Body
Mick! Obviously you have not read the Super Light article I have sent
to the group numerous times or you would not ask that question. Please
go back and read Super Light by Dr. John Mileweski and you will realize
that the neutral spike phenomenon is of ultra high frequency above the
Terra-hertz and more like cosmic ray in frequency therefore can only be
describe as an off the charts RF energy as Hector as been trying to tell
you. Please put on your thinking cap!
Again!!!!!
*WHAT IS SUPERLIGHT ?*
*By:Dr. John Mileweski***
*SuperLight is magnetic light; it is **magneto–electric radiation**. *
*Regular light is electric light or **electro–magnetic radiation**.
There is parity or symmetry the Universe, everything has an equal and
opposite mirror–image counterpart, the Ying and the Yang, right and
left, matter and anti matter, the electron and the positron. Why not
light? *
*Both science and metaphysics have honored this parity law in all things
except light. They are wrong. ** There is parity in light as well ! *
*I will now explain and give you more detail. *
*SuperLight is the unseen force in nature that has been ignored by
science but real to the mystics and metaphysicians for thousands of
years. It has been given different names by different cultures for
thousands of years. *
*A Nuous, Chi, Biomagnetic Energy, Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy,
Tesler's Free Earth Energy, Animal Magnetism, Space Energy, Vacuum
Energy, and Zero Point Energy, etc. Those who have subtle perception
know it is real. *
*SuperLight was identified scientifically over 100 years ago when James
Clerk Maxwell <http://www.hbci.com/%7Ewenonah/new/report.htm> solved his
famous wave equation. This occurred shortly after radio was invented by
Nikola Tesla <http://www.hbci.com/%7Ewenonah/new/tesla.htm>, and
theoretical physicists tried to find a mathematical model to explain
radio waves. When using positive numbers in Maxwell's Equations this
explains radio waves and also all forms of electro–magnetic radiation
such as light, radio, TV, microwaves, x–rays, etc. What his equation
also explains 100 years ago was SuperLight but because it was the
solution that comes from the use of negative numbers, **"this second
solution"**was ignored for over 100 years. Remember when you were taught
algebra and were told to ignore imaginary numbers (e.g. The square root
of –1) because they have no meaning in this world. Well, times have
changed and now we have a very valid second solution to Maxwell's
equation and it is SuperLight. *
*In the mid 70's a scientist, Dr. William Tiller, at Stanford University
took another look at Maxwell's equation and asked; "What does this
second solution explain when interpreted in our world."_{1} *
*To understand this second solution, we must first review what the first
or positive solution explains. The first solution is as follows: Radio
waves leave the antenna and radiate out into space from a point source
(the antenna) equally in all directions into space toward infinity
traveling at the speed of light. The wave is composed of a large
electrical component and a small magnetic component 90 degrees to the
electrical component. Thus named, electro–magnetic radiation. *
*The second solution describes a particle wave of just the opposite
structure. It explains that **from infinity traveling toward the point
source from all directions radiates SuperLight**. This new radiation is
composed of a large magnetic component and a small electrical component,
thus the name, magneto–electric radiation. When the equations are looked
at more closely, one finds that **"SuperLight" travels at the speed of
light squared !** 10^20 meters per second, or 10 billion times faster
than light <http://www.hbci.com/%7Ewenonah/new/gravity2.htm>. *
*It has a frequency 10 billion times higher, and has a corresponding,
shorter wavelength. It therefore has a higher energy density. *
*The question one asks immediately is, "if it is so powerful, how come
we do not feel it, or how come it is not detected scientifically?"
Well, the frequency is so high, its wave length so short, (4 x 10^–8
nano–meters, or 4 x 10^–17 meters), its velocity so fast, that it goes
through everything as though the substance was nearly completely
transparent (like glass). *
*We can say the higher frequency is completely penetrating like x–rays,
but even more so. More information, regarding the relative size, will be
given later. *
*WHERE DOES SUPERLIGHT COME FROM ?***
*It comes out of black holes !***
*First, I will describe how regular light is formed and then make the
analogy for SuperLight. *
*Regular electro–magnetic radiation or light is formed when electric
monopoles give off energy. The electron in orbit about our atoms is an
electric monopole — as it changes its' orbit it either gives off or
absorbs energy in the form of electro– magnetic radiation. Sunlight is
converted into electricity by this process in a solar cell. Just the
opposite occurs in optical diodes, which convert electricity into light. *
*So, electro magnetic radiation or visible light is produced when an
electron (an electric monopole) lowers its orbit and releases its energy
in the form of light. *
*Now, I believe a similar event occurs in the extremely dense and hot
matter found in black holes. It is theorized that black holes contain
magnetic monopoles and when these extremely dense, extremely small,
extremely energetic magnetic monopoles release energy by lowering their
orbit they radiate magneto–electric radiation, our SuperLight. So black
holes really are not so black. They are radiant beings of SuperLight. Of
course SuperLight escapes the strong gravitation forces of the black
holes because its velocity is the square of the velocity of light and it
therefore, can easily escape._{7} *
*The current scientific thinking is that in the center of every galaxy
in the universe is a black hole. There are billions and billions of
galaxies all around us, and they all are producing SuperLight. We are
literally bathed in a three-dimensional dynamic energy field, or an
"Ether" of SuperLight — a Dynamic Ether. *
On 9/20/2018 7:29 PM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
> Norm,
>
> Your neutral spike experiments, would you claim the neutral spike is
> positive in polarity?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mick
>
>