© Miles Mathis

Please note that this paper is a simplification by me of a paper or papers written and copyrighted by Miles Mathis on his site. I have replaced "I" and "MM's" with "MM" to show that he is talking. All links within the papers, not yet simplified, are linked directly to the Miles Mathis site and will appear in another tab. (It will be clear which of these are Miles Mathis originals because they will be still contain "I" and "MM's".) The original papers on his site are the ultimate and correct source. All contributions to his papers and ordering of his books should be made on his site. (This paper incorporates Miles Mathis' grav3.pdf & grav4.pdf & a section of quantumg.html) |

*First published February 20, 2019*

Miles Mathis needed a challenge, so he has returned to gravity—still the most difficult question in physics. His faithful readers will know that he has hit this question several times (many links shown on MM's site). The first time was when he reversed all the gravity vectors in the universe, a la Einstein's Equivalence Principle. He did this to simplify the math and theory, which he certainly did. MM was able to get Einstein's numbers without the tensor calculus or a curved field. In fact, his numbers were even better than Einstein's, allowing him to correct his Mercury Perihelion math, to solve the "Saturn Anomaly", and to solve the "Metonic Cycle" with relativity math (among many other things).

But since this implied every body in the universe was expanding at a fantastic rate (the Earth would be doubling in size every 19 minutes, for example), this theory was admittedly incomplete. His critics used this to dismiss him, though of course mainstream gravity theory is also very incomplete—and they admit that. He has been saying that mainstream gravity theory is far more incomplete than his, and that his is far closer to completion, and we are about to witness more proof of that. Even before today that should have been clear, since MM has incorporated his gravity into a unified field long ago, unifying not only Newton's, Coulomb's, and Einstein's equations, but also Maxwell's, Laplace's, and Lagrange's". But by the end of this paper, all doubt on that score will be put to rest.

Not satisfied himself with the expansion result, MM proposed a second theory to do away with it, using universal spin to give us the vector out, while balancing that vector with the charge field. This gave us the acceleration vector without the expansion. The math and theory to achieve this balancing act still being incomplete, He left the question to move on to other things.

Now MM is back with a third idea. We will see where it takes us. Both his previous solutions became topsy-turvy at some point, as we have seen. The first solution, though very satisfying as pure math, left us with a vector pointing out, which seemed to imply real expansion. Plus, it was just the opposite of mainstream Newtonian theory, where the vector points in. Topsy-turvy. The second solution, using universal spin, went topsy-turvy somewhat later, as you can see in MM's paper on Mach, where he took the local field math a bit further. It seemed to get closer to a solution there, but again the forces on a body on the surface of the Earth went topsy on us at the end. He could explain a force down only by once again reversing the logic of the mainstream field. Contradicting the mainstream isn't what really bothered me there, of course, it was the incomplete math and theory. One, He wasn't able to answer all his own questions; and two, He still was left uneasy about universal spin as the cause of the vector out. It has always appealed to me little more than the expansion idea. So he was open to a third possibility.

Readers kept telling me charge pressure as gravity was the answer, but MM used charge pressure in that second theory and wasn't able to make it work. And none of these readers was or is able to give me any useful math or new ideas. So until now MM has preferred to keep what he has, for reasons enumerated here.

But today MM finally received a new brainstorm. The Muses of science returned in masse, for reasons of
their own to which he is not privy. Seeing reversals in both his previous solutions, it occurred to him
that what he needed to do here was to flip his causes. Right now, in his standing theory is to have gravity
causing the apparent vector down (as in the mainstream), and recycled charge causing the smaller
vector up. In other words, we have gravity causing the number **9.81m/s**2**, pointing down, and charge
recycled through the Earth causing the number** .009545m/s**2**, pointing up. Giving us the unified field 9.8 we
measure. He has shown that charge pressure is not capable of explaining the number 9.81, which is far
too large. The field is simply not dense enough in the environs of the Earth to cause that number. But
could it cause the number .009545? Actually, it could. But to keep the math, that would mean we have
to reverse the mechanics, giving the number 9.81 to charge coming up from below. Possible? Again,
yes, because we have the Earth recycling the charge, and in doing so **compressing** it. Great so far,
except for one big problem: if we reverse the numbers, we save the math, but we now have a huge
force field coming up from below and a smaller one coming down from above. Shouldn't that lift you
quickly up into the atmosphere instead of gluing you to the Earth?

*First posted January 22, 2009*

The standard model tells us that gravity is on the order of 1036 - 1039 weaker than E/M at the quantum level. To find this number, they scale the forces they find at the macrolevel to the forces they find at the quantum level. Seems pretty straightforward, but it turns out to be spectacularly wrong. The problem is that the standard model is scaling force numbers, but gravity is not a force, it is an acceleration. Gravity can cause a force, but as a defined variable it is an acceleration. The standard model knows this, but it tends to forget it at crucial times. They "forget it" on purpose in this case, simply because they can't figure out how to scale accelerations. You can't really scale accelerations, since accelerations don't tell us velocities or distances or times over a single interval, an infinitesimal interval, or what is now called an instant, unless we have an initial state. When comparing quantum particles to planets and moons, it is not clear what these initial velocities might represent; nor is it clear how to find them. Given an acceleration of gravity, how do you develop a velocity or distance that you can compare? The only velocity belongs to an object in the field, not to the large central object. So you see the problem: given an acceleration of gravity, you need a velocity or distance that belongs to the quanta or planet, so that you can then compare those velocities—in order to scale them. But there doesn't seem to be any way to develop those distances or velocities, since the quanta and planets aren't moving to create the accelerations. This is why the standard model chooses to scale the forces instead of the accelerations. Unfortunately, forces don't scale like accelerations. In fact, the two diverge very quickly, as we will see below. The only way to scale properly between the quantum level and the macro-level is to scale distances or velocities. I will now show you the simple way to do that.

It was in my paper The Moon gives up a Secret that I first discovered a simple method of separating the E/M field from the gravity field, and finding the sizes of each field. I assumed that gravity was dependent on radius only, then ran the equations using the current numbers of the Earth and Moon. I discovered that, according to this analysis, the **Earth must have an E/M field acceleration of .009545m/s**2**, and that the Moon must have one of 1.051m/s**2. Although I developed these equations in 2005, I have not yet applied them to quanta, although it is very easy to do so. I have been busy with many other projects, as anyone who has visited my website will see. But now that I have shown a new mechanics for quantum particles, one that overthrows QED and QCD, it is time to do the full calculations.

This ties into my most recent papers in two ways. It makes good on a promise I made in my paper on mesons to show how my margin of error is caused by the gravitational field at the quantum level. But it also will prove in a more direct fashion that the current Coulomb equation is terribly misused. I showed in my latest paper on Coulomb that textbooks were running the equation with bad numbers, and getting forces that were off by many exponents. This paper will add warehouses of ammunition to that claim.

In my Cavendish paper I used my unified field equations to find the separated forces of E/M and gravity on Cavendish’s balls. Those who have read that paper will understand that when I say unified field equations, I am not talking about difficult or esoteric equations. I am talking, in the first instance, about an equation that scales down directly from the numbers of the Earth, based only on size. All I need is a radius to perform this unified field calculation.

All we need here is a radius for the proton. In my paper on the Bohr magneton, I calculated a precise radius for the proton of 4.09 x 10-14 m. That is about a hundred times larger than the current estimate, but I show why the current estimate is wrong in my paper on the scattering experiments. We know that the Earth’s gravitational acceleration is **9.809545m/s**2**, and that its radius is 6,378,100 m. That is all we need for the gravitational part of this unified field equation. We just make a proportionality equation:

9.809545/6,378,100 = gP/4.09 x 10^{-14}

gP = 6.29 x 10-20 m/s**2

That is the gravitational acceleration of the proton.

In my paper on Electrical Charge, I show that the permittivity of free space ε0 actually stands for gravity at the quantum level. The value I found there, 2.95 x 10-20 m/s**2, differs from my number here only because the gravity at the quantum level is also caused by the electron and neutron. The neutron, being nearly the same size as the proton, will not affect the number much, but since the electron is smaller, it must pull the total number down by a fraction. The gravity of the electron is 3.43 x 10-23 m/s**2, but, being smaller, the electron is a lesser partner in the total field. If we add the two fields and divide by two, we get 3.147 x 10-20 m/s**2. That is still above my number for ε0. This is probably telling us how many electrons we have relative to nucleons, but I will save that calculation for another paper.

However that may turn out, we must remember that acceleration is always a relative term. It is not like velocity, which can be compared across any equations. An acceleration is a rather tricky thing, since if you have twice my acceleration, that does not mean you are moving twice as fast or twice as far as me during any defined interval. Given an acceleration, your velocity and distance traveled during any interval can be anything. Without an initial velocity, an acceleration tells us nothing. We cannot compare accelerations, unless we have more information.

The acceleration we just found is an acceleration relative to the acceleration of the Earth. The form of the equation alone tells us that, since we are comparing the proton to the Earth. This means that we have found an acceleration for the proton as measured from the size of the Earth.

As an example of the relative nature of this number, I will return for a moment to my first paper on G, where I found a different number for the gravitational acceleration of the proton. In that paper I found an acceleration about 7 exponents greater than this acceleration. It was greater because it was an acceleration relative to the meter itself, not to the radius of the Earth. The radius of the Earth is almost 7 exponents higher than 1 meter, hence the difference.

At any rate, the number I just found is an interesting number, but it is not really the number we want here, in this paper. We want to know how the proton would measure its own acceleration. Forces are transmitted and felt locally, and the relative field strengths must be calculated locally. To do this, we must compare velocities instead of accelerations. Velocities are always comparable, because they happen over one time interval. To get a velocity from this acceleration, we just use my trick from many other papers: we reverse the gravity vector, a la Einstein’s equivalence principle. We let it point out, and we let the surface of our object move with it. We look at how far the surface of the proton moves over one time interval, say one second. At that acceleration above, it moves:

x = at2/2 = 3.145 x 10^{-20} m

The Earth moves 4.91 m during the same second. If we compare these velocities to the radii, we find something very interesting.

3.145 x 10-20/4.09 x 10-14 = 4.905/6,378,100

You will say that is just doing math in circles, and in a way it is. But I have done it this way to show that the speed of the proton’s surface relative to its radius is the same as the speed of the Earth’s surface relative to its radius, at any given time. And this means that the speed of the proton’s surface relative to its SIZE is the same as the Earth. And this means that if the proton measures it’s own acceleration due to gravity, it will find the number **9.81 m/s**2**! It would have to, wouldn’t it, or the proton would be getting larger or smaller relative to the Earth.

Of course this is a direct outcome of making the gravity field a function of radius alone, but it will be an unexpected outcome for most regardless, I think, even those who had already accepted my postulate.

Once we apply the acceleration of gravity to a real motion, by reversing the vector like this, we see things we never could see before. We see that the acceleration of gravity is itself a relative number. It is relative not in an Einsteinian way, but in a completely new way. Acceleration depends on size, and who is measuring it. Einstein’s relativity was due to speed or distance. This relativity is due to size.

So, we have found two new gravitational fields for the proton, one as measured from the size of the Earth and one as measured by the proton itself. Now let us look at the E/M field.

The E/M or charge part of the equation is only slightly more difficult. As I showed in my paper on the Moon, the E/M field is proportional to 1/r4. This is because the E/M field dissipates as it moves out from the surface, so we get one inverse square law right out of the surface area equation. But the E/M field also dissipates within the gravity field, so it picks up that inverse square law as well, just from the acceleration field. The radius of the Earth is 1.55 x 1020 greater than the radius of the proton, so,

EE /EP = 1/(1.55 x 1020)4 = 1.73 x 10^{-81}

EP = 5.52 x 1078m/s**2

But we must make the same corrections to that number that we did to the gravity number. The E/M field is an emission field, so those photons will be traveling inside the gravity field. Which is to say, if we let the gravity vector point out, the photons will be emitted while the surface of our object is moving. The E/M field is a velocity inside a velocity, so anything that is happening to gravity will also be happening to E/M. As it turns out, we can represent all this by simply squaring our gravity correction. We have the fourth power here, which is square the power of the gravity field. Another way to look at it is that the size differential applies here twice, since we have two fields that are both smaller: one field inside the other. I have already found a size differential between the Earth and proton of 1.55 x 1020, so we just square that, to get 2.4 x 1040.

EP = 5.52 x 1078/2.4 x 1040 = 2.3 x 1038 m/s**2

That is the number the standard model is finding for the strength of the E/M field in quantum interactions. 9.8 is 4.26 x 10^{-38} weaker than that, so that is where the numbers you read about in textbooks are coming from. Problem is, the standard model has only done the first part of the math. Let us complete it now.

At the size of the Earth we ignore the size or energy of the E/M field itself. We measure the results of the field, not the field itself. In other words, the photons that are emitted have no presence in the equations. They are invisible to the math, since they can be ignored. As a matter of size, they are inconsequential. But this is no longer true at the size of the proton. We are not only 1.55 x 1020 smaller, we are 1.55 x 1020 times closer to the photon. Compared to the proton, the photon is that many times bigger, as a field particle. This means that its size can no longer be ignored. The field has begun to take up measurable space, relative to the particle that is emitting it. This means we have to divide by 1.55 x 1020 a third time.

EP = 2.3 x 1038/1.55 x 1020 = 1.48 x 1018 m/s**2

Now, I could have ignored all the mechanics and just told you to divide once by 1.55 x 1020, instead of going to the fourth power and then dividing by a cube. But although that would have gotten the right answer in much less time, in this case efficiency is not my primary concern. My primary concern is uncovering the mechanics, and showing them to you in a transparent manner.

Let us look at one more outcome of our new numbers. I went to an inverse fourth power and then cubed to get the number 1.48 x 1018, as you have seen. I might just as easily have started with the proposal that the E/M field at the quantum level acts like the gravity field at the quantum level: that is, it is the same number as the Earth. If we can propose that the proton would get 9.81 for its own gravity, why not propose that the proton would get .009545 for its own charge field, just like the Earth? Well, actually, we could, and we would get the right answer, provided we made the right corrections. All we have to do is scale down using the radius differential again. In this case, the radius differential is representing the fact that the photon is that much larger relative to the proton. We have scaled the momentum of the photon up, relative to the proton, so that it has the right energy in the field.

1.55 x 1020 (.009545) = 1.48 x 1018

The photon is going c whether it is taking part in quantum charge interaction or taking part in the E/M field of the Earth. But the photon will seem much bigger and more powerful to the proton.

**Let us see. Maybe we have had this thing upside down from the beginning.**

If you were just an uncharged body, made up of neutral poolballs, say, and if charge was made up of photons, which were like marbles, then yes, you would have to be driven up in such a situation. You wouldn't have a compound vector down, you would have compound vector up, and would accelerate into the sky.

But we now know that isn't the case. All problems are charge problems, so we have to treat this as one.
You are made up of charged particles. All your atoms are recycling charge, and about 95% of your
body is made up of charge. You probably know you are about 60% water, but you may not be aware
you are 95% light. (The trolls will respond that gives us a total of 155%, but the water is also made of light.). Therefore, the photons coming up from below don't just bounce off the bottom of
your feet, driving you up. No, **they recycle through your body**. It is known that light works this way,
and MM is not proposing anything revolutionary here. See Feynman's sumovers in many light problems,
for instance. So you can already see that this isn't strictly a poolball problem, although MM loves those. He
has been selling poolball mechanics for almost twenty years, to counter the rise of mysticism in
mainstream physics, so you can see why he was fooled by this one as well. We will keep it mechanical,
but it isn't a naïve poolball mechanics. It is a charge mechanics. Charge mechanics is still poolball
mechanics at the fundamental level, but it has many complexities we have to be aware of. These
complexities are spin complexities, and as we have seen many times, they are easy to miss if you don't
really push yourself.

Still, if charge is coming up from below you in large amounts, shouldn't it drive you up via simple
collisions? “Simple collisions” is what most people think of when you say poolball mechanics.
Well. . . no. he has been selling that idea for several years now, since that is what the original math
seemed to imply, but now that he went deeper it looks like it isn't so. We know that charge is actually what
**binds** things together. Liquids are denser than gasses because they are more tightly bound by charge,
and solids are denser still for the same reason. Solids are recycling far more charge through the nuclei
than gasses, because there are more nuclei. Charge is the **glue that binds all matter**, via this process of
charge recycling by the nucleus.

Which is another reason MM didn't get this completely right the first time. MM wrote and published his old gravity papers (Third Wave) before he got to his charge papers. So MM didn't know about this charge and nuclear stuff until more recently. It never occurred to me to treat gravity as a charge problem. Or, it did, but not in this way. He tried to explain gravity as charge pressure several times, and his readers have been hounding me in that direction for years. But as you see, that wasn't the right answer. It isn't charge pressure that finally solves this, it is charge binding. Gravity isn't explained by charge coming down, it is caused by charge coming up from below. Wow.

Sorry, MM just had his first hop-up-and-down moment in several years. MM started this paper with only the reversal idea, and came up with the binding idea while writing. That is how MM works, you know.he writes these things as you read them, in a blur of inspiration.

But didn't MM say in a previous paper that gravity cannot be a magnetic effect, since if it were, ball bearings couldn't roll so easily, etc.? Yes, which means MM was wrong about that as well. He had assumed that if gravity were a charge phenomenon, it would show heavy spin residue, but he didn't take into account the fact that it was caused by charge moving up, not down. MM was still trying to answer gravity as charge pressure from above there. But now that we see it is caused by charge binding from below, we can explain the spin loss quite easily. For one thing, we don't have to explain a total spin loss, since we know there are magnetic fields on the surface of the Earth, and this must be where they come from. See his paper on the Equatorial Anomaly, etc. But that these effects aren't much larger can be explained by the fact that the recycled charge field has to pass through the Earth. During this recycling, charge and anticharge have to cross, despinning both.

It isn't a total spin-down or magnetic loss, but it must be considerable. This is actually doubly welcoming, because before now we couldn't explain the strength of the Earth's magnetic field on the surface, in problems like the Equatorial Anomaly. MM explained the mechanics in that paper, but not the raw field strength. Using the number .009545 for rising charge doesn't get us there. MM hasn't even addressed that problem previously, but this paper solves that as well.

Doesn't MM have to rewrite a lot of other papers as well, if this is true? Like Lift on a Wing, for instance? If charge coming up is binding instead of lifting, that paper is out the window, right? Well. . . no. Yes, it requires the same sort of reversal we saw here, but not a complete jettison or rewrite. We now have to explain lift as a loss of binding, but that isn't hard to do. We still have a pre-existing charge gradient to use either way, so nothing much changes. It was the charge gradient that was his addition to the historical dialog of lift, so reversing it doesn't tarnish his legacy at all. In other words, by moving sideways to the field, the airplane still hits more of the charge field, creating an increased force in some direction. But now we can see that it hits both more of the uprising field AND more of the downcoming field. Since the plane has a height in the field, and since the field is convex from below, the plane will hit more of the downcoming field, causing a loss of binding. You can already see how this plays into the Coanda Effect, explaining it by a reversal as well. It is not that the plane is binding to the field above. . . it is that the plane is unbinding to the field below. So this new finding makes that paper stronger, not weaker.

What about his paper on Atmospheric Pressure ? Doesn't this destroy that? No, it requires the same reversal we just saw in the Lift on a Wing paper, but nothing like a destruction. All the numbers and math remain the same; we only have to flip the mechanics.

As you see, this flip is just what we needed. MM had previously flipped everything when he used Einstein's Equivalence Principle to reverse the gravity field, and this flips it back, in a way. It doesn't actually flip it back, it adds a second flip, but it takes us back to a point where we don't need either expansion or universal spin to explain anything. Those ideas really can be jettisoned. Which makes MM very happy.

This is why MM had resisted imput from readers and critics for years. His gut told him they weren't right, and that there was something we were all missing. MM knew he had to be patient and wait for his Muses.

Now, MM knows many will still not understand why charge would bind in this problem instead of propel. Once again, it is because we don't have a naïve vector mechanics of straight collisions here, we have a complex spin mechanics. Charge can't be understood as a hail of marbles only. In one sense, it is a hail of marbles, since photons are real, with real radii and masses. But in a problem like this, we have to go deeper, studying the way these marbles—or this photon wind—pass into a body and recycle through it. We start with the fact that the body is composed of semi-spherical nuclei. These nuclei are spinning, and this spin sets up north and south pole vortices, just like on the Earth. These vortices pull photons through the nucleus, creating a charge engine. With many elements the charge releases on the nuclear equator, again like the Earth. With others, like Group I and II elements and Iron, charge releases out the other pole, creating through charge and current. More can be said about that, but MM has said it before, and if you don't already know it you can consult previous papers.

Here, the important thing has
already been said: the nuclear vortices pull photons through the nucleons. [Yes, that is an apparent
pull, caused by field potentials. Mechanically, it is actually a push, since there is no such thing as a real
pull in physics. But the word “pull” remains highly descriptive, and MM does not disallow himself from
using it.] Again, photons are recycled through nuclei via field vortices, creating an apparent pull. This
“pull” is what creates the “bind”. This pull is why nucleons come together into nuclei and why atoms
come together into molecules. This pull creates the binding energy of both the nucleus and the
molecule. It also creates the binding energy of the gas, the liquid, and the solid. |

So the fact that this is where the bulk of charge in your environs first hits you is not beside the point.
By our new mechanics, over 99% of the field you encounter comes up at you from below. This charge
not only binds you together, it binds you to the surface. So his readers were right in one very important
sense: gravity IS a disguised charge effect. The field remains dual in the sense that it is split, coming
both up and down, being both photonic and antiphotonic. But it is now unified in yet another way. I
have now unified gravity and charge not only in the equations, but in the definitions. Gravity, as such,
not longer exists as a separate or separable force. **Gravity is simply the binding energy of the charge
field, given a vector by that field.**

Two things, other than the prodding of the Muses, led me to this realization today. One, MM would like to thank Dennis, Jared, and Josh at Cutting through the Fog for leading me into this today. Two, his work this week on the Kuiper Cliff was also crucial, since in tying the Kuiper Cliff to the Bohr Radius, I could see a further downgrade of gravity in the Unified Field equations. MM was able to solve that problem without looking at gravity at all. MM could see the Kuiper Belt as a straight analogy of the proton's capture of the electron, pretty much removing gravity from Celestial Mechanics. Yes, the variables Newton assigned to gravity are still there, pretty much in their original form, but—given this paper—we no longer need a mysterious and non-mechanical centripetal pull to explain any of them. The Sun isn't pulling on the Kuiper Belt with a mystical centripetal force, it is pulling on it with a real vortex of real photons. This is simply the distance at which the Solar vortex begins to fail. Notice that this would explain why the orbit of Eris is so eccentric: at that distance, the Solar vortex is quite eccentric, isn't it? Since the vortex comes from the Solar poles, it can't be spherical. Therefore, it has to act on Eris as a vortex, not a sphere. Meaning, the forces over the span of an Eris' year have to be very unequal. When Eris passes through the vortex, it feels a greater tug; when it passes out of it, it feels much less. Much closer to the Sun, eccentricity has to be explained in other ways, which MM has done. But at the limit of the Sun's charge field, Eris' eccentricity can probably be explained in this straightforward way, without involving any other major bodies.

As you can see, this new information helps us explain a raft of other things as well, starting with why people get struck by lightning more often than you would think, why people shock one another and themselves far more often than you would think (just static electricity?—no), and so on. It ties into many previous papers.

“But”, you will ask, “does it still explain an object in freefall accelerating toward the Earth? We have a force of 9.8 m/s**2 rising out of the Earth. How does that explain freefall?” Well, we need one final big tweak to this theory to finish it. The first step in that is noticing that since this rising charge will dissipate as it rises (since it is moving into larger areas) it will fall off by the square (simply due to the spherical nature of the field). As you see, the gradient matches the current one, with stronger binding near the surface and less higher up. If we fill that gradient in the right way, we can still explain an acceleration downwards.

The next step is noticing that our photon field seems to be acting the precise opposite of a ballistic field, since particles moving up cause an acceleration down. And greater photon densities near the surface—which would normally cause slowing (in the case of poolballs, say)—actually cause acceleration. Of course, the counter-intuitive nature of the field is why it wasn't unwound before. Plus, remember that 9.8 is simply telling us the relative strength of the rising photon field compared to the falling photon field. It isn't telling us the photons have that acceleration themselves. The number 9.8 applies to the body in freefall, or the body being pulled, not to the rising photon field. No photon or field of photons is accelerating at 9.8, obviously. Fields don't have accelerations, they create accelerations. And they must create them with gradients. The only question is, can a rising photon field cause a gradient down?

It can, but only with a final piece of the puzzle. In his 2013 paper on blackbody radiation, we saw that charge fields can either cause repulsion or attraction. The mainstream now admits this, and that paper was in response to their own experiments with blackbodies, showing attraction. This also came up in his more recent paper on Cool Moonlight, where we saw the mainstream admitting incoming light can cause cooling rather than heating. MM showed in both places that this is not due to a “compression of velocity distribution” or due to messenger photons telling quanta to move closer or move further away. It is due to photon spins, and specifically the presence of antiphotons in the field. When photon and antiphoton fields meet, we do not get the sort of annihilations they sell us when matter meets antimatter (which are also false). Rather, we get photon spin-downs. These spin-downs are an energy loss, which causes cooling as well as attraction. Normally when particles meet, we get spin ups and an increase in heat; but when antiphotons are involved, we get the opposite. Well, in our current problem, we have an antiphoton field created. Since one charge field is moving up and the other down, and since they came from the same place (the Sun), one field has to be upside down to the other. As MM has shown, this flips all our expectations, creating attraction where we would expect repulsion or bombardment, and creating cooling where we would expect heating [see his paper on Rayleigh scattering for more on this question]. In our current problem, it acts to reverse our expectation of a repulsion. So although we keep the gradient we just found, it is a rising gradient of attraction rather than of repulsion. To use the mainstream term, it is Anti-Stokes. Although we have a denser field low, we find more attraction low. On the surface, this creates what MM has called binding, but with an object in freefall it creates a gradient down. So if you didn't see the bind by his previous explanation, maybe this will help you visualize the vector down.

In that sense, gravity definitely IS a magnetic effect, since it relies on photon spins. In fact, the effect might be much greater if large parts of the magnetic component hadn't been previously cancelled. We have seen that the field has a much greater magnetic potential, and if the polar streams could be recycled without crossing in the Earth's interior, gravity would be far higher than what we see.

Higher spin speeds might create such a situation, explaining gravitational anomalies on exotic bodies. Much greater spin speeds than the Earth enjoys might force incoming north polar charge off the pole more quickly, making it exit above the equator rather than below it. In that case it would not have to cross the south pole stream in the interior, keeping its full spin and full magnetic component, you see. But let's back up a bit. MM mentioned his papers on Rayleigh scattering and Anti-Stokes. Those papers confirm MM was on the right track here, since he did the same thing there, using opposing charge fields to create antiphotons, which then flipped the field and flipped normal expectations. So if you didn't get enough information here, MM recommends that you revisit those papers. That is where he first confirmed the mechanics he is using here, though he didn't think then to relate it to the question of gravity. But it is reassuring that the Rayleigh problem demanded the exact same sort of solution, and the same gradient in the atmosphere, including a reversal of the same sort. That is one paper he won't have to rewrite after today.

Now that we see the right answer, we can understand why Newton and Einstein didn't solve this one. They knew very little about the charge field and photons. Actually, Newton came closer to this solution than anyone since, to his credit. Although very little work had been done on the electromagnetic field at the time, Newton did have a working Lagrangian equation (Take that link for his paper on Perturbation Theory, which is one of MM's most important overlooked papers. It ties into this paper strongly, and may clarify some points for you.), as well as spinning corpuscles (what we call photons). So he was ahead of current physicists in many ways. But, like them, he didn't see that his Lagrangian was unified, so he didn't see charge as the major player here. This is why Modern physics still hasn't come near solving this, and is more in the dark than Newton ever was. He didn't have the cards in his hand to solve it, so we shouldn't be surprised he didn't. But the mainstream has been playing with a full deck (in this sense) for almost a century, and could have solved this decades ago. The reason they didn't is that they got thrown offtrack by Bohr and his minions, who preferred to bury the charge field under a huge pile of fake and mystifying math. Because they got in a jam early, failing to answer some of the first mysteries of the charge field, they gave up and went virtual. They have been assuring their students these questions are answerable since the 1920s. Which, ironically, left them to me.

In this case, MM can't claim the solution was easy. The full solution evaded me for at least 15 years. As you just saw, it required a series of non-intuitive flips in the field, flips that no one who had not delved very deeply into the charge field could be expected to see. It required a fine understanding of spin mechanics and an advanced ability to visualize. MM won't say the complexity was very great, since it wasn't. Every manipulation was easily visualizable, and MM was able to do all this in his head. No computers were necessary, so complexity isn't the right word. But the field mechanics is admittedly quite convoluted, requiring many steps that had to be taken in the right order. It is not a problem that could be solved with poorly defined operators. It could only be solved by understanding the mechanics at every step. It required following our photons through the maze and understanding what they must do in each and every event. This solution to gravity didn't utilize his nuclear diagrams, but it did utilize the basic fact that the nucleus must be a charge engine. So, as you have seen, MM had to know a lot about the charge field before MM could solve the gravity problem. No one before me would have predicted that, and even he didn't predict it. Yes, MM knew the field was unified, and MM always suspected that gravity was a nearer cohort of charge than we knew, but until he wrote this paper he didn't suspect that gravity was just a straight outcome of binding energy.

MM supposes it bears repeating that this theory is not a variant of push gravity. About the only thing Le Sage got right was proposing a field of corpuscles (photons). He was completely right there. Well, to be honest, he also got some other things right, such as that gravity is not a pull and that the mainstream was wrong. So in general he was on the right track. But the theory of blocking was far too naïve to answer data, which is why his theory never made much headway. However, the current mainstream theory of gravity (Newton's) is also far too naïve to answer data, and they have known that for centuries. As a field theory, it is nearly as oversimplified as Le Sage's.

Yes, Newton's starting premise—that the same phenomenon that kept the Moon in orbit also glued you to the ground—was correct. And his equations were a nice start on the problem. Unfortunately, his failure to see that his equations implied two fields in opposition doomed physics for centuries. We now see that they were both charge fields, but they were charge fields that had been split, reversed, and conpressed, giving them different rates of change and gradients. They couldn't be compared directly without field transforms. Not relativity transforms, mind. That isn't what he is talking about here. He is talking about transforms like G or k, or like the second term in the Lagrangian (most commonly T). These terms or constants were misdefined for centuries, and no one before me saw them as what they are: field transforms. They scale one field to the other, allowing us to put them in the same equation.

Some will say MM has not provided any new equations here, so this is all just “handwaving”. But if you think this is handwaving, you need to check your dosages. You aren't properly grounded. MM hasn't provided equations here because he has corrected Newton's and Einstein's equations in many previous papers. That wasn't the problem to be solved. What was left to do was to sort through the field mechanics, making sense of the real motions. Most of that MM had also done in previous papers, as when he broke down the Lagrangian. But the big thing MM hadn't done is assign the centripetal vector of gravity. Until today, that vector was as mysterious in his math and theory as in the mainstream's. As either an attraction, an expansion, or a universal spin, it was far more mysterious than it needed to be.

Obviously, this new theory requires a lot more work. It requires tweaks to a lot of previous papers, as well as a lot more basic explication and tinkering. It may be MM has some things wrong here still, but he doubts it. Now he is confident that he has tripped across something important, and that he will be able to perfect it in the months and years to come.

*
*

*First published March 3, 2019*

Some people are having trouble with the paper above, so this is a clarification. For those just getting here, we will start at the beginning. What was wrong with Newtonian gravity? Well, as math, very little. Once extended by the Lagrangian, Newton's equations worked quite well as raw field equations. Except that. . . they were never field equations. They were heuristic equations that had no field, and still are. Newton never had a field particle like a graviton, photon, or other corpuscle to mediate forces. He had mysterious action-at-a-distance. Newton himself knew this was a problem, but he never got near solving it. This was a theory-ending problem, and Newton knew it. It meant his solution would remain mathematical only, but as a mechanical theory it was threadbare.

What was wrong with Einsteinian gravity? Again, as math, very little. By incorporating time differentials and Relativity, Einstein was able to fine-tune the equations, making them match new data in cosmology and particle physics. But Einstein didn't solve Newton's problem at all, since Einstein's math is still not based on field equations (although they are called field equations). There is no field or field particle, so field differentials and curves are based on nothing. They come straight out of the math and have no theoretical or mechanical underpinning. Rather than having action-at-a-distance, Einstein had a curved field, but if you asked him how the bodies were curving the field at a distance he still had no answer. He started with a given field curvature, but never explained its mechanical genesis. Basically, he chose a curved math, and the math curved the field. But that isn't mechanics. Math can't curve a field.

What was wrong with push gravity? Well, although it was a field theory, using a corpuscle, it didn't tell
us what that corpuscle was or link it to other theory. It didn't tell us the corpuscle was a photon, and
that that photon was the same photon used in EM theory. It was always **light**. Most theorists tried to
create a second “ether”, and that couldn't be worked into Newton's equations. Even if they had linked
their corpuscle to the photon, charge, and EM, they still couldn't say where it fit into Newton's
equations or the Lagrangian, because they didn't understand the Lagrangian was a unified field
equation>. So they couldn't do either the math or the theory.

An even bigger problem was that push gravity never incorporated recycling of that ether by the Earth. They did not have the ether pulled in at the poles and recycled, coming up out of the Earth. Without that mechanism, they again couldn't do the math or theory. Why? Because with a photon or charge ether, the Sun has to be the main supplier of the field. Which means that in naïve push gravity, you should weigh considerably more during the day. Charge pressure on the night side of all bodies should be measurably less. And not in the thousanths place, say, but far more obviously. You will tell me that using his new mechanics, we have charge coming in on the night side from the big planets, as well as the galactic core. Yes, but that still isn't enough to explain the data. MM has run the equations (in his papers on tilt, eccentricity, Bode's Law, etc.), showing that although the planets return charge, and that although that charge is compressed in the return, it still doesn't equal charge going out from the Sun. If it did, the Earth and other planets wouldn't show any tilt or eccentricity. For this reason, the theory of push gravity never could explain why we don't see huge weight variations. Yes, we now know there are weight variations, but they are far too small to be explained by push gravity.

The third big problem of push gravity is that it never graduated to spin mechanics. It had an ether, but didn't understand the basic mechanics of that ether. In other words, it didn't have an antiphoton. It didn't have a field of real particles with real chirality. To solve the problem of gravity, you have to have real spinning field particles, and you have to understand how they are recycled and how they respond to one another's spins. Without real spin and antiphotons, you can't explain charge, magnetism, or gravity. Without spinning photons and spin mechanics, you can't explain the plusses and minuses of any field theory.

Some will say that his theory of gravity still uses push gravity and charge pressure, so why not admit it? Well, he does admit it. In a way, his theory is push gravity plus a whole lot of other things. But there are so many other things that his theory no longer has much in common with what has previously been called push gravity. MM wants to give Le Sage and the other people credit, but not too much credit. As you are seeing, they didn't get that far into the problem, so when their students come to MM now and claim they knew it all along, he just shakes his head. Yes, they were roughly on the right track, but they knew very little. When they claim they were right all along, they just sound to me like the mainstream stuffed shirts, who can never admit there is something they don't know or didn't already think of. They are always looking for a way to give me far too little credit.

But let's move on. As you try to comprehend his theory, begin with the charge recycling of the Earth. You have to understand why it was necessary to the solution. In recycling charge through the body of the Earth, the problem of night/day variations is bypassed. Why? Because, given a field that is pulled in through two polar vortices, it doesn't matter if it is night or day. The recycling equalizes night/day differences, doesn't it? And it doesn't just equalize in one way, it equalizes in several. To start with, it equalizes because the spinning polar vortices pull in the same charge day and night. The poles are roughly perpendicular to the Sun, and if one pole is pulling in more the other is pulling in less. Secondly, the charge is equalized by passing through the Earth, where the charge streams from the poles cross. So they tamp down one another again.

Thirdly—and this is what some are missing—the Earth is recycling on two schemes at the same time. It recycles charge pole-to-equator, but it also recycles pole-to-pole, the second scheme being what I have called through charge. The second scheme is the lesser of the two, but it is still considerable. In that scheme, charge passes straight along the magnetic pole, coming out the other end. Only charge that enters the vortex in the right way can channel on this scheme, since it has to enter close to perpendicular, but we know from recent data (see high energy photons coming out the poles) that this happens. Because the charge channeling is a mix of the two schemes, we don't see huge weight variations at the poles. Again, we do see weight variations—and MM suspects the magnitude of the variations at the magnetic poles is being hidden—but we normally see them with fine tuned gravimeters, not with rough bathroom scales.

And there are other equalizing mechanisms at the poles. We will see them below when we look at the nucleus.

Now we get to the hard part. Spin mechanics. We take the photon to be a spinning sphere. It can be spinning in any direction, but once it enters a pre-existing field it will be made coherent to that field. How? By collisions. Photons are colliding all the time, and due to their small size they tend to hit edge-to-edge. Edge hits cause spin changes rather than speed changes. Hits can either cause spin-ups or spin-downs. Photons can collide side-to-side, moving in the same direction; or head-on.

When a photon enters a new field of any appreciable density, it will be spun up and down and up and down. When it is spun down, it is weak, and in any hit the weaker particle always takes on the characteristics of the stronger particle (for obvious reasons). If a weak particle spinning on axis-a hits a stronger particle spinning on axis-b, the axis of the weaker particle will move toward b. In this way, over time, the spin axes will be made coherent. It is the same with linear motion, and this isn't just a rule of spin mechanics.

So although photons can be spinning on any axis, we can assume a certain amount of coherence. To
simplify the math and mechanics, we then average the field and assign all particles either a left spin or
a right spin. The left spin is photon, the right spin is an antiphoton, say. If a photon and antiphoton are
moving in the same linear direction and edge-hit, they spin one another down. If they meet head-tohead, they spin one another up. **So you have to keep track of spins and linear motions at the same
time.**

To add to the complexity, most interactions we will be looking at aren't photon-photon collisions. We will be looking at matter fields, so we have to look at how photons interact with matter. As we have seen with the Earth, they are recycled by matter. But they aren't just recycled at the macro-scale, as with a large body like the Earth. They are—at the same time—recycled by protons and neutrons, and thereby atoms. And they also move through matter on two schemes. They move through protons on the pole-to-equator scheme; and they move through neutrons on the pole-to-pole scheme. Since atoms contain both, photons move through the nucleus on both schemes. If the nucleus has a strong carousel level, the main scheme is pole-to-equator. If the nucleus has a weak or non-existent carousel level, the charge also moves pole-to-pole. So this is another factor you have to be aware of. As we saw in his papers on Rayleigh scattering, depending on the elements involved, your spin expectations can be flipped. Nitrogen or Potassium may give you a different field than Tin or Silver, say. That is where we get into conductors versus insulators, but we won't have to include that in gravity. The only way we include it is as above, where the Earth is recycling on both schemes. Pole-to-pole, the Earth is acting as a gigantic conductor. Pole-to-equator, it is acting as a gigantic insulator.

Since MM made an analogy to atomic binding in the previous paper, some have thought MM meant gravity is a straight analog of the strong force. That isn't what he intended. Although there are similarities, they aren't the same. The nucleus isn't just a little Earth, so while it is good to see the similarities in the mechancial fields, you have to be aware of the differences as well. As MM has shown in previous papers, protons and neutrons don't repel one another in the nucleus, so you don't need a force to counteract that. Charge repulsion is caused by photon bombardment upon matter, and although you get that between protons outside the nucleus—where they aren't recycling charge in defined streams— inside the nucleus you don't. There, the photons are kept on proper paths, and they don't keep the particles apart. So in the first instance, the nucleons are bound simply because there is no force to unbind them. Also, they are bound because stars or galactic cores previously bound them with pressure and heat. But there is more to it than that, of course, since they are bound in several other ways. Yes, they are bound by charge pressure from outside, which is a pure sort of push gravity. But more importantly, they are bound by their own charge recycling. You will say that the photons are moving as much out as they are in, which is true. But you are missing the fact that the recycling is always moving in both directions. The nucleus isn't just recycling pole-to-equator, on an in-out scheme with a halfturn. It is recycling from both poles, with charge and anticharge meeting and crossing. As charge and anticharge meet along the pole, they not only spin eachother up, creating current and magnetism, they also create a bond. How? Again, by pressure differences, or field potentials. The same pressure differences that cause the vortices cause the bind, you see. The spin of the proton and nucleus creates a semi-spherical field with polar angular momentum weaknesses. The force in at the poles creates the vortex, and the same force creates the “gravity” or “strong force”. And, as you can see, we can use the same mechanism to create more gravity at the poles of the Earth, despite the fact that the field there is opposite in other ways to the field at the equator.

You will say that in that case, the nucleus would dissolve along the equator. The nucleons on the carousel level should be flung out into space. Yes, we would expect a binding weakness at the equator, one that we cannot make up with straight charge pressure. So the nucleus must have a similar effect at the equator as we will see on the Earth, with opposing photon fields creating another sort of bind. In other words, the charge pressure at the nuclear equator is vastly increased by the spin mechanics at the boundary. The incoming photons of the ambient field are spun-up by the exiting photons of the channeled field, giving them more energy. So when they impact a nucleon, they have more force than they would have, causing a net force in.

You will say that, in that case, when the photons moving along the nuclear pole meet and spin one another up, creating current and magnetism, they should also be energized. In which case they should create a force out. True, except that to create a force out, they have to collide with a nucleon. . . which they do not. Those photons move on down the pole and exit, without hitting a nucleon. That is because they are being channeled. But the ambient field photons coming in at the equator are not being channeled, are they? No, so they are free to collide with a nucleon there, creating a force in. These problems are complex, but with spin mechanics an answer is always there if you dig deep enough. We have many degrees of freedom that the old theories missed, and all of them are mechanical.

So, does the Earth's gravity work just like that of the nucleus? Roughly, but as MM said the analogy is loose. We can't just scale up and quit. The Earth doesn't just have two main channels and a limited number of nucleons. Photons are channeled to all places on the surface of a very large sphere, and suffer a huge number of collisions along the way. So we are summing up and averaging in ways far beyond what we had to do with the nucleus. This is the main thing that equalizes the pole to equator variations.

The field is far more complex on the Earth, and so the “gravity field” here isn't strictly the same as the “gravity field” of the nucleus. MM has run numbers in this section GRAVITY at the QUANTUM LEVEL to find the “gravity field of the proton” and such things, but that was just a scaling down of the math to show how the equations were working.

As a matter of field mechanics, gravity is no longer a “universal force”. Neither is charge. Although charge is, in one sense, a universal force, it doesn't work the same at all levels. It has different math and mechanics depending on the scale and the specific interaction, so tagging it “universal” can sometimes be counterproductive.
You will see what is meant when we answer the question, “But are you bound to the Earth like the
nuclear pole or the nuclear equator?” Because the answer is, “neither”. Unless you are standing right
at one of the two magnetic poles, you won't be feeling the vortex pull. And since you aren't channeling
charge as simply as a proton, we can't treat you as standing at the nuclear equator. Charge isn't moving
through you as purely as through a single proton on the carousel level. So you aren't bound by either
mechanism, strictly. Notice that we have a complexity here we didn't have at the quantum level: **we
have to explain why you are hit by charge coming down but not by charge coming up**. At the
nuclear equator, we explained that by the fact that charge coming out of the nucleus is channeled, but
incoming charge at the equator is not channeled. The nucleus channels in at the poles, but not at the
equator. But since you aren't a spinning sphere, that doesn't work, does it?

Well, it kind of does, if you look at it in the right way. Because you are not a big spinning sphere with polar vortices, you can't channel up and down like that. Your body has to align to one field or another, and can't align to both at the same time. Since the charge field coming up out of the Earth is stronger, you align to that one and channel that one. Because you are (mostly) channeling it, its photons are mostly not propelling you up. They are energizing you with their spins, via current and magnetism, but they are mostly moving on through you, as a matter of linear motion or impacts between photons and atoms. But when we look at the charge or photon field moving down, the opposite is the case. You are already channeling up, so you can't also channel down. So the photons coming down from above don't channel, they impact.

And, as with the nuclear equator, the photons moving up spin up the photons moving down, raising their energy. So when they hit you they have more force.

You will say the photons moving up also have more force, so they should drive you up. But that is only if they are not channeled, so we must assume they mostly are channeled. And since there are more photons moving up, the photons moving down will be spun up more. All the photons moving down will be spun up, while only some of the photons moving up will be.

You will say, “By that mechanism, you should weigh more lying down than standing up, since you then have more surface area above for impacts”. Except that you also have more surface area below, for more impacts from below. Notice MM said above that you were “mostly” channeling the rising field. Any channeling you are doing is of the rising charge field, but you can't be channeling it all because your atoms just aren't that efficient. The total force on you is still always a field differential, with forces going both ways. Therefore—in most cases—gains from above by spreading you out horizontally will be offset by losses from below. MM sais in most cases, because in some cases spreading a body horizontally will change its effective weight. But, of course, that change won't be a rise in weight, it will be a loss of weight, and a possible rise in the atmosphere (as with gasses).

As MM dug more deeply into this charge as gravity solution, MM continued to tweak it to fit the Lift on a Wing paper. MM mentioned one possible tweak previously in passing, and now MM has another. The slightly more detailed solution outlined above could be imported there if fast sideways motion interfered with your ability to channel upcoming charge. If the charge channels of objects on the surface of the Earth are set to “up”, then fast sideways motion would make channeling more inefficient. It would be like trying to fire a bullet through a quickly moving hoop. Charge that isn't channeled would impact atoms, driving them up.

What about the Atmospheric Pressure paper? Keeping that in mind as MM proceeds, because there is a beautiful match in the math, where effective weight down matched charge up. If charge up is being channeled, what is causing the force up? Well, that one can be saved in the same way. Unlike you, the atmosphere is made up of spinning spheres. While you as a whole can't channel both up and down, they can. So the force up would be the fraction of uprising charge that couldn't be channeled by atmospheric molecules.

MM knows that some readers will be asking why MM would ruin a perfectly good set of papers by putting them all into question again. Why not leave well enough alone? Well, to solve the gravity problem I would do anything. MM has always admitted that his theories weren't “final” theories. They were moves in the right direction, that is all. It may be that they all needed to be tweaked in this way. Or not. Regardless, it is nice that we have the freedom to think out loud like this, isn't it? Or, at least those of us not in mainstream physics have that freedom.

Some will say, “However MM solves this binding at the surface of planets, but they still don't understand how
this new theory fits into his old equations. Take MM's paper on the Moon, where he showed gravity
was a function of radius alone, with no tie to density. You have used that idea in lots of papers to great
effect. So it must be true in the math. How does it work now in this new mechanics?” Well, it works
the same way it ever did and not changing any of that math, and that won't be part of the rewrite.
The only question has been, how do we assign certain mechanical effects in the field to that math?
What MM has, heretofore, called **solo gravity** will continue to be assigned to that part of the math that
varies as the radius, because it is dependent on size alone. It is determined by the surface area that
charge has to move through as it escapes the body, so we can scale up from the quantum arena without
consulting densities. But since we are dealing with unified field equations, that isn't enough to solve
most problems. To calculate forces and motions, we have to include charge densities, and that is the
part of the equations MM has given to charge proper. That is the part of the equations MM assigns to density.

So, given what we have discovered here, strictly there is no such thing as solo gravity. Gravity is itself a unified field effect of compound or complex charge fields, so it can't really be tagged the way it was tagged before. “Solo gravity” is now just that part of the unified field equations that doesn't rely on charge density, so it is up for a rename. Think of how MM rewrote the Lagrangian for example. Previously, they had assigned one term to kinetic energy and one term to potential. MM proved those assignments were wrong. The equation was (mostly) right, but the term assignments were wrong. The terms couldn't be split that way. The “kinetic energy” term was just a field correction to the other term, and had nothing to do with kinetic energy. It fooled everyone because it looked like a kinetic energy term in its form. Well, in a way MM is doing the same thing again here with his own equations. MM is keeping the math, but re-assigning the terms. Remember how MM split the mass variable in Newton's equation, writing mass as density times volume (or radius). M = DV. MM then assigned the volume term to gravity and the density term to charge. Well, it looks like this was wrong. They both now look like charge terms. One term is correcting the other. Or, one term is scaling the other.

“But is G still a scaler between gravity and charge, then?” you will ask. No, because it never really was. It is still a scaler between those two parts of the equation, so it is more a scaler between nucleon and photon. It has always been that sort of scaler in his math and theory, from the beginning, and MM says it that way over and over. It scales the photon field to the matter field, allowing us to directly import photon field math into matter field math. Specifically, it allows us to put known velocities and accelerations into the same equations. As MM has proved, velocities and accelerations don't automatically scale, since the accelerations rely on curves in the math, while velocities don't. Velocities automatically scale only with accelerations they directly create. But the accelerations of other bodies— larger or smaller—don't automatically scale. So any time you are dealing with field accelerations, you need scalers like G.

What about orbits? Do we have to make changes there as well? Yes, though the math won't change, some of the assignments will change. If we keep gravity as a concept, it will apply only to the unified field binding effect caused by overlapping and interpenetrating charge fields. There is no longer any solo gravity there, either. Mechanically, the centripetal vector isn't caused by mysterious action-at-adistance or by magically curved fields, it is caused by real charge motions and spin mechanics. In other words, planets inhabit orbits where their incoming and outgoing charge fields balance. They are pushed out by the Sun, and pushed back in by returning charge from outside planets and the galactic core. They are trapped by a complex Solar vortex. Even their sideways motion is explained by the Solar vortex, and not by “innate motion”. There is no innate motion. All motions—in, out, and sideways—are caused by the charge field. But the charge field—although all of a piece—is a veritable honeycomb of influences, from the galaxy, Sun, planets, and moons. These are the only perturbations in the field. Perturbations are never caused by “remaining inequalities” or nonsense like that. Just as in Relativity, math cannot be the cause of motions. All motions are caused by the influence of other bodies.

Next: or Return to main page