acceleration, and the reason it is an acceleration has nothing to do with a change in velocity. It has to do with the fact that the curve is made up of three velocities. You will say, "Three?" Yes, and current theory gets this number right, since, as I just showed, they use a centripetal acceleration and a tangential velocity. The tangential velocity stands for one velocity, and the centripetal acceleration is the other two. That is three. So current theory gets that right, but falls apart after that. It fails to tell you that the orbital velocity is a complex acceleration, with three times variables in it. And this keeps you from understanding all the rest.
So, I have hopefully cleared that up. But I still may be asked why or how the orbital acceleration of one photon can be equal to 19 proton masses per second. The answer is in that second. For these quantum particles, a second is a huge amount of time. Remember for starters that a photon can go 300 million meters in that time. That's a lot of energy right there. But also remember that the proton can recycle more than 11 billion photons in one second. So the fundamental charge e is not the orbital acceleration of one photon, it is the orbital acceleration of about 11.5 billion photons.
As a bonus, I will ask and try to answer one final big question: Is it c that causes charge or charge that causes c? In other words, is c the given here or is spin the given? Although it is sort of a chicken and egg problem, I would argue that c is the effect and spin is the cause. Spin is primary, and c is just an outcome. The speed of light is the speed at which it is ejected by the baryon, primarily, and that speed is determined by the angular acceleration of the baryon. Of course the electron and positron also recycle and emit, but their input is negligible in the first three digits.
In other words, if the baryon were larger, c would be smaller. And this may mean that the charge photons emitted by the electron are going somewhat faster than c. The speed of light may be an average.
Of course, this implies that there is a feedback mechanism. If it is true that the angular acceleration of the baryon determines c, it is also true that the angular acceleration of the baryon is determined by the momenta of the incoming photons, since the spin of the baryon is caused by the charge field. So if we look even more closely, we can say that c is determined by the relative size of the baryon and photon. Or, even more precisely, it is determined by the number of baryons relative to the number of photons, and their sizes. It is a matter of relative particle densities. In this way, c is a function of both G and the number 19 above. G tells us the relative size of the photon and proton, and the number 19 tells us the relative masses. Together, they give us the relative field densities, and thereby determine c.
And if we look even more closely, we see that both G and the number 19 are determined by the radius of the photon itself. Given a photon of certain size, we are given all the possible spin radii of that photon. If we keep stacking spins, we will achieve an electron and then a baryon. In other papers I have used the number for c to work backwards and find the radius of the photon, but as a matter of cause, it is the other way round. It is the radius of the photon that causes almost everything, including c.
[You may now go to my latest paper on charge, where I show that the radius of the electron is e^{2}.
*Even after taking the link and seeing my math on this, many will still not understand how or why 1 kg = 1m^{3}/s^{2}. They will quote me instances where it is not true, physically. But it IS true in this case, because we are studying dimensions only, as they apply to these FORCE fields. Since the Newton is DEFINED as 1kgm/s^{2}, a dimensional analysis will work out as I said. Think of it this way: we are using 1 kg = 1m^{3}/s^{2} as a transform, to get us from one set of dimensions to another. As this sort of dimensional transform, it is true, even though it may look strange as a physical equality.
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smiththat is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.
