What is the temperature in “space”? It’s very low, but not zero because of the Charge Field [spinning photons]
Thu 4:47 pm +00:00, 31 Jul 2025 3We are reminded of this again when we ask how molecular motion causes heat. They have no answer
for that, though when Tyson told you heat is a function of molecular motion, you probably just
accepted it and moved on. It has been dogma for so long everyone forgot to ask how it makes sense.
What causes that one proton per cubic meter to speed up or slow down, and why does it matter how
fast it is going, especially if it never collides with anything. In fact, that’s why I talked about protons
colliding to cause heat, because at least in that case you have a mechanism: You have energy transfers. But if the particles don’t collide, it shouldn’t matter how fast they are going. So you should require a minimum density of particles, one that provided collisions.
The mainstream skips all that, for what I have shown are obvious reasons: that isn’t how heat is caused to start with. They have it upside down, as usual. It isn’t molecular motion that is the cause of heat or temperature, it is heat that causes molecular motion. Molecular motion isn’t a first cause, it is a result.
A result of what? Charge. Heat and temperature are a function of and result of charge. Everything is
pushed around by photons. Charge drives everything, so the mainstream is missing the first cause and the fundamental field. And yes, charge can exist where very little or no matter is present. There are no charge vacuums. The entire universe is awash with charge. Which is another reason Tyson’s claims
are so absurd. There is photon motion everywhere, so there is temperature everywhere, even in the
deepest spaces between galaxies.
Full text, as below, and links here: https://milesmathis.com/spacetemp.pdf
NASA is Actively Hiding
the Temperature of Near Space
by Miles Mathis
July 29, 2025
I finally realized this when I came across this Youtube video of Neil Degrasse Tyson trying to convince
us space has no temperature. Doing a general search found the same thing everywhere: space allegedly
has no temperature because temperature is a function of molecular motion and space is empty of
molecules.
Two major problems with that right off the top: 1) the CMB or Cosmic Microwave Background is
2.7K, which is not zero. That is microwave, not molecular, so apparently they can measure
temperature without molecules. 2) That is the universal average temperature of space, which is very
much lower than the temperature inside galaxies. It includes the vast spaces between galaxies, so the
average temperature inside galaxies must be much higher.
The temperature inside Solar Systems is much higher still, since the stars will be warming the spaces
around them, not only with molecular emissions like hydrogen and helium, and atomic emissions like
electrons and neutrons, but with stupendous emissions of charge in the form of light. Photons.
Measuring the actual temperature of near space, like between here and the Moon, may be difficult
because it is mostly photonic, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or is near zero. It is beyond belief
that NASA doesn’t know how to measure photonic heat, and as I just showed you, apparently they do
or they wouldn’t be able to tell you a very precise value for the CMB.
In fact, to measure the CMB they obviously would have to mask local heat levels. If they are masking
that heat, they have to know what it is and what temperature it represents.
So why are they once again lying to our faces in such a bald-faced manner, expecting us to believe
local space has no temperature or a temperature near absolute zero? I suggest it is to hide the charge
field from you. Even before I came along, all their theories depended on a gravity-only field, with all
their math being tied to Newton’s gravity equations, with Einstein’s later additions. If they admit to a
massive charge field around the Sun, one that neither Newton nor Einstein included in their field
equations, the entire mainstream cosmology crumbles into dust. And once I came along, not only
proving we have a dual field, with charge the major player, but also providing the Unified Field
Equations proving it, they had to hide twice as much. If they admit near space not only has a
temperature, but a fairly high one, they have to admit I was right about everything. Not only does
mainstream physics hit the wall at 80mph, they find themselves replaced by their worst enemy, an
enemy they made with their own actions.
And that is precisely what has happened. For more on the CMB, see this old paper from 2010. Also this paper from 2013 on the Planck Probe.
About four hours later: I kept working on this after pressing publish. Mainly in my head on my daily
bike ride. 2.7K sounds like a very low average temperature of space, but it is actually astonishingly
high, even if correct. Given current theory, you would expect a CMB much closer to zero. This is
probably why they immediately began assigning it to Big Bang residue instead of an actual background
temperature of the universe. The universe is comprised of mainly one thing, according to the
mainstream: galaxies in empty space. But there is much more empty space than galaxies. The universe
should be far too diffuse to support a background temperature of 2.7K, especially if the universe is
unbounded. Meaning, there is nothing to prevent heat from escaping the universe, so a large
percentage should just leak out. That is especially true if, as they tell us, light isn’t affected by gravity.
Any heat carried by light or charge should be unbound by gravity and leak from the universe freely.
Despite what they tell us, our knowledge of deep space is still very poor*, so let us look at the very
closest galaxies to estimate a temperature. The nearest galaxy, Andromeda, is about 2.5 million ly
away, meaning it takes light 2.5 million years to travel the gap between here and there. The Andromeda
in the sky you see is the galaxy as it existed 2.5 million years ago. Light travels 300,000 km/s or 670
million miles/hour, which is about 1.5 to the 19 miles between Andromeda and the Milky Way. Or
15,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles. That’s a lot of dead space in between galaxies. You will say the
galaxies are very large as well. But they are only about 150,000 ly across, so you could fit 17 galaxies
between us. So already we are down to less than .02% of the near universe being inhabited by galaxies,
and we are in a warm spot, with more galaxies. But galaxies are very diffuse themselves, as you see by
looking out at the stars. All those stars are in our own galaxy, but the nearest one except for the Sun is
Promixa Centauri, more than 4 ly away. We get no heat from it and almost no light.
But to cut to the chase, we can use the mainstream’s own numbers for this. The density of the universe
is said to be around 10-26 kg/m3, which is roughly one proton in a cubic meter. Since Neil Degrasse
Tyson just told us on Youtube that heat is a measurement of matter bumping, it is not clear how one
proton per cubic meter could cause a temperature of 2.7K, no matter how fast it is moving. Since they
think a proton has a radius of about 10-15 m, the math doesn’t really add up. The odds of two such
protons ever colliding are about zero. Plus, since most heat would be tied up in galactic cores and stars,
a huge percentage of the universe would have zero heat. That’s why they tell you it does, with no
evidence it does. The CMB is perfect evidence it doesn’t.
And again, that is why they have to lie and tell you near space either has no temperature or a
temperature of zero, despite the fact that they know it is much much higher than 2.7K. Once they
admit near space is quite warm, they will have to field the question of how that temperature is
mediated, and that is the last thing they want to do, since it can only be mediated by a charge field
recycled through all matter, just as I have been showing you for years. The charge field not only exists
and is real, composed of real particles, it’s presence is quite strong, affecting all measurements. In fact,
it is the primary field of the universe, driving all things.
We are reminded of this again when we ask how molecular motion causes heat. They have no answer
for that, though when Tyson told you heat is a function of molecular motion, you probably just
accepted it and moved on. It has been dogma for so long everyone forgot to ask how it makes sense.
What causes that one proton per cubic meter to speed up or slow down, and why does it matter how
fast it is going, especially if it never collides with anything. In fact, that’s why I talked about protons
colliding to cause heat, because at least in that case you have a mechanism: You have energy transfers.
But if the particles don’t collide, it shouldn’t matter how fast they are going. So you should require a
minimum density of particles, one that provided collisions.
The mainstream skips all that, for what I have shown are obvious reasons: that isn’t how heat is caused
to start with. They have it upside down, as usual. It isn’t molecular motion that is the cause of heat or
temperature, it is heat that causes molecular motion. Molecular motion isn’t a first cause, it is a result.
A result of what? Charge. Heat and temperature are a function of and result of charge. Everything is
pushed around by photons. Charge drives everything, so the mainstream is missing the first cause and
the fundamental field. And yes, charge can exist where very little or no matter is present. There are no
charge vacuums. The entire universe is awash with charge. Which is another reason Tyson’s claims
are so absurd. There is photon motion everywhere, so there is temperature everywhere, even in the
deepest spaces between galaxies.
*As they are admitting with the latest Webb telescope news, which isn’t matching any of their expectations or
theories
ps the above makes me think of that lunar lander made of tinfoil back in the 1960’s. With Apollo 13 we were told that it was the vehicle that they travelled back through space in, from the moon to low Earth orbit. They must have been very cold in there hey? In fact they would have been blocks of ice by the time that they got back here wouldn’t they? Yet Tom Hanks and his mates somehow made it home. It was a miracle! Or maybe just Hollywood? You decide
Firstly, I am no way even in the same universe when it comes to intelligence as the author of the above article, but I really do struggle with the main stream science figures when it comes to explaning our suns properties.
The suns core is 15,000,000 deg C and by the time those super heated molecules reach the suns surface, less than 900,000 miles, the temperature is down to a relatively cool 5,000 deg C, that is 0.03333% or 3,000 times lower than its original temperature at the suns core. What process is involved for the temperature to drop so much, right next to this super heated core, does it go through a refigerator?
On leaving the suns surface these molecules then travel through the exceptionally vast coldness and distance of space where temperatures are reputed to go down to -270 deg C, for 93,000,000 miles, before reaching our atmosphere. More specifically, the Thermosphere where temperatures of 2,000 deg C are recorded at altitudes of between 70 and 140 miles above Earths surface. The last 140 mile journey of light to earth sees the temperature drop down to an average worldwide daytime mark of about 20 deg C.
As I said, I don’t pretend to fully understand the mechanics of it all, but those figures certainly make no sense to me. After a 93,000,000 mile journey through that extreme cold/distance of space and the molecules are still at 2,000 deg C when they hit our outer atmosphere.
I just cooked chicken in the oven at 100 deg C and I had to use oven gloves to remove the baking tray, but within 60 secs the tray has already cooled down enough to pick it up with bare hands. Another example of how quickly heat disapates very quickly, imagine how close you can stand to a burning bonfire, on average they burn at 1,000 deg C. The heat disapates quickly enough to be able to stand within a few feet.
I am struggling with the concept of the science behind the the suns particles being at 15,000,000 deg C at the centre, then still in relatively close proximity leaving the suns surface at 5,000 deg C and only falling down to 2,000 deg C after a 93,000,000 mile journey in extremely frigid conditions, then lose a far greater % of heat (it loses 99% of its heat) in the last 140 miles , down to an average 20 deg C on Earth.
Maybe it is possible, but my brain has trouble comprehending those figures just using logic.
Without getting into the details of your numbers Kneepad then, you need to bear in mind that the mainstream completely omits any impact of charge in our universe, as the above article demonstrates. Charge is spinning photons, not particles. And the Sun is a charge engine as much as a nuclear reactor, it takes charge from the cosmic and galactic background and focuses it onto the Earth, and presumably the other planets too. The gas giants, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus do the same thing, only on a smaller scale. So the Earth gets it’s charge from all 5, not just the sun. Charge can excite matter as he says above. And this generates heat locally, again as he says above. So heat is not just dependent on radiation , charge is a big factor too
Take the links on the original article above for more detail. There is loads more at his science site too
Mathis has proved all this by detailed examination of solar cycles over a decade or so. Even including PREDICTIONS which are far more accurate than the mainstream, as he has shown over and over. His theory blows mainstream science out of the water in toto, their model has a massive component missing, ie charge, LIGHT in other words. Which is why they will NEVER admit what he has proven. Their whole money spinning edifice collapses if they do
It’s so funny, they are hung by their own petard and are bound to fail eventually, just a matter of time
I am not doubting what Mathis is saying, I’m sure he knows what he is doing and as you say, his theory blows mainstream out of the water. All I was trying to do was show how pathetic the mainstream science sounds when it is broken down to its basics. It really makes very little or no sense if you sit down and just think about it.
When I said yesterday, elsewhere, that I do not accept any main stream science as fact, I didn’t mean it to come across as everything is totally wrong. I agree there are truths in science, but there is also a lot of nonesense too. I just don’t take it and accept it unquestioningly at face value as I may have done in my earlier years. It’s great we have people like Mathis, who appears to be trying to put things right, as I am sure the world would be a far better place with some more truth in place of the satanic lies we have been getting.