The Charge Field explained for non scientists
Sun 11:23 am +00:00, 1 Dec 2024The IGNOBEL PRIZE
by Miles Mathis
First published November 30, 2024
Source: https://mileswmathis.com/ignobel.pdf
Everything is light, photons….
“This is another paper that was dropped into my lap by the Muse of Science Urania. She made sure I
was in the car for my biweekly trip to the market at just the right time to hear the presentation of the
Ignobel Prizes on NPR. These have flown under my radar for 33 years, my assumption being they
were more science propaganda. That assumption was correct, as you will not be surprised to hear, but
this year I have more to say than that.
But first a bit of history. The fake prizes are often given from Harvard, but this year they were given
from a ceremony at MIT. Although there are no cash prizes, the event is sponsored by the Harvard
Computer Society, the Harvard–Radcliffe Science Fiction Association and the Harvard–Radcliffe
Society of Physics Students. Not a good sign. The prizes were created by Marc Abrahams, above, who
comes out of the math department at Harvard. Although we are told the prizes are meant to satirize
silly research, I have always thought the Ignobel was related somehow to CSICOP, which pretends to
investigate the paranormal but which is really a front for blackwashing any Against-the-Mainstream
ideas. In other words, science propaganda, gatekeeping, and censorship via intimidation, shaming, and
often slander and libel, to protect the nest egg of the status quo. I have proved that many times* on
both my science site and art site.
That gatekeeping has failed only once, when Andre Geim won the 2000 Ignobel for levitating frogs
with magnetism, but then won the Nobel ten years later for his work on the magnetic properties of
graphene. Geim is an Ashkenazi Jew whose mother is a Bayer, so he was able to walk around his
blockade by moving from Russia and the Netherlands to England. Once he arrived at University of
Manchester and presented his genealogy certificates, his luck magically changed.
In listening to this broadcast today, my first thought was “this isn’t funny”. Even if I didn’t know it was
propaganda, I still would think it isn’t funny, since Abrahams is the emcee and he isn’t funny. He has
no timing and the jokes all fall flat. The audience is obviously hired or cued to laugh or applaud, since
otherwise no one would. The female co-emcee (Kate Silverman Wilson) is also not funny, coming off
like your grandmother trying to be funny—but she is also Jewish so it doesn’t matter I guess. She has
the usual bye. Anyway, the whole thing is a pathetic bomb even before they get to the awards. But I
am glad I sat through that, because otherwise I wouldn’t be here. This spun out into something far
more interesting when the first award was announced. That was the prize for anatomy, given to
scientists who proved human head hair whorls moved clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere and
counter-clockwise in the Northern. The audience has a hearty laugh at this as trivial or coincidental,
but my readers know it is more proof of the charge field. As such, it is actually far more important than
the Nobel Prizes given this year in science. See my 2011 paper on the Coriolis Effect for more on that.
So why are Harvard and MIT blackwashing this discovery as trivial or comical? My readers know that
as well: as with my prediction of the Solar Cycle, they need to bury or slander any evidence pointing to
me in any way.
This circles us back to Andre Geim and his levitating of frogs, since what do you think the frog was
levitating on? CHARGE. You will say no, it was a magnetic field, but what is a magnetic field? Ions,
you will say. Yes, but what is holding up the ions? Ions don’t normally levitate frogs, so why are these
ions in the lower atmosphere levitating these frogs? Geim still can’t tell you, even after winning the
Nobel, but I can, even after not. The magnetic field is spinning up and focusing the charge field of the
Earth, which was already moving up. It is levitating you a bit right now, making you weigh less than
you would otherwise. But the right magnetic field can focus and spin-up that charge field, making it
spin-up and focus the ions, which then levitate the frog. So the frog is mainly being driven up by a hail
of spinning photons.
Amazingly, the very next prize tells us the same thing. This is the prize for botany, which went to
scientists who proved plants could mimic the leaf shapes of nearby plants, even if those plants were
plastic. No effort has gone to proving they were wrong; they are only lampooned for suggesting the
plant must be able to see the plant next to it. But of course we know it does, and how it does: the
charge field again. No, the plant doesn’t have eyes, but it can monitor its surroundings by monitoring
the charge field moving from the plastic plant to the real one. It is already known plants do this, since
they respond to stimuli, and not just pressure as with a Venus flytrap. Plants know where the Sun is,
following it during the day. They do that by monitoring incoming light, of course, and charge is light.
So the plants do see, in a way. They monitor incoming light and respond to it, so I am not clear why
Abrahams or the audience is laughing at this outcome. I can only assume they are trying to keep you
from realizing the charge field is real, and that it is the material field that explains almost everything.
But we still aren’t finished. A third prize, that for physics, is given to a researcher who showed that a
dead fish can swim almost as well as a living one. He pulled a dead fish through a stream, showing
that the dead fish moved through the water very much like the live one, including the motions of the
tail and fins. As he put it, “the water swims the fish”. It is less obvious how this confirms the charge
field, but it does, because the motion of the fish goes beyond any fluid dynamics. This is because you
would expect the fish to remain streamlined in death, since of course its shape doesn’t change. But you
wouldn’t expect to find its tail moving side to side in death. It must mean that the charge in the water
continues to enter the fish, living or not, and continues to interact with it in the usual ways. As this
researcher is suggesting, this implies the motion of the fish in life isn’t determined completely by
impulses from its brain or nervous system to its muscles, but is determined in part by impulses from its
surroundings. The water REALLY IS swimming the fish, since information from the water is coming
into the fish from outside, and not through the eyes and brain or even through touch. It is entering the
muscles directly via charge penetration. As you now see, that is far more fascinating and important as
a matter of our understanding of life than the work sold to you in mainstream physics via the Nobel
Prize, on computers or black holes or the first seconds of the universe.
A fourth prize is also interesting, though it doesn’t have as much to do with charge. These medical
researchers found that the placebo effect was increased when it was accompanied by induced pain.
Patients were more likely to respond favorably when feeling minor pain, obviously because it it acted
as confirmation something was happening. It confirmed to them the drug was working, inducing their
body to make it work. This is not a trivial finding, but it gave the mainstream people funding the
Ignobel another opportunity to ridicule the placebo effect, since the last thing they want is people
healing themselves, for whatever reason or by whatever mechanism. The placebo effect, though real,
isn’t profitable.
And a fifth prize also confirms my thesis, since the prize for chemistry went to researchers using
chromatography to separate drunk worms from sober ones. Sounds a bit silly, I admit, but given the
context we can see the point of the Ignobel prize must have been to blackwash chromatography. Why
would they want to do that? I assume because chromatography links us to my important paper on
plants using charge to move substances in the xylem and phloem. Chromatography is based on the fact
that different molecules move through a capillary tube (like a phloem tube) at different rates, allowing
them to be separated in a substance. And WHY do they move at different rates? Because they respond
to the charge field in the solvent in different amounts, due to their charge profiles (their ability to
recycle and channel charge).
Even the segments between prizes are propaganda, as we see with the “24/7 lectures”. One of them is
on bad art. Why would this segment be on art, when there is no Nobel Prize or Ignobel Prize for art?
Simply to continue to promote bad art, I guess, which also seems aimed at me, you have to admit. The
lecture was by Louise Sacco, head of the Museum of Bad Art MOBA. And no, that is not a joke
museum existing only on paper:
That’s the Museum of Bad Art in Boston, in the old Dorchester Brewery, and you can tell what it is
about by the windows and flags. Black Lives Matter and gay promotion. Looks like yet another CIA
front to me, which means its promotion in the Ignobel Prize blows the cover of that as well.
So as usual everything is inside-out and upside-down. What these people sell to you as important isn’t,
and what they ridicule as trivial or coincidental is fundamental and groundbreaking.
*See p. 7 at that link”
