Questioning Science

The Mind (continued)

2008-07-19T10:05:00.000-07:00

Information about distance. If we don't know the distance, and we don't know how much light is being emitted, we might not be able to interpret the information about distance, but we will see that isn't important in determining how we see what we see.
Once we understand the fact, not concept, but fact, of expanding spheres of light, we have to understand how light travels. To do this, we have to know that light diminishes uniformly as it expands. This is a window into the nature of the frequency of light. For light to be diminishing, something empirical science doesn't like to discuss because it destroys the myth that its telescopes can see light from the end of the universe and the beginning of time, with light diminishing, it has to be traveling in streams that are expanding over the surface of the expanding sphere. Forget wavelength, think flows. Light is not only a series of frequencies, it is a series of frequencies that are connected to the series behind them so that as the frequencies expand, they retain frequency, but lose intensity.
This leads to the conclusion that light is a flow of frequencies that diminish over the surface of the expanding sphere each of the frequencies constitute. Thus, when the expanding spheres of light from the light bulb hanging in the center of the room hit the walls, they bounce off the walls, not as expanding spheres, but as flows of light. At each point a quantum of flow, and I use the word quantum to describe the amount of light the flow contains at that point determined by the distance to its source, bounces off the wall and begins to itself re-expand in a new expanding sphere of light. Why? Because light expands into the area available for it to expand.
As each flow that bounces off the wall re-expands, it has a new point of expansion, and a new measurement for the intensity, or strength of the flow. Thus, it provides information as to its source. This information is precise information, but like the light from the sun, the actual nature of the information is not known, cannot be known, unless we are controlling the intensity and distance, and more important in understanding how we see what we see, it doesn't have to be known. This is because the eye is not determining the information relative to a single flow of light, it is determining the information relative to millions of flows of light. All it needs to know is the relative difference between the flows to construct a picture of the distances the flows are producing.
While an individual flow of light contains information, it’s the relative distances of the millions of flow that our eyes use to build a replica of the dimensions of reality.
If we change our controlled room to a room with abundant windows and a lot of furniture, we can understand how knowing the relative differences in the information contained in each flow allows us to construct a picture of what we see. The sunlight is streaming in and lighting up the furniture. The furniture is solid, three-dimensional objects in reality. These solid objects are made up of edges, not just the back of a couch, but a back of a couch that stretches perhaps six feet, and therefore has thousands of edges making up its back. In short, there are millions of edges in the room the sunlight is bouncing off. As the sunlight streams into the room, it hits these edges at a different distance so that no single frequency flow hits more than one edge. This is because the edges are all different distances from the source of the light, the sun. It might only be a small distance, but the frequencies of light are very small, much smaller than the hard edges of reality we need for our eyes to define that realty.
As each of the flows bounce off a hard edge in the room, it begins to re-expand and thus the flows that each edge represents have the unique information embedded in it about its distance from wherever it enters the eye. At the same time, discreet flows from all the hard edges of reality are entering the eye. As the eye collects these flows, it can compare them on a relative basis and therefore has the information needed to reconstruct a picture of what it sees.
Thus, our eyes naturally deal with the physical dimensions of reality. How do those dimensions get from the eye to the mind?
(To be continued)

The Mind (continued)

2008-06-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

The objects in our existence have distinct shapes. Some are one dimensional, posters and walls, others are three dimensional, chairs and tables. All may have other shapes attached to them, the posters, words or pictures, the walls, decorations, the three-dimensional objects decorations of one type or another. If they occupy a windowless room, and we turn off the light, however, they all have one thing in common. They disappear from our vision. We can no longer see them. I realize this is obvious, but it is worth saying because it points out that we see what we see because of light. There is nothing inherent about objects in reality (with the few exceptions of objects which themselves produce light) that has anything to do with how we see what we see. If we want to find out how we see what we see, we have to look at light to understand, and the question, what is happening between the objects in reality and our eyes that allows us to obtain a picture of reality, can be refined by asking, what is it about light that allows us to see the dimensions of the objects in our reality.
Light is a very measurable quantity. If we hang a lone light bulb in the middle of a room ten feet wide by ten feet deep by ten feet high, we can make a specific statement about the light coming from the light bulb. Except where it is being prevented from expanding by the cord it's hanging from, the light is expanding away from the light bulb in all directions. This is what I call an expanding sphere of light, and it continually amazes me the difficulty people have, and when I say people, I refer to scientists, engineers and liberal arts diploma devotees, in understanding this. It is not a concept, it is a fact. Light expands away from its source in all directions. At any instant, a new sphere of light is being emitted by the light bulb.
This, we’ll see, when we look closely at the structure of light, is the building block of gravity. It’s an unimportant principle so long as science denies the physical existence of light, but that’s just one more display of scientific ignorance.
Expanding light results in a continuous series of expanding spheres our mechanical detectors are designed to represent as waves, but which are in actuality frequencies, with the hotter the light, the shorter the frequencies.
We can measure precisely how these expanding spheres act simply by knowing the formula for the area of a sphere. The area of a sphere is 4pr2, where the r2 is the square of the sphere's radius. Thus, with the other terms static for all of the expanding spheres, the square of the sphere's radius from its source determines the area of the surface of the expanding sphere and most important, the amount of light at any one point. This is why light expands inversely with the square of its distance from its source.
We now know the exact amount of light that exists at any point in our theoretical room because all we have to do is measure the distance of that point from the surface of the light bulb. If we hold an object five feet away from the bulb, the strength of the expanding sphere will be different than if we hold an object six feet away from the light. Because the expanding spheres are being emitted at any one instant, the light bouncing off the object is not the same light, but it is the same amount of light. When we move out to the six foot point, at each instance its different light, but the same amount of light at six feet, less than at five feet. How much less? Light diminishes uniformly over the expanding spheres, so it's easily determined how much less the light is. This is all mathematically computable if we know the amount of light being emitted from the bulb and the distance the object is from the bulb.
The sun is continually emitting expanding spheres of light, but we can only approximate the distance and we definitely can't compute the amount of light with any degree of accuracy, but that is not important in determining how we see what we see. In our experimental room, we can determine this, and we are only doing so to understand how light carries information.
What information?
(To be continued)

The Mind (continued)

2008-06-13T10:09:00.000-07:00

Let me emphasize this fact: the reality we live in is made up of physical points that are its dimensions. If we’re looking at a ruler, each point is marked, but there are billions, an uncountable number of points. These are the dimensions of reality and they exist outside the mind,
Before we can construct a picture of reality, those points, the dimensions of reality have to move from outside our minds (objective) to inside our minds (subjective). External reality is objective and real, and we are somehow constructed so that we can reproduce that external reality within our skulls. This fact leads to three questions empirical science has never bothered to address. The first question is, what is happening in physical reality between the objects that make up that reality and our eyes that allow our eyes to obtain the dimensions of physical reality? The second question is, how is that information transported up the optic nerve?
The third question is, how do we reconstruct the information in our skulls so that we have an accurate representation of objective external reality?
(To be continued)

The Mind

2008-06-09T09:42:00.000-07:00

Clearly, the purpose of evolution is the creation and development of life, but what’s the purpose of life?
The development and perfection of the mind. The mind is the tool we use to produce the technological advancements that in turn ensure the survivability of life. We take a picture of reality and hold it in mind, we then alter that picture until we have a picture of something we think will work in reality and then we attempt to create the new reality. Edison pictured reality without the light bulb, then he pictured the light bulb and then he tinkered with reality until the light bulb became a reality.
All this picturing and re-picturing meant one thing: a picture of reality was going from outside the skull to inside the skull. This is a marvelous fact, one that should have been explored with proposed answers for thousands of years. Science not only fails to explain obvious and incredible fact, how do the images that exist in external reality become the images that we can form in our minds, it fails to recognize it,
Anyone spending anytime in an eye doctor's examining room is familiar with the pictures of the eyeballs on the walls, and even the large plastic eyeballs that can be taken apart to show the various parts of the eye. But this is medical and has nothing to do with how we see what we see. Digging deeper, we find that the eye has millions of what are called photoreceptive neurons. Photon has a definition dealing with the eye, a unit of retinal illumination equal to the amount of light that reaches the retina through one square millimeter of pupil area from a surface having a brightness of one candela per square meter. More words. I don't know where the coined word photon, used to provide an explanation for Einstein's photoelectric effect. came from, but the photograph came first.
These photoreceptive neurons are found in the retina, an inside layer of the eyeball, and come in two flavors, rods and cones. Rods discern light and dark, shape and movement, and contain only one light sensitive pigment. Cones require more light than rods and also come in three flavors, with ones that contain pigments that respond to the different wavelengths or frequencies, red, green or blue. This is a deduction from the white light is made up of all colors fiction Newton created which makes all of nature conform to the human eye. (Frequencies increase until they get to the frequency involved with our vision. Then, by chance, the frequencies we see are all bundled together into a single frequency that then has to be broken down into color. This leads to the absurd notion that material absorbs all colors but the one we see and therefore the cones have to have pigments "sensitive" to the basic colors so they can be separated out and then recombined to form all colors. Seriously, does anyone think nature, which opts for the simplest solution, would create a system that required the eye to see a rainbow first by having each drop of water filter out all but one of the possible colors requiring our eye to then recombine them? Well, yes, everyone.
Knowing nothing about how we see what we see, science returns to the medical, which has the rods and cones sending light to a lens at the back of the eye with the lens connected to the optic nerve. What travels up the optic nerve? How does the mind convert whatever is traveling up the optic nerve into a picture of what is in reality, these questions are simply not valid scientific questions. Empirical science can only speculate on what carries outside pictures into the brain, but it does know what happens when whatever it is that gets to the brain, works: it lights up neurons in specific patterns that become linked for life and those lit up neurons become the picture of reality that we see in reality. So for empirical science, reality is out there, and it's in our heads, but there's no in-between. Our eyes are just one of our senses, and senses, by definition are s senses, so we don't need to make sense out of the obvious.
But the reality is, in the face of science's refusal to admit it as a result of its laziness and resulting ignorance, the dimensions of external reality are somehow transported through our optic nerves so that we can internally reconstruct those dimensions and produce a picture of reality.
(To be continued)

Life (continued)

2008-05-22T09:51:00.000-07:00

One of the prerequisites of moving in an environment is that the organism doing the moving has to have a picture of some sort of the environment the organism is moving through. Without a picture, the organism would bounce off obstacles, fall into crevices, or fall prey to unseen and unrecognized dangers. While there’s nothing about this fact in the scientific canon, it’s undeniable. Mobility requires a mechanism to store pictures of the environment.
Just storing pictures of the environment the organism has to move through would simply provide a display of pictures. These pictures have to work with some physical mechanisms to allow safe movement and here enters probably the most ingenious advancement in evolution. It is fairly easy to see how recall works. Animate matter encounters a reality for which it has a picture stored. The reality immediately recalls the stored picture. But so what? It now has two pictures. How does having two pictures of reality allow animate matter to move safely in the environment?
The animate matter lives in its recall. As it goes through the reality it is familiar with, reality agrees with recall and it can go about its business. However, if reality doesn’t agree with recall, the animate matter has to stop and see what it is about reality that’s changed.
We should stop and contemplate this evolutionary advancement because, as we will see in the next chapter, it is central to the mind’s operation. Because it deals with disagreement, science wouldn’t even suspect it. Science looks for agreements, or comparisons, not disagreements.
Yet here we have an evolutionary advancement based on disagreement. As long as reality agrees with the way reality was before, animate matter will be mobile, move through reality. Any change in reality brings animate matter to a halt until it can form a new picture of reality that will produce agreement when put into recall.
Mobility is a crucial stage in evolution, but it’s followed closely by the most important development in evolution, communication. As soon as animate matter evolved the ability to hold a picture in recall, it evolved the ability to communicate the pictures being formed to one another. This stage, communication, was followed by the next stage, the ability to manipulate reality, because pictures of reality could be manipulated to animate matter’s benefit.
Perhaps it would be better to simply call this stage sentience, but sentience doesn’t cover the evolutionary significance of each of the parts. To be mobile required the ability to form a picture of the environment that in turn required communication which then required some sort of mental activity, sentience. As we will see in the next chapter, sentience is the ability to continuously form a picture of recalled reality and then reflexively react when that picture changes, either to get out of danger or to get food.
As we have seen, each stage extended life’s survivability and we can therefore conclude that evolution has a purpose, and that purpose is the creation and preservation of life. The final stage of evolution, intelligence, reinforces this conclusion. Intelligence evolves when animate matter obtains the ability to hold a picture in recall regardless of reality. This means animate matter can alter the picture and therefore later reality. We can create pictures of ways to get off the planet, extending life not only beyond the planet, but potentially, as the planet grows old and dies, to the universe.
The purpose of the universe is the population of the universe with life. Solar systems form and produce the rotation that produces life. A cooling planet produces the evolution that evolves life to the point the life it created can break free and exist independently of the planet,
Life is the purpose of the universe!

Life (continued)

2008-05-13T09:31:00.000-07:00

The next significant evolutionary development, the ambulatory, occurred in the ponds and streams. This is so obvious, that even science seems to have it right. If evolution stopped with seeding, life on Earth would be dead-ended. A forest would grow here, seed itself somewhere else, then burn down. Life was preserved, but to what effect. Life has not extended its survivability.
Life has to extend its survivability.
This is the key purpose for any evolutionary advancement because without the extension of survivability, there might as well be no life. While the ambulatory stage of evolution took place in water, its most significant effect was on land. The significance of the ambulatory stage can be stated with reference to a deer. As the forest fire rages, consuming all stationary life in its path, the ambulatory deer can flee the fire to live another day.
Science would most certainly ask, how does this increase the survivability of life? The seeding stage has already taken care of preserving life. The deer is merely a more complex seeding system.
That’s because to science, evolution is purposeless. However, with the development of the ambulatory stage, life had entered a stage that allowed it to begin to learn how to survive. I’m shortcutting the millions of failed attempts that led from fins to legs, but in my case, I end up with life, because it has increased its longevity, has extended its range of survivability. With science and its fish crawling out of the swamp, we have the trial and error happenstance of a fish crawling out of a swamp. With science, it has no purpose. Under my view of evolution, we have a significant event because mobility extends survivability. The ambulatory stage not only increased survivability because it allows life, which up until that time could only stay in place while the fire consumed it, to flee danger.
(To be continued)

Life (continued)

2008-05-02T08:43:00.000-07:00

Evolution is life driven.
Let’s start with what we can call the stationary stage. Here telluric currents move back and forth, some through land, others through bubble caverns, still others through ponds. The algae, oil and lichen, to name a few of the billions of possible life forms that result, are totally dependent on the existing telluric currents. If the telluric currents stop, the life forms that came into existence and are dependent on the flows for their existence, cease to be. The atoms and molecules of atoms could also become unavailable, bringing the life forms to an end.
Life is the organization of atoms and molecules around electrical flows and during the stationary stage of evolution, the first stage, massive experimentation takes place. To what end is this experimentation directed? If the stationary stage of evolution continued, life would always be dependent on the existing electric flows. Flows stopped, life stopped. But the purpose of life, as we will clearly see, is not simply to exist, it’s to perpetuate itself and life that is dependent on in-place electric flows has no ability to perpetuate itself.
What would give life dependent on in-place flows the ability to perpetuate itself? The ability to seed and seeding is the second sage of evolution. Seeding allows life that’s in-place to cast itself to the wind. Thus, even if the electric flows stop and the in-place life ceases to exist, it will live on elsewhere.
We can start to see that the purpose of life is life’s perpetuation. Evolution is not directionless. It is not purposeless. From the first turn of the Earth, a physical process of the solar system that will produce life, life was on the horizon, and not just life, life that will fight to preserve itself, not species, but preserve life itself.
(To be continued)

Life (continued)

2008-04-21T08:48:00.000-07:00

Thus, the dinosaurs passed into history and the mammal debuted.
The mechanism of change has been assigned to a collision with an asteroid. What does an asteroid explain? Nothing! The dinosaurs, and a whole bunch of life, disappeared and science has no explanation. As a result, science extends its hands skyward and mummers the holy words, asteroids. To science, history is merely a series of random events held together with the notion that the fittest survive, which I guess means those most adaptable to their environment. But the dinosaurs had, if their numbers and types were any indication, adapted well to their environment. Why didn’t they just come back when the Earth stopped vibrating, and repopulated the Earth? Where did the mammals come from? If they were so adapted to their environment, why didn’t they make their appearance earlier? The answer is dinosaurs couldn’t survive in cooler temperatures and species didn’t have to regulate their temperature in warmer climates.
The defense of species evolution, in which one species, say a bird, morphs into another, say a dinosaur, has devolved in recent years, to the claim that there’s no other way to explain the progression of life on this planet. Science has another favorite statement, acquired characteristics are not inheritable. But acquired characteristics are clearly inheritable. Get on the bad side of a mutating strain where antibiotics are not keeping up with a strains' ability to survive the antibiotics effectiveness to understand this. Darwin’s finches are an example, not of species evolution, but rather characteristic evolution. Beak thickness in finches alters according to food source which depends on the weather which goes back and forth, leading Darwin, witnessing one of the cycles, to think the his finch had evolved from another.
Rather than engage in a religious argument, which species evolution is (its co-founder, Wallace, became a mystic), I’m going to move on to the evolution of life on Earth, which is not even suspected by our screed obsessed science. Evolution is not the progression of different entities, but rather the progression of categories. At the end, reviewing just what evolution has accomplished, indicates that there is indeed a purpose, a direction, to evolution.
(To be continued)

Life (continued)

2008-03-31T09:24:00.000-07:00

I’ll use everyone’s favorite, the dinosaur, to illustrate the outside forces that control evolution rather than, it came from a boiling cauldron and is thrashing around to win the survival lottery. Dinosaur bones are the best proof of gravity as a product of heat there is. The creatures, the way science visualizes them, can’t exist. They’re too big to walk, they couldn’t get enough food to survive, the list of impossibilities is endless. Science agrees that dinosaurs lived under more tropical conditions than now exist. Under its rules, however, gravity was the same as it is today. Thus, when the strength of dinosaur bones is evaluated, science assumes a pound of meat today equals a pound of meat at the time they lived. Thus, science piles on the meat until the poor creatures are too big to move. However, if a pound of meat today weighed three pounds in the day of the dinosaur, the dinosaurs become just what they were, sleek, albeit, large lizards. Why did they grow so large? The gravity was greater and therefore the size of the bones needed to move easily in the environment, had to be larger. Simple adaption to the conditions that existed that brought the dinosaurs into existence.
When I say “conditions that existed that brought the dinosaurs into existence,” that’s what life is, an amalgamation of independent systems of atoms and molecules of atoms that work together in one big system to allow an organism to successfully navigate specific environmental conditions. Individual systems, systems for instance that allow movement, or the acquisition of nourishment, the circulation of nutrients and the disposal of wastes are developed by trial and error and encoded in genes for future use. As the environment in which life progresses, which is to say, as it grows cooler and gravity lessons, some combinations of systems no longer work, while other, newer combinations thrive. Dinosaurs, living in a warmer climate and thus a higher gravity than today, needed massive bones to move but didn’t need any mechanism to regulate their body temperature. Science nowhere can provide an example of its picture of a dinosaur, an organism that evolved that could not move, but the actual dinosaur was sleek, suited to and thrived in its environment much like they a pictured in the movies.
That is, until the heat level of the environment fell below a level that could keep the nights as warm as the days. When that happened, with no way to regulate their body heat, the dinosaurs, unable to survive, began to die out. However, characteristic evolution, where evolved systems come together to satisfy new environmental conditions as opposed to the notion that one creature through a process of trial and error turns into another, had already put together another group of animate matter that satisfied the new conditions. These creatures, living in an environment that, because of the lesser gravity that accompanied the cooler weather, didn’t need huge bones, could regulate their body temperature, a circulatory system that captured and distributed body heat as needed.
(To be continued)

Life (continued)

2008-03-24T08:21:00.000-07:00

These examples of how the telluric currents organize atoms and molecules of atoms around them to produce life just provide a limited example where specific atoms are available. While the atoms and molecules of atoms that form life at any point in the Telluric flows determine the type of life that forms, the abundance of possible formations is limitless. An example of life we see forming before our eyes today is found in a rock pushing up in the middle of the ocean. Rock is barren of vegetation when it first appears, but within a year or so, it’s overgrown. What caused the vegetation to explode is a combination of “A flock of them flew over that time” and “drifting seeds in the balmy winds.” Because life only had one start, and that start was an accident, the only way the vegetation could get on the island were seeds that already contained life dropped be bird feces drifting with the currents. See how science, which is superb at collecting and organizing facts, doesn’t need facts here because its preconceived notions dictate the facts absolutely. When science collects facts, it’s unparalleled. When science undertakes to explain those facts, it’s unparalleled at being wrong. It mistakes concepts, the things we use to explain facts, with facts, and as a result, as here with it’s crap in the eye conclusion, its concepts, made up, produce more made-up concepts. It didn’t take long to reach the point we’re at, a world of made-up facts supported by made-up concepts, with the engineers of our existence making breakthroughs in spite of, rather than because of, science (think of the blue laser).
The explosion of vegetation on the rock, life, is the result of both Telluric flows and the well established flows that move between the atmosphere and earth as a result of the sunrise/sunset field replacement that is continuously occurring. Let the winds in the tundra uncover a rock surface, and simple life soon appears on its face. Life is spontaneous, but because we believe that everything is traceable back to a single chance-happening, we don’t see it, or when we do, we refer to new life as mutations of old or the discovery of a previously unknown species (which presumably has been around for billions of years waiting for our eagle eye). The fact is, life is constantly coming into and going out of existence, as is the evolution of life, not the absurd species evolution, but rather the characteristic evolution that’s happening in plain view all around us, from new breeds at the dog and pony show to the giant agri companies to name two of the obvious.
(To be continued)

LiFe (continued)

2008-03-15T08:40:00.000-07:00

As the Earth cooled and began to crust over, the level of gravity, a product of the heat of the planet, gradually began to diminish with the cooling process. As the intense, star-like heat of the early Earth broke down the elements, many of those elements were gaseous and hovered on top of the forming crust by the intense gravity. As the gravity lessened, the gaseous elements began to expand to form the Earth’s atmosphere. As combinations of different gaseous elements depend on temperature for their existence, oxygen and hydrogen did not combine until a certain temperature occurred (we will see that this fact also applies to different types of life). When that temperature, as the Earth cooled and crusted over more, was reached, the oxygen and hydrogen began to precipitate out, and filled openings in the crust caused by different elements cooling at different rates, with water (the oceans, needing deep depressions in the crust, had yet to be formed).
While the Earth was cooling sufficiently to allow water to form, the telluric currents had been doing their work. As they moved back and forth within the earth, they had been reducing the elements around them into dust. While today, telluric currents are considered a surface phenomenon; they are really a crustal phenomenon, producing in the crust a rhythm that is derived from the regular rotation of the Earth in front of the sun. This produces a number of interesting results. For instance, in caverns made by bubbles in the cooling surface, and other crevices, telluric currents dead-end because the rock surface stops. This produces a continuous formation of crystal at the end of the current as the available elemental atoms attempt to extend the area over which the currents are moving.
An even more controversial scenario, one that also eludes any explanation by science, but one that is being proven as we sit, is oil. Oil is formed beneath the surface in domes bubbled out of the cooing mantle. Telluric currents and the planetary rhythm they represent, assaulted the sides of the dome. However, these caverns, filled with carbon atoms, instead of forming crystals, formed a life of sorts, oil. The oil provided a conductor for the telluric currents, and the currents provided a path around which the carbon and hydrogen atoms could organize themselves. The proof for oil as the result of atoms organizing around electric flows to produce life is the vast domes that have been emptied of their oil. Revisited after decades, they are starting to show traces of new oil production. We’ll be talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, but as far as I can tell, no one is pushing that as the source of oil anymore. Other than the slow accretion of fish in the shallow sea (a made-up item) that were then folded under by plate tectonics (another made-up item), where oil came from is pretty much a mystery to science. It’s merely the energy of the cooling Earth being converted into energy we can use by organizing atoms around the telluric flows that are produced by the rotating Earth.
(To be continued)

Life (continued)

2008-03-08T09:09:00.000-08:00

Under my model of matter formation, all the objects that make up our solar system were formed hot out of the atoms with the highest number of units in the nucleus. As the objects that were to become the solar system cooled, these atoms broke down into the elements we find in the crusting planet. The rate at which a planet cools is naturally dependent on size, with the larger planets, read Jupiter, remaining hot and the smaller planets, read Mars, cooing faster than the Earth. That explains the moon. While anyone looking with fresh eyes at the solar system could not help reaching this conclusion, our ignorant science, blinded by Newton’s need for motion to be historic (science replacing Newton's God with perpetual motion) and therefore all these planets to be pretty much non-evolving (and result in the obviously recently arrived Venus as having been hot forever), science has to make up all sorts of improbable story lines to explain the elements. Elements are, the line goes, manufactured in the bowels of stars. How? Well that’s just a detail. The important thing is, the stars that produced the elements on Earth exploded just in time for the elements to become a part of the cloud of gas or dust out of which the Earth condensed. What’s the proof of all this? Volcanoes. Their heat is the result of uranium, having been manufactured in the bowels of a star, being scattered after the star exploded, and embedding itself in the crust of the forming planet. How else could the planet acquire the heat that powers the volcanoes? (I never wrote what the current theories were in The Copernican Series, but doing so now, I can’t help thinking I’m making up jokes as we go along.) Another way the Earth collects minerals is through bombardment from meteors and asteroids, which, of course, is just another way of appearing to answer the question where do the elements come from, by misdirecting us with an answer that appears to answer without answering. Where did the elements in the meteors and asteroids come from?
As the planet cooled and great fields of different elements formed, they were subject to the natural laws of physical reality, as opposed to scientific fantasy. The simple reality is that each element has a potential difference and the potential difference of one element is different than the potential difference of another element. Potential differences produce electricity. If we put two elements in a battery, connecting the potential differences produces a flow of electrons. In a car battery, the electrons flow under normal conditions, which is the climate the battery was designed for. However, if we get an unexpected run of freezing weather, we won’t be able to start the car because the change in temperature has changed the potential differences in the elements that make up the battery, reducing the potential difference in the battery so an insufficient number of electrons flow to start the car.
The surface of the Earth is a vast farm of various elements, and each of these elements has a potential difference with all the other elements. If the Earth didn’t rotate under the sun, electric currents would eventually establish balance among the various potential differences and that would be the end of it, a lifeless Earth. However, because the Earth’s surface is continually rotating between day and night, the potential differences of the elements are constantly undergoing temperature changes and thus changes in potential differences. These constantly changing potential differences allow the electric currents to constantly move back and forth between and among the various elements, and these are the telluric currents science measures but has no explanation for.
Without atoms and molecules of atoms, however, there can be no life to organize around these flows.
(To be continued)

Life (continued)

2008-03-01T08:17:00.000-08:00

If we look at the Miller/Urey experiment, we can ask ourselves, what was happening that produced life that was no longer happening when the production of life stopped?
What was happening was that the electric current was passing through a mixture of atoms and molecules of atoms, which is our definition of life. We, as animate matter, are made up of atoms and molecules of atoms held together by internally generated electrical currents. If the currents stop, our animate nature, our life, stops. Arguments about what was left behind in the Miller/Urey experiment are a sideshow by scientists who don’t have an explanation for the force that produces life nor a coherent definition of life. On Earth, the earth provides the atoms and molecules of atoms to form life, but where do the electric currents come from? From the Earth. These currents, which once again science has no explanation for (it’s amazing that science, which knows nothing, can say it knows everything because it’s the blind man with a measuring tape) are telluric currents.
What generates telluric currents?
(To be continued)

Life (continued)

2008-02-23T08:04:00.000-08:00

What does this echo in the universal chamber of science? There can be no forces, other than the passive forces found in nature, forces like gravity, electrical and magnetic, at work in the world. If there are no forces to affect the formation of life, then life has to form spontaneously. This is ignorant science, which ignores current force, When it comes to the question of why the planet orbits the sun, the men who hadn’t quit arguing about whether it was motionless or even orbited the sun concluded it didn’t need current force to orbit because forces put it in motion some time in the distant past and it’s just been orbiting ever since because nothing has slowed it down. The only force available to slow it down was gravity, but fortunately, when the explanation for gravity was thought up, it was concluded, because the conclusion that an historical force causes orbiting was correct, that because the planet was still orbiting, gravity didn’t slow a planet down. Here science is doing its usual, making up an answer, then using another made-up answer to prove the new made-up answer.
Another physical phenomenon where science ignores the need for current force, and actually the physical phenomenon that generates life, is planetary rotation. It’s amazing how science came to terms with the fact that the planet orbits the sun, by ignoring that it orbits the sun (needs no current force to orbit) while acknowledging it. Under the old view, the planet neither rotated nor orbited. Under the new view, it does both without the need for any force. The idea the planet doesn’t need a current force to keep it in motion is contradicted by so much physical evidence that one wonders if the gnomes of science are two short to even see over their noses. We encountered the obvious fact that the planet speeds up air that is returning to the equator, and that it takes a current force to do that. We can look at the ocean currents driven by the rotating planet and even the tides (find a scientist who can use the moon to predict the tides or better, ask a scientist if the moon predicts the tides and when he says yes, ask for the evidence. After all this, more than any other made-up answer, the moon causes them, should be demonstrable, but golly, no one's tried.). The notion that the Earth has been rotating for five billion years with no current force is so absurd, it’s universally accepted without question. Other beliefs (which is a notion with no proof) are routinely questioned, from religion to evolution, but not the magically rotating Earth!
How does the planet’s rotation produce life?
(To be continued)

Life

2008-02-16T09:09:00.000-08:00

In the early fifties, there was a flurry of attempts to crate life in the laboratory by simulating the Earth’s primordial soup and passing electricity through it. The key experiment, and the most famous, was performed by Miller and Urey. After operating the experiment for a week, Miller and Urey were able to demonstrate the existence of organic compounds in the controlled setting. Thus, while the experiment didn’t produce life, it produced the remnants of life (or to turn it around, the building blocks of life). The experiment is widely performed today with new conceptions of what the conditions on Earth were at the beginning. As none of the experiments produced viable life, the explanation for the origins of life has shifted to attempting to hypothesize how various atoms and molecules of atoms might have spontaneously combined in the primordial soup. Needless to say, nothing has worked.
Of course, as usual science is attempting to explain something that it hasn’t even defined. For example, some definitions of life include viruses, others don’t. Some consider life to be the opposite of life. It appears to be one of those things like beauty, we can’t define it, but we know it when we see it. One thing is certain, however, it formed spontaneously in a primordial soup (unless it came from outer space, which is really stupid, because if it came from outer space, then the question should be, how did it form before it got transported here? Science loves to answer questions by giving the appearance of answering them.)
As for the primordial soup theory, that was a 1920s conjecture that came, after the Miller/Urey experiment in the 50’s, accepted, which means that instead of ever again questioning the primordial soup theory, science bickers about what it was made of. Much more important, and indicative of scientific ignorance, is the unquestioned assumption that life needs to be formed spontaneously.
(to be continued)

The Weather (continued)

2008-02-09T08:46:00.000-08:00

As this process is a daytime operation, interrupted during the nighttime hours, the ice flecs form into gigantic sheets that move northward, each sheet the product of a day’s molecular conversion into atoms. As these sheets of atoms move north, they increasingly move into a smaller volume. With the volume gradually diminishing, they are forced down into the slower moving lower atmosphere. These air masses are warmer than the air masses containing the sheets of ice flecs and thus start field replacing the ice flecs. The orbiting electrons tightly bound to the nuclei of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms come into contact with the ambient field of the warmer air masses. The ambient field, being warmer, is electron rich, the electrons replacing the excess affinity propensities of the hydrogen and oxygen nuclei. As they do so, electrons leave their orbiting clouds. As the water molecule is a much more efficient way of balancing affinity propensities, the individual atoms, when they reach a point where the excess affinity propensities of their nuclei have been satisfied by the electrons in the ambient field (when the environment is hot enough), will recombine into water molecules.
The rate at which this recombination occurs determines the type of weather that results because as the water molecules form, they reduce the number of electrons that are needed in the orbiting clouds of the resulting molecules. These electrons, which have been transported north by the ice flecs, are released into ambient field. The faster the ice flecs convert into water, the more these electrons have to be absorbed by the ambient field. If the process is slow, the ambient field can absorb them without trouble. This works to produce a steady rain with no thunder and lightning. However, if the ice flecs are pushed down into warmer air, the conversion will become more rapid. When the ambient field cannot absorb all of the electrons being generated by the conversion, the electrons have to find a source of excess affinity propensity. The ground is just such a source, and as they collect, they organize themselves into electricity and are discharged into the earth in the form of lightning, with the lightning discharge producing the thunder that marks the name of this type of storm.
Many people consider the thunderheads formed in the southwest to be the most magnificent of thunderstorms. Instead of decreasing area forcing ice flec carrying air down, the mountains in the southwestern United States force the lower air into the path of the northerly moving ice flec sheets. This results in the formation of giant thunderheads that are themselves moving rapidly in a northeast direction, the result of the rapidly moving air being forced over a slower moving Earth. As the air in this part of the country at this particular time of year is heated, the conversion process is rapid and violent. The water is unable to form fast enough and instead forms ice. Because this ice is not formed from water, but rather from the ice flecs themselves, these evidence the same characteristics that ice left to long in the freezer demonstrate, the lack of electrons holding the hydrogen and oxygen atoms together mentioned in the chapter on field replacement.
These thunderheads, located as they are in a heated environment, also demonstrate a unique weather phenomenon. As the storm moves in a northeasterly direction, releasing electrons in the conversion process, those excess electrons are absorbed by the earth as lightning. The thunderhead is also blocking the sun out from beneath it as it moves. The ground beneath is already very warm. Remembering the effect of field replacement on the earth, when the sun is out, it replaces electrons and when it’s not, the earth absorbs electrons. Thus the temporary darkness when the thunderhead is directly overhead, allows the earth to absorb these electrons readily.
What happens as the thunderhead passes, eliminating the temporary night-like conditions? The ground became supersaturated with electrons during the period the storm was overhead. What happens when the thunderhead passes and daylight comes?
The sun begins to field replace the ground once again, which means that all of the electrons absorbed while the sun was blocked by the storm start to leave the ground en masse, causing, at the least, massive heated updrafts of air. Sometimes, the storm has been so violent and the ground so hot, these updrafts themselves begin to swirl, the electron flows acting like inductances on the air. The air organizes itself around them.
The result?
Tornadoes, which form in the wake of these thunderheads.

The Weather (continued)

2008-02-02T09:00:00.000-08:00

When we look closely at what has happened on an atomic level, we find something very interesting going on. We now know that the model of an atom with a fixed number of electrons orbiting its nucleus in defined orbits was a mentalization. In reality, there is an orbiting cloud of electrons as noted in Chapter 2 (and today, by most of the scientific community). This cloud of orbiting electrons is held in place by the excess affinity propensity of the nucleus. The water molecule, three atoms held together, has an orbiting cloud of electrons that has replaced the orbiting clouds of the individual atoms. Atoms that form into molecules give up their individual clouds, with the new molecule attracting a cloud that orbits whatever the newly created excess affinity propensity is.
It is this orbiting cloud of the water molecule that is being field replaced by the rays of the equatorial sun and in the process breaking the hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart, where they begin to rise. However, there is one other process that is occurring as the process continues throughout the day. The hydrogen and oxygen atoms, as soon as they separate, need to form new orbiting clouds. The area in which this process is occurring has ample electrons in its ambient field to accomplish the task. First, the electrons from the orbiting clouds of the water molecules are available. Second, the electrons in the incoming flows of light are breaking down and in abundance. Thus, each atom has no trouble forming its own orbiting cloud of electrons.
Because we know that these electrons will rise and form the northerly moving part of the atmosphere, we can stop for a moment and examine what is actually happening here. The process of breaking down a water molecule, with a single orbiting cloud, into its constituent atoms and the formation of new orbiting clouds by those atoms, has soaked up electrons at the equator. Electrons are energy, so basically the process is storing equatorial energy, the incredible heat that occurs from having the sun beating down constantly, energy that can then be moved to another place. What place? North.
As the lower moving air masses arrive from the poles, they force the air masses that are already at the equator to start their northerly journey. But these air masses having been receiving the rising hydrogen and oxygen atoms. As these atoms rise, they encounter colder temperatures. Colder temperatures are merely a reduction of field replacement. When atoms experience field replacement, they give up electrons to the extent the field replacement satisfies the excess affinity propensities of their nuclei. When atoms are subject to reduced field replacement, they attempt to obtain electrons out of the ambient field, and to the extent they can’t, they hold the electrons they do have even closer.
Thus, the atoms rising at the equator that used to constitute water, now hug their orbiting clouds of electrons closer and closer, becoming more self-contained the colder they becomes. However, because the product isn’t ice, as one would normally suppose if it were a case of evaporating water molecules, I had to term them ice flecs to distinguish them from ice.
(To be continued)

The Weather (continued)

2008-01-26T08:52:00.000-08:00

What is it about the upper air, as a result of diminishing area, being forced down into the slower moving returning air that creates the weather?
We were introduced to the concept of ice flecs in the last chapter on field replacement. Because water disappears when it is boiled and when it is placed in a pan under the sun, science’s monkey say process of analogizing concludes the same process is at work in both cases. If water is in the atmosphere, it evaporated just like boiling water evaporates. There’s nothing unique about rain, it just came from a bigger pot of water. When we see a storm brewing, we look for a body of water that could have produced the storm, and that’s it. We get this pablum from a science that can’t even tell us how heat is transferred in the atmosphere. We hear endless references to hot air rising above colder air, but other than assuming the hot air must have been heated by the sun, we are stuck in place, with weather being a confluence of local conditions. In fact, following the mistaken conclusion that the Earth absorbs the sun’s rays during the day and radiates them at night, meteorologists have concluded that the earth is heated by the sun and that’s the source of all weather. Because this explains no weather, science has added conduction, the contact of the air with the heated earth and subsequent contact with other areas, giving the air more movement, and convection, the catch-all that finds currents of air moving from one place to another, with only the existence of these convection currents attesting to their movement (which is to say, we found heat flowing from here to there, so it must be doing so as a result of a convection current).
None of this provides a cohesive explanation of how, or even why, heat moves in the atmosphere, just ad hoc explanations for local heat movement. But then, science is nothing but a bunch of ad hoc explanations for reality that have one thing in common, mass/gravity. If we start off examining exactly what might be happening, and the context in which it is happening, we can get a clearer picture of just what is going on. The context is the circulating air masses that move up and down the planet and happening part is exactly what happens when water is left out in the sun.
If we pick a point on the circulating air masses, we would have to choose the equator if for the only reason that we are examining what is causing the water to disappear. The equator is filled with sunlight under which vast amounts of water can disappear. The question is, what’s the process that the water undergoes to disappear? It certainly isn’t evaporating like boiling water disappears. It’s ludicrous to think that the equatorial waters are boiling. What evidence is that that the water is disappearing at all? Science can’t claim that a pan of water left out in the sunlight to disappear behaves differently than the water sitting under the sunlight at the equator. If one disappears, the other must also disappear. It’s not turning into steam, so where is it going?
The answer lies at the molecular level. If the water is disappearing, then it must be in a form other than water. In a world where chemistry can alter the molecular structure of just about everything with the simple application of energy, this shouldn’t seem the least bit beyond our powers of reason. But for a science that has mindlessly viewed the disappearance of water as the same as boiling water, it’s novel. And for a science that doesn’t keep up with technology, it’s an impossibility. For instance, what technology separates two elements, one of them oxygen, using energy in the form of electricity. One of the most common elements in our existence, aluminum. Aluminum molecules come with two atoms of the element combined with three atoms of oxygen. Passing electricity through the molecule separates the molecular binding of the two and the heavier aluminum atoms sink to the bottom.
Instead of electricity, the energy of sunlight is striking the water molecule, breaking its molecular bond. The oxygen atom is heavier than the hydrogen atom, but both are lighter than the atmosphere, so they rise. (The atmosphere is composed of diatomic nitrogen and oxygen atoms, atoms held in pairs, and therefore is composed of atom pairs with twice the atomic weight of the individual chemical elements. While the released hydrogen atom remains in diatomic form, it’s still much lighter than the atmosphere. The oxygen atom is not diatomic, so it is also lighter than the atmosphere, which is composed of diatomic atoms. With unequal weight pf the hydrogen and oxygen atoms, they rise at different rates and are unable to recombine into water, which they might do if they were in a confined space.
To be continued)

The Weather (continued)

2008-01-19T09:09:00.001-08:00

How can we all be living in the lower air mass if we’re going different speeds? The lower air mass is speeding up as it returns. The Earth is turning, and as it does so, it’s carrying us along at the speed it’s turning. However, we aren’t aware of the speed for one simple reason, the atmosphere is turning at the same speed we are, give or take a few miles per hour, and this means the air at the equator is moving at about 1,000 mph while the air at the Pole is not moving at all. The air in between these points is moving at whatever speed the circumference of the Earth dictates at that point. The air moving toward the Pole starts out at about 1,000 mph and ends up at 0 mph, while the atmosphere returning beneath it starts out at 0 mph and ends up traveling at about 1,000 mph. You do the math. Don’t bother, it’s quite simple, the air that is moving toward the Pole has to slow down, the air moving back down to the equator from the Pole has to speed up.
So we have air we know is moving down close to the Earth beneath the air moving toward the equator, and we know by mathematically measuring it that it is speeding up. But that’s not the only part of the story that puts meteorologists into a mindless bind from which all the absurd models created by the most sophisticated (and expensive) computer technology can produce will never be able to extract it. This part of the story is also mathematically verifiable. It never ceases to amaze me how an empirical science who’s claim to validity is based on mathematics, produces concepts, turns those concepts into laws, then ignores the measurements of reality when they conflict with its made up laws.
The atmosphere is traveling toward the Pole over areas of the Earth with decreasing circumferences. Although it is traveling several miles up, we’ll use the Earth’s circumference to measure the increasingly confining spaces the atmosphere is moving into. When the atmosphere begins its journey to the Pole, the circumference is 15,000 miles. What is combined with circumference to determine volume? That’s a simple mathematical answer, radius. Rounding off, we can say the radius of the Earth at the equator is 4,000 miles. The radius of the Earth at the Pole is also about 4,000 miles. However, we aren’t measuring the radius of the Earth, we are measuring the radius of the circumference to its center as the circumference of the atmosphere moving to the Poles decreases. Thus, at the equator, it might be 4,000 miles, but further north it would be 3,000 miles, then 2,000 miles until it reached the Pole, at which point it would be zero.
The areas the atmosphere has to occupy is getting smaller and smaller the further toward the Pole it moves. Not only is the atmosphere being forced into a smaller area, it is doing so when it is traveling faster than the Earth beneath it. Both the Earth and the atmosphere are traveling in the same direction, from east to west, but the further toward the Pole the atmosphere is moving, the slower the Earth is traveling from east to west. What’s the obvious result? As the atmosphere is moving into smaller areas, it is forced down into the atmosphere beneath it, and this atmosphere is traveling at the same from east to west as the Earth at any point on the Earth’s surface. Thus, the faster moving air is forced down into the slower moving air. As clouds form they are still moving faster than the surface of the Earth and that’s why the clouds move from west to east. They are moving faster than the surface of the Earth is moving. It also explains the Jet Stream.
Meteorology could have figured all this out, including the obvious fact that friction with the surface of the Earth is what causes the atmosphere, once it is forced down, and, through intermixing, sometimes in violent ways, with the slower atmosphere heading back to the equator, to produce the weather that is so difficult to predict (again, satellite tracking is not predicting, its just more accurate forecasting), if it weren’t for the obvious fact that the friction with the Earth is speeding up the returning atmosphere is fiction, a made-up scientific fact. It has to be fiction because, according to empirical science, the Earth has been spinning frictionlessly in space for 5 billion years. The fact that it’s spinning is proof that its surface does not produce friction with the atmosphere. Ergo, meteorology could not explain reality by using factual reality to describe what is obviously happening. It is a science, or at least it seeks to be a science, and to be a science, become a respected member of the empirical community instead of just a bunch of mystical forecasters, it had to conform to the empirical code of laws, the basic one being gravity is a property of and proportional to mass, and that law is based on the known fact the Earth has been spinning frictionlessly in space for 5 billion years.
In short, we, in all our wisdom, are just as ignorant as those who claimed the Earth couldn’t be orbiting the sun because if it were, we’d all be blown off.
To be continued)

The Weather (continued)

2008-01-12T09:00:00.000-08:00

This is what meteorology sold in exchange for the opportunity to become a real science, one that measured the reality of the winds and rain that is the basis of our existence.
Meteorology has been forced to make one conclusion, while ignoring completely the logical consequences of that conclusion, because it has agreed with science on Newton’s folly that the rotation of the Earth isn’t affected by weather. The factual model of the weather that has emerged from meticulously measurements of the atmosphere shows two giant circular flows of air, one flowing north, the other flowing south. The air rises at the equator and flows north and south. The air flowing to the Poles rises and travels over the air moving back to the equator. The air moving back to the equator travels beneath the above layer of air. If we confine our discussion to the Northern Hemisphere, we have a giant circulation of air, with the northerly moving air masses passing over the southerly moving masses that are hugging the ground.
This is a factual statement of how the air circulates. It has been derived from the statistical data from an untold number of weather balloons. This is true science, the collection of facts, and not the science we’re talking about, the science that creates basic assumptions out of thin air (or the ruminations of dead men who knew nothing) and then impose those assumptions as received wisdom. However, when facts contradict theory, the facts are the first to go. Here, facts disagree with the iron clad rule that the atmosphere doesn't affect the rotation of the planet, so the fact that the Earth’s atmosphere is circulating is disconnected from the fact that the circulation physically demonstrates the atmosphere does affect the Earth's rotation.
What is the actual connection?
When we walk outside on a calm day, we don’t get blown over. It’s as simple as that. We’ll discuss how the northward moving air masses create the weather shortly, but for now we know that lower moving air masses are the masses of air we live in. Models constructed from weather balloons do not suggest three air masses, one moving north, the other moving south, with the third mass hugging the Earth. They demonstrate that we live in the lower moving air mass.
However, we’re all moving at different speeds depending on where we’re located on the planet. When we stand on the equator, we are traveling at about a 1,000 mps. As we move towards the Pole, the circumference of the Earth becomes smaller, and our rate of speed diminishes. When we reach the Pole, and we are standing on it, we are not traveling at any speed, we are merely turning in a very slow circle, one that takes 24 hours to complete. We’re still going about 67,000 mph as the Earth obits the sun, but where we are on the surface has nothing to do with that speed.
We travel with the Earth’s rotation, and the speed of that travel is determined by the circumference of the Earth at the place we re standing. If we round the circumference at the equator off to 25,000 miles, then we are traveling 25,000 miles in a 24-hour period. If the circumference of the Earth where we are standing is 16,000 miles, we are traveling 16,000 miles in a 24-hour period. Dividing the circumference by the hours, we find at the equator, we are traveling at 1,042 mph while at the 16,000-mile circumference point, we’re traveling at 667 mph. When we get to the Pole, we are traveling at zero mph. We are standing still turning in a circle at the rate of one full turn every 24 hours.
(To be continued)

The Weather (continued)

2008-01-05T09:18:00.000-08:00

Weather prediction, once the morning after joke, was wrapped in a cloak of scientific certainty when the only thing that changed during the sixties and seventies was the accuracy derived from being able to more accurately track a weather’s progress as it moved beneath satellites across the countryside. In return, science got a guarantee from the newly minted field of meteorology that it would ignore the obvious, that the weather affected acutely the rotation of the planet and therefore the planet needed a source of motion to keep it rotating. This obvious reality, the circulating atmosphere, its slowing down and speeding up, had to be left out of the billion dollar models of the weather meteorologists produce, and in their place, a nonexistent force plugged in to screw up the entire process. That’s on top of the major problem, that because it is not in the public eye, empirical science hasn’t had to make up a fiction about how heat is transported in the atmosphere, probably as important, if not more important, than the friction of the Earth with the atmosphere.
Why can’t the Earth’s atmosphere affect the rotation of the atmosphere? Because some 4.6 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million years, shockwaves from adjacent supernovas disturbed the molecular cloud that would become the solar system (notice how nothing in this statement tells us anything about anything). Fortunately, the area of this pre-solar nebula was approximately the same as the area of the solar system, and, as it turned out, the “mass” and composition of the pre-solar nebula, praise the Lord, was approximately the same as the “mass” and composition of the solar system it would turn into.
Note how science is thinking backward. We know what the solar system is, so we can make up a bunch of gobbledygook explaining how it got that way, then use how it is to justify the gobbledygook. I might be accused of doing the same thing, but I ask the question, what are the current forces that would produce the current solar system we measure. Science, however, stops in its tracks, and puts all questions of future motion into the concept of the angular momentum. What exactly is this concept, and I emphasize the word concept? Why, it’s Newton’s made up law that an object in motion will stay in motion unless a force acts on that object to change the motion, only placed as the motive force for solar system.
That’s why it all comes back to Newton and his bogus Celestial Mechanics. Any Rocketeers who follow Newtonian mechanics won’t have their rockets last long enough to rush in one of the indispensable course correction teams that make space travel possible in spite of Newton. We’ll dissect Newton with all his warts in a later chapter, but for now I’ll note that Newton had no problem with force because for him all force was sourced in one place, God, a fact that science acknowledges in practice by putting all questions of current force in the solar system off limits with its mumbo jumbo while failing to point out that the theory that mumbo jumbo is based on, and again I stress that word theory, based itself on God.
(To be continued)

The Weather (continued)

2007-12-29T09:11:00.000-08:00

As late as the 1960s, science clearly defined the Coriolis effect as just what it is, an effect. It results from the Earth’s west to east spin. It has to be accounted for when launching a rocket. If the rocket is launched due north, it’s landing point will be east of its departure point because it will be traveling east at the same speed the Earth was moving when it departed, but as it moves north, the Earth’s speed is lessening, which means it is traveling increasing faster than the Earth is rotating. Thus, it will land east of where it took off. This is not the result of a force, it is the result of an effect due to the rotation of the Earth, and was clearly labeled as such in the dictionaries of the time. In fact, during the period of change, most dictionaries cautioned that it wasn’t a force, but merely an effect.
Now, it’s universally accepted as a force, which goes to show, science can petty much get away with anything it wants and we’ll sit here like the dummies we are and accept it.
How did the Coriolis effect become a force? It has to do with the jet stream.
For all those amateur meteorologists who’ve ever seen the majority of the clouds traveling west to east, opposite the direction the Earth is turning, and fleetingly wondered why they aren’t spinning with the Earth, the answer is coming up. The movement of the clouds, though, is nothing compared to the speed of the jet stream. First encountered by high-flying B-29s at the end of WWII, it really came into the conscious debate with the beginning of the jet age in the mid-fifties. The jet stream in the U.S. moves from west to east, providing a tail wind to jets from the west coast.
Up until the jet stream intervened, meteorology was simply fronts moving between highs and lows. Now, combined with the fact that the clouds went in an opposite direction than would be intuitively expected, the table was set for the real explanation for the wind, the Coriolis force. Instead of a rocket taking off and, due to the Earth’s spin and its diminishing circumference, landing to the east of where it took off, the rotation of the Earth was forcing the rocket to veer to the east.
Sound like the same? Sure does except now it’s not a result of the Earth turning, the Earth doing something, forcing the rocket to veer east, it's the result of the Earth's rotation forcing the rocket east and therefore the result of a force. This rote piece of nonsense, the Coriolis force, mindlessly repeated, is taken as fact and is the founding principle of meteorology. Now instead of using a realistic explanation for why clouds and the jet stream move from west to east, an explanation that is by no means difficult, one that is indisputable, we have the clouds and the jet stream being pushed east by the Coriolis force.
And once we have a force, we have something that can be measured, if only by reference to the self-referential force itself, measuring the supposed force by what it does.
Once we have something that can be measured, we have empirical science.
(To be continued)

The Weather

2007-12-22T09:17:00.000-08:00

Who would expect the ultimate admission that science is nothing but a bunch of consensual bull then in its treatment and ultimate acceptance of the “science” of weather?
Weather is not a science, never has been and never will be, yet science treats it as a science. Oh sure, forecasting weather patterns has become more accurate with satellite tracking, but that’s all it is, more accurate tracking of existing weather, not, shudder, forecasting, something that to science is akin to the robed arm pointing to the heavens and citing incantations.
Weather became a science, the science of meteorology, only after science prostituted itself at the throne of Newton. In return for recognition as a science, weather agreed to go along with science’s absurd insistence that the spinning planet has no effect on weather, an offshoot of Newton’s explanation for the tides, that they merely waxed and waned in response to the movements of the moon and sun. The rotation of the planet could not be affected by the weather, although we’ll clearly see it is, because if weather affected the rotation, it would have long since slowed the planet to a halt.
In short, science is too lazy to look for the actual cause of rotation, and will do anything to avoid reality.
(To be continued)

Field Replacement (continued)

2007-12-15T09:47:00.000-08:00

The final example of the ignorance arising from the failure to recognize the Earth’s field, and thus field replacement, is one of my favorites because it actually deals with proof of the field’s existence (when I was young, science would not even admit a planet was hot in the interior). It also deals with science’s process of monkey see, monkey say.
Telescopes have been around for hundreds of years. The most distinctive aspect of a telescope is how we use it. We point one end to the sky and peer through the other end. Always have, always will. Well, not really, because along about the time I was born, a guy named Grote Reber invented the radio telescope. This took radio signals from the sky and represented them graphically, providing a second source of information about the dots of light we see in the heavens.
By the time the radio telescope came along, Hubble’s red shift had been converted into the theory of the expanding universe (when we realign the colors in a later chapter, we’ll see that this should actually have been the theory of the contracting universe). The problem with the theory of the expanding universe was that it had not been proven conclusively, which in scientific terms means, proven to the satisfaction of the consensus. In short, all sorts of people trying to make their bones were casting around for the big bang proof.
As the radio telescope was put more and more into use, depicting stars in a new way by pointing the radio receiver at them much the same as we historically did with telescopes, it dawned on the users that there was a low level of electrical activity that registered even when the telescope was not pointing at a target. Find a blotch of empty space and this low level radio interference made its presence known. As the existence of this background radiation from outer space became widely know, the question arose, what is it, where does it come from, why is it there.
What better set up for and ah ha moment. On the one hand, science had background radiation (I don’t know how the radio signals turned into radiation, but its slowly become cosmic microwave background radiation), on the other, it had an incessant need to scientifically prove the big bang theory. Why, it was decided along about the time I graduated from law school, the background radiation was nothing more than the radiation left over from the big bang, and the big bang was now proven to be the truth. What could be greater?
Well, the crushing realization that this background radiation registered uniform while the galaxies were here and there, all over the place. If the radiation were leftover from the big bang, then it should be irregular. Oh, what to do, what to do?
Ever willing to face any and all obstacles, read possible disagreements with its own theories, science began to lobby, read Announcement of Opportunity, for something that would demonstrate its original thoughts on the background radiation were correct, and that something was the COBE satellite, which to keep costs at a minimum, was set to cost a mere thirty million, not including launching costs. The idea was that the background radiation was going through the Earth’s atmosphere, which was causing it to become regular. If the background radiation could be measured from space, it would prove to be irregular.
Now I don’t know which planet anybody else grew up on, but I grew up on the planet where the stars twinkle. The stars twinkle because of atmospheric interference. The starlight doesn’t become uniform as it passes through the atmosphere, it becomes irregular. Although I can, for some reason, never find information on what stars look like from space, I can guarantee that they don’t twinkle. Once they hit the atmosphere, they twinkle.
At least a few astronomers know this. These astronomers use the Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics system to see without atmospheric distortion. A computer uses models to determine the distortion on a bright guide star and then applies those distortions to a fainter object, creating an image of the fainter object as if it was not coming through the atmosphere.
If astronomers know that the atmosphere distorts, how can a bunch of them come up with a multimillion-dollar project based on the fact that the atmosphere doesn’t distort? Oh, I don’t know, maybe the same way they say anything they want and we believe them hook, line, and sinker because we’re just too afraid of science’s superior knowledge to ask a question. So ever onward and upward with the COBE satellite, the satellite that will answer our final question of where we all came from, an explosion a long time ago in a universe that didn’t yet exist.
Guess what? The experiment was a grand success. It demonstrated ripples in the cosmos, irregular background radiation that matched the irregular placement of the galaxies in space. Hooray! Science even matched up the blue radiation where there were galaxies and the red radiation where there were no galaxies along about the time I retired using a comparatively cheap balloon it floated some twenty-three miles above the Antarctic carrying an extremely sensitive microwave telescope. Hooray again!
Let’s look a little more closely at the “telescope” we’re using. It’s been demonstrated time and again that the telescope is not a telescope, but a radio telescope that simply picks up radio signals. It is estimated that radio signals are the radio signals in the environment and they can come from radon, or broadcast signals or the local garage door opening, although these radio signals are insignificant enough to be excluded. The telescope also picks up signals it zeros in on, signals from the galaxies. In what universe is it written, however, that the background signals, the 3% constant hum, comes from the area the telescope zeros in on. In short, what justifies the bald assumption that the background radiation is from space?
The second assumption is that the Earth is not emitting a field!
If we are blind to the Earth’s field, we’ll be blind to the background radiation a radio telescope is picking up, and we’ll use the mistake to further complicate our ignorant ruminations.
The radio telescope picks up the background radiation from the Earth’s emission field, proving that field exists. It is uniform because it is not moving through the atmosphere. However, when we measure the background radiation after it has gone through the atmosphere, it measures as irregular, as is the case with everything else that goes through the atmosphere.

Field Replacement (continued)

2007-12-08T08:40:00.001-08:00

The mechanics of field replacement are counterintuitive in a world where science never looks below the surface to ascertain what’s really happening, but the building blocks that make it intuitive are clear: a single elementary particle, the electron, with two opposing properties, at rest motion and excess affinity propensity in a universe where the two have a profound effect on each other. Excess affinity propensities attract electrons while flows of electrons release electrons into the environment. Having built a science on the observations of dead men who neither saw nor analyzed reality in a forthright way, but merely came up with ad hoc explanations for it, has produced a stunted science that is neither interested in or wants to examine what is happening, rather one that simply wants answers no matter how anomalous or inconsistent they are in relation to its other answers. Without the knowledge of the existence of fields, we end up with absurdities, two of which I would like to close the chapter with.
All matter on Earth exists in the Earth’s field. While rotation exposes all matter periodically to alternating bouts with the sun’s very strong field, the constant field we live in is generated by the Earth. That field starts out somewhere beneath the Earth’s surface and expands in an expanding sphere out and away from the Earth. Thus the further we get from the source of the field, the more the field diminishes, the diminishing occurring inversely with the square of its distance.
We are all familiar with Einstein’s obsession with relative time and space. After the Michelson Morley experiment failed and science was attempting to find a reason why, it was eventually accepted that the aether didn’t exist and motion was relative. This meant that both distance and time changed with speed. All of modern science is based on Einstein’s relative motion. For Einstein, there was no such thing as absolute motion. An observer in motion is incapable of determining the absolute motion of a second object in motion because, once the two are relative to one another, the distances of the objects, as well as the times, are relative.
Probably the most famous “proof” of this statement is, with the dawn of the space age, the very expensive sending of one clock into space while a control clock is monitored on the surface of the Earth. Because the clock in space is moving faster than the clock on the ground, the reasoning goes that the clock in space will slow down relative to the clock on the ground.
Lo and behold, the experiment was worth every penny because it did slow down. Now we know we live in a universe that no one can understand so science is free to blather on and on with the defense that the universe is stranger than we can imagine and therefore it takes bubbleheads with endless schooling to do the understanding for us.
Unfortunately, with no knowledge of the field being emitted by the Earth, we can all be informed by the abstruse utterances such an absurdity provides unless we’re actually navigators doing something in the real world.
The clocks used in the experiment are the most accurate clocks in the world, which means they are atomic clocks. An atomic clock keeps time by recording emissions from an atomic substance, meaning atoms, at the basis of the clock. What are causing these emissions? The instability of the atom as it exists in the field. The atom is decaying at a fixed rate because it’s in a fixed field. The fixed field is field replacing the electrons that make up the units in its nucleus at a steady rate. As long as the field remains the same, the rate of field replacement will remain the same.
So what happens when we change the rate of field replacement in one clock, place it in an environment with less of a field? The rate of field replacement will slow down. What’s the effect on the clock, which is driven by the decay of the constituent parts of its atoms? Lower field replacement, lower decay, fewer ticks. The clock is going to register fewer incidents of decay than one in a stronger field and is therefore going to actually slow down.
In the experiment, one atomic clock is left in a strong field, and another, several hundred miles above the Earth, in a weaker field, and the one in the weaker field, as a result of the lesser field replacement, simply doesn’t register as many events as the one on the ground, and we base our entire science on this idiocy of ignorance.
Even though our bubbleheads universally accept the clock experiment as absolute prove of relative everything, a Frenchman by the name of Sagnac demonstrated in 1913 that an absolute measurement could be obtained of a moving object by a moving object, inventing the ring interferometer that makes accurate air travel possible today, but hey, don’t expect our bubbleheads flying all over the world for expensive conferences to look up from their bubblebooks to see reality.
(To be continued)

Field Replacement (continued)

2007-11-30T09:20:00.000-08:00

Weather is all about area. For reasons we’ll discuss in the next chapter, the sheets of ice flecs begin traveling towards the Poles. Limiting ourselves to the North Pole, the further north the sheets of ice flecs move, the less area they have to occupy. This is a simple function of geometry. With less area to occupy, the sheets of ice flecs are forced down into the lower, slower moving, warmer atmosphere. The warmer air begins field replacing the ice flecs. Here the field replacement mirrors the field replacement that occurred at the equator. The individual atoms of oxygen and hydrogen are no longer rising, and are being forced into proximity with one another. They start to recombine into water, and in the process, shed the three separate clouds of orbiting electrons. Only needing a single cloud, each forming molecule of water produces massive numbers of excess electrons in the ambient field.
If the process is rapid, we will see a violent thunderstorm in which the ambient field is so flooded with electrons that they have only one place to go, the Earth, in the form of lightning. And, of course, this explains another one of those unanswered questions scientists spend so much time avoiding, how heat travels in the atmosphere.
As the sheets of ice flecs move toward the Poles, those that remain pass out of the direct rays of the sun and are slowly field replaced directly into snow and ice. Trees don’t grow in these barren wastes of swirling weather. Does that give us a clue as to why things grow? Once again field replacement is the answer. While science gets many things bassackward, its explanation of the sun’s rays on the Earth is certainly the best case.
Science tells us the sun’s rays are absorbed by the Earth in the morning and are radiated away (in precisely the same amount) in the evening. This, of course, ignores the significance of field replacement and turns our understanding of what is happening on Earth on its ear.
In reality, as the sun rises, its rays hit the earth and begin the process of field replacement. This means that the earth, colder at night, has produced excess affinity propensities that have captured electrons out of the night air, causing that air to lose temperature (electrons equal heat). All of the available electrons in the ambient field have been attracted into the ground.
As the sun rises, this process is reversed and the sun's emissions begin to replace the excess affinity propensities in the earth, the electrons are now emitted back into the atmosphere, but what path do they take? When the environment isn’t a barren waste, they are going to pass through the vegetation in the environment. The most popular example is morning glories opening at dawn. However, the ramifications of this process are far reaching because it is this transfer of electrons between the ground and the atmosphere that produces the basis for all life, with, as we shall see, the definition of life the formation of atoms and molecules of atoms around electrical flows in the environment.
The paths the electrons take during morning field replacement is the basis of the dense forests and lush landscapes that populate the temperate regions of the world. As the day proceeds into night, the process is reversed. As noted, the ground, once it ceases to be field replaced by the sun’s rays, flips into a state of excess affinity propensity and begins to satisfy that excess by drawing ambient electrons out of the atmosphere, bringing on the evening chill (where, the atmosphere begins to draw electrons out of our skin).
Science think, where the sun’s rays warm us and their disappearance cools us is simply more monkey see, monkey say, and doesn’t provide any mechanism for why things get hot and cold. Field replacement does. The constant rhythm of the changing excess affinity propensities between the earth and the atmosphere regulates the flow of electrons between the two, turning our environment into what we know it to be, a dynamic, organic reality instead of the passive, sun absorbing and releasing barren landscape of science think.
(To be continued)

Field Replacement (continued)

2007-11-26T10:26:00.001-08:00

When we boil water, the flame over which it sits is field replacing the electrons holding the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen together. Those atoms, now lighter than air, start to rise. However, because they are rising into a diminishing field, the atoms immediately turn back into water as the oxygen and hydrogen atoms recombine. If we put the process under pressure, the atoms don’t recombine, become an explosive gas and can perform work, as in a steam engine. However, as the steam expands, it immediately condenses as the recombination of the atoms draws electrons out of the ambient field.
However, leaving water out in the sun causes the sun to do the field replacing. The process is not only less rapid as boiling water, the atoms of oxygen and hydrogen are not rising into a diminishing field. We see empirical classification at work here with heat causing water to disappear with the two equaling evaporation, but the outcome of each is quite different. When water is rapidly boiled and evaporates into a diminishing field, the oxygen and hydrogen atoms come back together as water. When water is evaporated in sunlight, the oxygen and hydrogen atoms don’t get a chance to reunite, but rather remain separate. When they do reunite, they do produce rain along with a heck of a lot of lightning.
Let’s look at the evaporation process at the equator, where most weather originates. Nuclei of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms are held together into water molecules by the excess affinity propensities of their nuclei and the cloud of orbiting electrons that surround them. As the sun strikes the surface of the equatorial waters, it replaces the clouds of orbiting electrons, and loosens the attraction of the excess affinity propensities by replacing that attraction with its own field. As hydrogen is much lighter than oxygen, it immediately rises into the atmosphere, but because the oxygen is also lighter than the atmosphere, it follows. However, because the two are moving at different rates, they don't have a chance to recombine.
When they rise high enough, they freeze, but into what? As science has no idea about these massive fields of frozen oxygen and hydrogen atoms that comprise the upper atmosphere, I am forced to make up a name for them, and I ended up referring to them as ice flecs, the slight misspelling designed to distinguish them from ice flecks, which actually are ice.
Looking more closely at the field replacement process, when the atoms of oxygen and hydrogen separate, what is happening? All nuclei need a cloud of orbiting electrons. The water molecule has a single cloud of orbiting electrons, When the three atoms separate, each atom needs its own field of orbiting electrons, so what before field replacement required a single cloud of orbiting electrons requires three fields of orbiting electrons after field replacement.
As the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are being field replaced at the equator, they are pulling huge amounts of electrons out of what is an electron abundant area, the electrons produced by the rays of the sun breaking down on the surface of the equatorial oceans. What does this mean? It means that the rising evaporate, the individual atoms, are carrying with them one heck of a lot of heat, or in simple terms, energy and this is why I call the result ice flecs. As they rise into the atmosphere, there is, on a purely physical basis, more and more area available. This causes these giant sheets of ice flecs to cling closer together as a result of the increasing affinity propensities of the larger area. They become the raw material of the weather, and while I don’t want to infringe on the material in the next chapter, we still need to see what happens when the sheets of ice flecs themselves become field replaced.
(To be continued)

Field Replacement (continued)

2007-11-17T09:33:00.000-08:00

The same effect occurs when we leave frozen food in the freezer too long, only it’s called freezer burn, and with good reason, because too much cold for too long a period of time literally sucks the electrons out of the surface of things. This is the same process that occurs when we put a match too close to our skin. To see the analogy, all we have to do is examine pictures of frostbite victims. The flesh is actually in a burnt condition, and requires burn treatment to heal (if the appendage doesn’t just fall off). This effect, where field replacement produces both the sensations we feel when we are burnt or freezing is a part of popular understanding, even among children. I refer to the trick where the subject is told he is going to receive a sever burn on the back. When he takes his shirt off, the trickster prepares a heated knife or merely strikes a match, then applies an ice cube to the back. The subject actually feels like he’s been burnt.
While field replacement has a part in water boiling, the steam from the evaporating water has to be distinguished from the process where water is field replaced that occurs at the equator, or for that matter, in any body of water sitting under hot sunlight.
(To be continued)

Field Replacement (contnued)

2007-11-10T08:40:00.000-08:00

But what happens if there aren’t enough electrons in the ambient field? To explore this, we need look no further than our refrigerator. How does the interior of the box get cold? For this we need a refrigerant, which is, surprise, a compressible gas. The process of refrigeration begins with a compressor that compresses the gas. Of course, we’ll need a fan at the point of compression because the compression process releases a lot of heat, a requirement of the refrigerant that it be able to absorb vast quantities of electrons.
With the electrons compressed out of the gas by the process of forcing the nuclei of the gas atoms together, field replacing each other’s affinity propensities and removing the need for the nuclei’s orbiting electrons, the gas is sent into the insulted box. The insulation is a physical substance that resists the transfer of electrons and therefore is capable of reducing the electrons in the ambient field.
As the refrigerant circulates in the box, it removes the ambient electrons from the field, and then begins to remove the electrons that are orbiting the molecules of air. As the movement of electrons represents heat, the removal of electrons represents the removal of heat. While the ability of the box to lose heat is dependent on the ability of its insulation to prevent the transference of electrons from outside the box to inside the box, the box will become cold as the electrons are leached out of it by the expanding nuclei of the atoms in the refrigerant and then compressed out in heat which is then removed from the area by the fan.
Now we put a tender morsel of meat in the box. What happens to it?
The air in the box, already having given up its ambient electrons, and also some of the electrons orbiting its molecules, and even atoms, to the incessant demands of the expanding gas in the refrigerant, now has a new source of electrons, the electrons in the morsel of meat. In an attempt to balance the affinity propensity deficits, the meat gives up its electrons, cooling in the process, the definition of cooler being less activity, less movement of electrons.
Throw in a six pack of beer, some hot dogs and hamburgers, and the process continues, with the expanding gas of the refrigerant faithfully removing electrons from the box and, in the compression process, dropping them outside to be dissipated by the compressor's fan. We can adjust the level of coolness in the box by adjusting the amount of electrons we want withdrawn from it, calibrated for our senses in the form of temperature.
Alongside the refrigerator box, the increasingly popular separate box for taking temperatures down below the freezing point, is set to withdraw electrons to the point that ice and other products freeze. Even in the freezing of ice, we can see a unique process that results from field replacement. Science has long marveled that the combination of two hydrogen and an oxygen atom can form into either a gas, a liquid or a solid, the solid being the ice that freezing water produces. Science also notes that in the early part of freezing, the ice actually gains volume, expanding in the ice tray. What causes this?
We’ll see in a moment how water’s evaporation is not what’s happening when the sun beats down on the surface of a pool, it’s field replacement. In short, one of the biggest failures of science is to explain how moisture gets in the air, and thus weather itself, a subject we’ll take up in detail in the next chapter. But when it goes the other way, when water freezes, field replacement is working to withdraw electrons from the orbiting clouds around the molecules and atoms that make up the water. It is also simultaneously withdrawing electrons from the orbiting clouds of the air itself, to the point that both the air and the water have deficits that need to be made up by the nuclei the atoms that make up each field replacing each other.
But a funny thing happens on the way to this molecular field replacement. Air is about 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, the same oxygen that makes up the water molecule. As the air and the water intermingle in the freezing process, the excess affinity propensities of some of the oxygen atoms in the air replace the excess affinity propensities of some of the oxygen atoms in the water, dragging the molecule of air along with it into the freezing process, the reason that water appears to have air bubbles, floats, and expands in size.
However, if we leave the ice in the freeze too long, field replacement begins to take its toll, with the ice slowly losing both molecules of air and molecules of water to the persistent expansion of the refrigerant. This shrinks the remaining oxygen and hydrogen atoms into smaller and smaller slivers, similar in appearance to hail, an analogy that will become clear in the next chapter.
(To be continued)

Field Replacement (continued)

2007-11-02T10:07:00.001-07:00

While it’s all well and good to describe what’s theoretically possible using the single particle, our converted electron, with its opposing properties of at rest motion and affinity propensity to explain what no one else has ever been able to explain, namely what’s going on when you look at the burning logs in your fireplace, what’s mechanically going on, not what’s going on in science’s limited vocabulary of ignition point, oxygen combustion, the (humorous) claim that what isn’t left in the fireplace went up in gases, we can also look around at every day phenomena to get an idea of what field replacement is, what’s going on when one set of affinity propensities replaces another set of affinity propensities.
We can start off with something that is very simple, something that we first notice as children fixing the flat tires of our bikes. When we get the tire patched, we have to pump air into it. We take a little foot pump and start pumping away. What’s the first thing we notice, other than the pumping is making us tired but the tire is pumping up? If we feel the tire, which we always do to see how firm it’s getting, we notice that it is hotter than it was before we started pumping.
Where’s the heat coming from?
If we look in our science books, we find that compression of a gas produces heat. This, however, is monkey see, monkey say science, the proclivity of science to simply describe the result of what is happening and then pretending it knows what’s happening. While there’s certainly a body of theory out there dealing with compression and gases, when you boil it down, it’s still just describing effects of a cause. Nothing out there tells us mechanically what is happening to cause heat when a gas, the air in our tire, is compressed.
However, if we look at the pumping process in light of field replacement, we can clearly see exactly what is happening. Heat is movement, to be exact, the movement of electrons. When we put the unlit match deeper into the field of the lit match, the match ignited, and the motion of the electrons produced heat. But we don’t always need fire to produce heat. Heat is produced in all sorts of ways. However, no matter how it is produced, it is still an increase in the movement of electrons, or more to the point, an increase in the number of electrons in a given area.
When we compress the atoms, or molecules of atoms, of a gas, what are we doing? We are forcing the nuclei of the atoms into closer proximity. What is the result of this? The excess affinity propensities of the artificially compressed nuclei begin to replace each other’s affinity propensity, removing the need for the nuclei to satisfy those excess affinity propensities with orbiting electrons. With more stable affinity propensities replacing the less stable affinity propensities of the orbiting electrons, those electrons take off and become ambient. As they are all being released at the source of compression, they add heat to the immediate environment, heat that soon dissipates with the departing ambient electrons.
Now let’s reverse the process. I just cleaned my computer keys today using a can of compressed air, although decompressing a gas, say letting the air out of a tire, has the same effect. As I pressed the nozzle of the can, letting a blast of air rid the keys of dust, the can became cold. Why did this effect occur?
When the air is being decompressed, the nuclei of its atoms are returning to their normal distances from one another. They are no longer being artificially forced into a closer proximity. That means that these nuclei now have an excess affinity propensity that has to be satisfied by attracting electrons out of the ambient field. What constitutes the ambient field? In my case, the air around the top of the can where the nuclei were regaining their normal distances. All of a sudden, instead of an abundance of electrons, there was a deficit of electrons, and as electrons always seek out the strongest excess affinity propensity, and the strongest excess affinity propensity was the need of the decompressing nuclei for orbiting electrons, the decompressing nuclei were sucking electrons out of the ambient field, then some out of the molecules of air immediately surrounding them, some out of the surface nuclei of the can, and of course, some out of the surface flesh of my hand.
This process will continue until all the separate sources of excess affinity propensities have been satisfied. Slowly, electrons in the ambient field will migrate to the congeries of excess affinity propensities, in the decompressing nuclei, the air, the can and my skin, and everything will return to normal.
But what happens if there aren’t enough electrons in the ambient field?
(To be continued)

Field Replacement (continued)

2007-10-28T09:39:00.000-07:00

Now let’s return to our single flow and see how it affects the orbiting electrons of an atom, the basic reason the phenomenon is called field replacement. For purposes of visualization, we can imagine a single atom with a cloud of orbiting electrons whizzing around its nucleus. We bring our single flow of electrons close to the cloud of orbiting electrons. The nucleus has attracted only so many orbiting electrons as its excess affinity propensity will allow. What happens when the flow of electrons, with an electron at every point in the flow, comes close to the cloud of orbiting electrons?
The electrons orbiting the flow have their affinity propensities balanced by their at rest motion. At the first chance, their at rest motion is going to gain the upper hand and the electrons will fly off, ambient in the field. In like manner, the electrons orbiting the nucleus have their at rest motion balancing their affinity propensity and at the first chance the at rest motion can gain the upper hand, they too will fly off, ambient in the field.
Thus, when the more stationary electron in the flow satisfies the affinity propensity of the nucleus of the atom, one electron to be exact because we have only a single flow of electrons, both the electron orbiting the flow at that point and one electron orbiting the nucleus will no longer be necessary. The affinity propensity of the flow is now satisfying the affinity propensity of the nucleus, or to be more exact, the more stable affinity propensities of the nucleus and the flow have replaced the less stable affinity propensities of the orbiting electrons, and no longer with an affinity propensity to attract them, they are off in search of other affinity propensities.
If we double the flow, two electrons are replaced, triple it and three electrons are replaced. Of course, in the real world, we’re dealing with billions of electron flows and billions of orbiting electrons. Note that a single flow can replace the electrons in multiple atoms because at any point in the flow there is an affinity propensity that is more stable than the affinity propensities of the orbiting electrons. That’s why the electrons replaced by the affinity propensities of the flow will join a flow of electricity and why certain elements can become magnetic, the orbiting electrons being replaced by the electric flows becoming electrons orbiting all the atoms in the element.
Let’s revisit our wooden matches, where we had one match head with a flame, the other without. When the matches are a foot apart, the expanding flows of electrons are not strong enough to penetrate the physical surface of the sulfur. They are merely being deflected and therefore not producing field replacement. However, as we move the unlit match closer to the flame, the flows of electrons begin to penetrate the physical surface and begin to field replace the sulfur at the match’s head. As the orbiting electrons are replaced, the try to head off, but they too have to contend with the physical surface of the sulfur. At the outset, they can’t all breach the surface and thus not only are the flows of electrons replacing orbiting electrons, but the replaced electrons are milling about, also replacing the need for orbiting electrons in the sulfur.
The field replacement continues apace until the physical surface of the sulfur can no longer contain the electrons, and the match head ignites, its mass of ambient electrons now becoming directed by the combustion process of the match itself. This combustion is itself a clearly defined process in which the orbiting electrons, now being replaced on a massive scale, cannot all exit the match head at the same time. As a result, one mass of them is released in an expanding sphere. During the instant between this expanding sphere and the next expanding sphere, the massive mass of replaced electrons in the match head regroups and organizes for another mass exit from the match head. This reorganization can be viewed as an instant of contraction, the release of the expanding spheres being a point of expansion. This cycle of contraction and expansion is what gives the totality of expanding spheres produced by a single event frequency, with the rate of combustion (or if we are producing them with electricity, oscillation) determining frequency.
(To be continued)

Field Replacement

2007-10-20T09:33:00.000-07:00

The concept of field replacement arises from the single particle with its two opposing properties of at rest motion and affinity propensity. Broadly stated, field replacement is the principle that stationary fields replace less stationary fields. Specifically, more stationary affinity propensities replace less stationary affinity propensities.
What are stationary affinity propensities?
One stationary affinity propensity is found in the nucleus of the atom, the excess affinity propensity of the combined units that attracts electrons into orbit around it. A less stationary affinity propensity is found in the orbiting electrons, where the affinity propensities of the electrons are balanced by their at rest motion.
However, the electrons with the most stable affinity propensities are, surprisingly, electrons in a flow of electrons, either in the form of electricity, magnetism, or the electromagnetic frequency spectrum. Let’s take a close look at a flow of electrons by starting out looking at a flow of water.
Assume we’re sitting beside a quietly flowing stream. We look out at the water and it appears to be perfectly still. However, we know it isn’t because every once in a while, a leaf will flow lazily by. What makes the water look still is that all the molecules of water are identical. When one molecule of water vacates a point in the stream, an identical molecule that follows it takes its position. While all the molecules of water are drifting with the flow of the stream, they all look like they are stationary because at any moment, the molecule that comes behind is replacing each molecule.
This is also the case in a flow of electrons. While science has a pretty hazy, and many times contradictory, view of an electron, we know the electron as our single elementary particle with its two opposing properties. We also know that all electrons are identical. Thus, we can picture a single flow of electrons. At any point in the flow there is always an electron. It is not the same electron at any one time, but since all electrons are alike, the fact that at any point in the flow there is always an electron means that for all intents and purposes, at any point in a flow of electrons, there is what is basically a stable electron, an electron’s presence that is stationary.
Now, let’s take a moment and look closely at the effect of a single flow of electrons. At any point in the flow, there is an excess affinity propensity due to the fact that at any point in the flow there is always an electron. The electron’s at rest motion is being satisfied by the forward motion of the flow, and to some extent, each electron's affinity propensity is partially used up by its presence next to the electron in front of it and the electron in back of it, but since all electrons are involved in a directed field, a field that has obtained its direction from an activity at its source, most of its affinity propensity is excess affinity propensity.
What do we know about excess affinity propensities? Electrons in the ambient field will seek excess affinity propensities out so that they can satisfy their own excess affinity propensities. In the case of the flow of electrons, how could electrons in the ambient field best satisfy the excess affinity propensities of both?
At each point on the flow, the excess affinity propensity would attract an orbiting electron but since each point in the flow is next to the point ahead and behind it, the only way the orbiting electron could satisfy the excess affinity propensities is if it orbited at a right angle the flow. With every point in the flow attracting an electron out of the ambient field, all of the electrons orbiting the flow at right angles make up what we measure to be the inductive field, the flow of electrons around a primary flow.
Why not attract electrons out of the ambient field at a left angle, which is to say, why does induction follow the right hand rule, the rule where, if you put the thumb of your right hand in the direction of the primary flow and curl your fingers, the curl of your fingers will give you the direction of the inductive flow. For reasons that will become clear when we discuss planetary orbiting and rotation, all motion in the universe accords with a right hand rule. If we point the thumb of our right hand in the direction of the North Pole and curl our fingers, our fingers will curl in the direction of planetary rotation and, if we extend our mind to the solar system, orbiting. I suspect induction follows rotation.
In any event, let’s add a second flow to the first flow. What happens? With twice the excess affinity propensity at every point in the flow, each point attracts two orbiting electrons out of the ambient field that orbit at right angles, doubling the inductive flow. Add a third flow and the inductive flow triple what it would be for a single flow. In short, the inductive flow is proportional to the primary flow, the basic rule of induction, and a fact of utmost importance when we later describe the mechanism of gravity.
(To be continued)

The Atom

2007-10-13T09:40:00.000-07:00

Combustion is the field. It is the process by which matter unravels, first the electrons that hold molecules and atoms into physical matter depart, then the units of the nuclei separate as the field of the combustion process replaces the affinity propensities holding them together, and then the actual electrons in the nuclei themselves are emitted in expanding spheres.
When the conglomerations of the heaviest atoms that formed in the absence of a field begin to ignite, some are small, the size of moons or planets, others are large, the size of stars. Regardless of size, however, they all have one thing in common: they are cooling. And they are all cooling at the same rate. This means that the larger the sphere of the heaviest element is, the longer it will take to cool.
As the smaller spheres start to cool, the rate of combustion on their surfaces slows. This means that the process that is occurring on the surface when it is combusting like the sun is today reverses itself. A point is reached where the electrons of the unit can no longer be separated by the lower field and thus the units begin to retain their original size. The most important result is that, as the field passes through various degrees of cooling, as what is becoming a planet is cooling and crusting over, the units are able to increasingly stay together.
The resulting nuclei will not be as complex as the heaviest atom that forms in the absence of a field, but they will range from the single unit, which science labels hydrogen, on up the field of elements to the radioactive elements.
Before we discuss why radioactive elements are radioactive, we should note that this model tells us a lot about the core of the Earth. Once sufficient crust has formed to shield the heaviest atoms that can form, those atoms' surface rate of combustion slows. This means that the core of the Earth is comprised of the heaviest atoms that can form in the absence of a field, the surface of this core burning intensely but not with the rate that occurs on the surface of the sun. This core is surrounded by the crust, elements whose atoms have fewer units in their nuclei, the range of nonradioactive elements, through which the core's expanding sphere passes, reaching up to the surface, which contains radioactive elements.
So why are some elements radioactive? The answer is once again found in the field, which on Earth is a combination of the internally produced field, the combustion on the surface of the core, and the sun. The elements that exist on Earth exist in this combined field. However, there are boundary elements that are the heaviest elements that can exist in a particular field. Because the field is what causes elements to break down, the elements that exist in a particular field are those elements that can hold themselves together solidly in that field and those elements that aren’t stable in the field because the field is constantly attempting to break them down, field replace them in the terms of the next chapter.
Thus, on Earth we have heavy elements such as uranium that are at the boundary of the Earth’s field. Elements that have fewer units in their nuclei are stable, while elements with more units in their nuclei simply don’t exist (or perhaps do momentarily under laboratory conditions). This means that in all likelihood, uranium, which is a boundary element on Earth, would be stable in the much weaker field of Pluto, which is both cold and distant from the sun’s field. Perhaps the manmade californium is the radioactive element on Pluto, the boundary element, and uranium is stable.
On the other side of the scale, the scalding surface of Mercury would not even allow uranium to exist, and the boundary element, the radioactive element would be much lighter, perhaps something like tungsten. (Synthetic radioactive elements, isotopes, that don’t exist naturally, are not boundary elements by rather forced elements that are unstable in a given field.)
The atom here built or modeled on the basis of a single particle with the two opposing properties of at rest motion and affinity propensity fits all the requirements of the atom we need to construct reality and find in reality. It explains solid matter, and in fact is one of the three constructions the particle with opposing properties can form. It explains weight, and the basic feature of gravity, why atoms of different complexity fall at the same rate buy require different forces to move against gravity, the mechanics of which will be shown when we describe what gravity is. The atom accounts for decay and matter’s ability to produce light, both of which will become clear in the next chapter. Above all, it does away with the need for the made-up strong force and provides an explanation for what moves orbiting electrons.
What about magnetism?
The nucleus of an atom has an excess of affinity propensity that attracts electrons into orbit around the nuclei. However, there is one situation in which the nuclei have formed into solid matter while still having an excess of affinity propensities. This means that the affinity propensities cannot be satisfied by orbiting electrons, but can be satisfied by sharing electrons. The magnetic material attracts an external cloud of orbiting electrons. The electrons travel in one end of the magnet and pass by the nuclei of the atoms in the magnet, replacing the nuclei’s excess affinity propensities as it does so. It exists the opposite end of the magnet, travels in lines outside the magnet, and reenters at the opposite end once again.
Passing a conducting circuit through the orbiting electrons will cause the electrons to tip into the circuit, producing electricity. An element that isn’t naturally magnetized has the excess affinity propensities of the nuclei of its atoms satisfied by orbiting electrons. However, if it comes close to a magnet, it will lose some of those orbiting electrons to the flow from the magnet and itself become magnetized. In like manner, if an electric coil is wrapped around the metal, the electricity in the coil will do the same thing, magnetize what wouldn’t ordinarily be magnetic.

The Atom (continued)

2007-10-06T09:14:00.000-07:00

When we last left the unit, all of the electrons’ affinity propensity in the unit could hold their at rest motion in check but wasn’t sufficient to cause another electron with its at rest motion to overcome its at rest speed and therefore, it would reach its optimal size and cease to grow. If it were not a part of the massive matter formation that was going on in the area whose absence of a field promoted matter formation, it would attract ambient electrons into orbit around it. This is because while it doesn’t have enough affinity propensity to capture electrons, it has enough to alter their paths and this excess affinity propensity would cause enough electrons to orbit it to balance out its excess affinity propensity. The orbiting electrons have not given up their at rest motion, but their affinity propensities have been captured by the unit so that the unit’s affinity propensities are balanced, or in better vernacular, used up.
However, the unit is not alone, it is among trillions of quickly forming units, and ambient electrons move to the place where there is the greatest excess affinity propensity. With all the units forming, there won’t be any ambient electrons to orbit the unit. However, in this world, excess affinity propensities are constantly seeking something to balance their excess affinity propensities, use it up. In the case of newly formed units, all with an excess affinity propensity, there is only one source of affinity propensity available, and that’s the excess affinity propensities of other units in the area.
Thus, after the unit is formed, it starts to conglomerate with other units, each unit using up the other’s excess affinity propensity. Just like its own formation is limited by the number of electrons that can be held together against their at rest motion, the new nucleus is limited by the amount of excess affinity propensity it has left to attract other units. While there is no force opposing the formation of the units into a nucleus, each time a unit joins the nucleus, it adds excess affinity propensity to the overall nucleus, but the overall nucleus does not have the sum of the excess affinity propensities of its units because the excess affinity propensities are slowly being satisfied, used up, not in holding the nucleus together but simply because they are in a contiguous state. Because all nuclei are made up of identical units, the resulting nuclei are identical, each hold the same number of units.
This leads to a startling conclusion. All elements, no matter how heavy, which is to say, no matter how many units it has in its nucleus, all started out as part of the most complex, the heaviest atom that can exist, the atom formed in the absence of a field. It also should be noted that this nucleus has, as of yet, no orbiting electrons and while it does not have an overall excess affinity propensity, it still has an excess affinity propensity sufficient to bind itself onto other nuclei and enter the process of physical matter formation.
Physical matter is the matter we experience in our ordinary lives. When we look to the heavens, we see that the matter has all been formed in spheres. The explanation for this is the same as the explanation for the expanding sphere. Expanding spheres expand spherically because electrons are being emitted in all directions and all directions is a sphere. So too in matter formation, where the nuclei conglomerate in all surface areas and all surface areas forms a sphere.
The result is the formation of spheres of varying sizes, some the size of planets, others the size of stars, that exist quietly in a seam of space that has an absence of a field. That seem, fed by the breaking down emissions of stars from every direction, continues to allow matter formation to occur so long as there is an absence of a field and a source of material, the electrons that are the broken down emission fields. When we look at the cosmos, we see that these seams, the matter formation fields for the galaxies, can be of varying sizes, but are all quite large. In a dynamic universe filled with galaxies rich in stars producing emission fields, the quiet time, the matter drifting as conglomerations of atoms, will not last forever. Just like our two matches, one lit, the other quiet, moving closing to a field, becoming immersed deeper into an emission field, results in ignition. All it takes is for one of these conglomerations of atoms to ignite just like it only takes one atom of phosphorous in the match to ignite, to ignite contiguous conglomerations of matter which in turn will ignite the conglomerations contiguous to it and before long the galaxy lights up, springs into existence.
I’ll wait until discussing solar system movement to describe galactic rotation, how it starts and how it is powered. For now, we’ll jump to the solar system to see what happens to the most complex of atoms formed in the absence of a field when it is caught up in the maelstroms of combustion.
(To be continued)

The Atom (continued)

2007-09-29T09:39:00.001-07:00

I haven’t, and won’t be going into the conventions used to explain the operation of a battery, the twists and turns that allow science to convert chemical energy into electrical energy and then electrical energy back into chemical energy, just as I won’t be going into the conventions of the Standard Model that torture the explanation of atomic decay. As we see the operation of a single particle with two opposing properties, these made-up and agreed-to conventions will simply slip away as being unnecessary, with at rest motion providing the explanation for the conventional process of electricity that requires electrons to flow in the opposite direction of the current and the conventional processes of atomic decay which have all sorts of made-up particles converting into other made-up particles.
The basic unit of matter, as opposed to the basic particle of matter, is the unit the basic particles form. As all basic particles, and I’ll start to refer them to as electron with at rest motion and affinity propensity, as all electrons have the same amount of at rest motion and affinity propensity, units, under given conditions, are identical in size, with each containing the same number of electrons. The unit is made up of electrons whose affinity propensities have overcome their at rest motion, given identical conditions.
They are physical matter whereas the electron is only big enough to define nonexistence.
Now, note that I said that they are the same size, contain the same number of electrons, given identical conditions. What are the conditions in which a unit of matter exists?
The condition that controls the unit of matter’s size, and even existence, is the field in which that unit exists. While this foreshadows the next chapter on field replacement, it won’t hurt to introduce broad concepts of field, and more specifically, the expanding sphere, which is a concept that we will have to become familiar with because fields expand in all directions and all directions form a sphere.
To introduce fields and expanding spheres, I will use two wooden matches, wooden because they burn a little longer than paper matches and allow us time to perform the simple task of explanation. If we strike one of the matches, what happens? The obvious answer is, the prosperous tip ignites, but note ignite is just a term we use to define the point at which something begins to undergo combustion. All matter has ignition points at which first its molecules and then its atoms begin to break down, come apart.
When the match is ignited, however, it begins to emit light and as light is a small part of the electromagnetic frequency field, we can say the field begins to leave the surface of the match head. Now, science will tell us that the heat and light that make up this field are not only two different things, they are things of no substance. However, as everything we can measure has to be made up of the newly defined electron, what the match head is emitting is a field composed of those electrons. (As we move through the book, we will find that the electron with its two opposing properties can only form into three structures, the atom we will construct in this chapter, the electromagnetic emission field, which we will construct out of measurable facts when we deal with gravity, and the structure that is our minds, which we will construct in that area of the book.)
How can we describe the field the match head is emitting? First, it’s being emitted in all directions, except where it’s blocked, which is at the match stem and our fingers holding it. All directions form a sphere. Spheres are precisely measurable. Their surface area is four times pi times the radius squared. We have to view what is going on around the match head in terms of the field emitted. At each instance, the field that is being emitted gets a little larger as the field behind it is being emitted. While the natural tendency is to call each of the emissions packets, it would be inaccurate because, while each emitted field is connected to the electrons that make it up, it is connected to the electrons making up the field emitted prior to it and will be connected to the electrons making up the field that will be emitted after it.
What we see around the match head is a series of emitted fields, each with a different property, and that property is presence. As each emitted field is precisely measurable, we know the precise presence of each field when compared to the fields ahead of and behind it. As the measurement of the surface area of all the fields have 4 and pi in common, those measurements can be eliminated. The area of a field is determined by the square of the field’s distance from its source, which is common to all the fields.
What does this mean in practical terms? Since the area of the field is increasing with the square of its distance from its source, the field that was emitted has to cover an increasing area, and that means the field is diminishing with the square of its distance from where it was emitted. If that measurement sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the measurement for gravity. In any event, we are concerned here with the presence of the field, and that presence is diminishing with the square of the distance from its source. This is an expanding sphere and I can’t impress expanding spheres enough because they not only explain gravity, they explain how we can see what we see, both subjects addressed later on.
Here, we are only concerned about what is happening to the field, as evidenced by its presence, and we find that the heat and light, expanding over the surface of an expanding sphere, is diminishing inversely with the square of the distance from the sphere’s source, the radius of the sphere. This little fact, that light diminishes inversely with the square of its distance, is an inconvenient fact to an astronomy that likes to brag it can see from the beginning of time to the end of the universe. Anything that diminishes inversely with the square of its distance eventually expands out of existence, putting the bogus parallax measurements on which all star distances are measured in deep question (the rate of all possible errors in parallax is almost six times the best measurement).
How does this diminishing field affect the atom we are constructing out of units?
We have one match lit and emitting a field that is diminishing inversely with the square of its distance from the source of the field, the match head. If we take the second match and hold it say five inches from the first, nothing happens. However, if we start to move the second match head toward the first match, what are we doing? We are immersing the match into a stronger field the closer we come to the first match. Soon we get deep enough into the first match’s field that the binding holding the molecules and even the atoms together can no longer do so, for reasons explained in the next chapter. The second match reaches its ignition point and bursts into flame.
The point of this exercise is to demonstrate what I meant by “given identical conditions.” We live in fields that have many sources. The sun’s field, of course, is pretty evident, but the Earth is also emitting a field, even if science doesn’t recognize it. It’s common sense that something with a molten core would be emitting, but science never follows its conclusions through, with scientific fields being so narrow that the boundary of one never conflicts with the boundary of another (unless its mass gravity, with which no science can conflict).
When we measure the matter on the surface of the sun, we measure hydrogen, the source of science’s analogy of the sun to a hydrogen bomb (brilliant analogy that). We are measuring hydrogen in a way, because hydrogen is composed, or assumed to be composed of, a single unit, and a single unit is what would result if matter were placed in the highest field in nature, the surface of the sun. No matter what the sun is composed of, or what happens to fall into the sun, the matter is immediately reduced on the surface first to its molecules, then its atoms and then its units. What happens to the units? The units are themselves unraveling, which is to say, the at rest motion of the electrons making up the units is overcoming the affinity propensities of those electrons and those electrons are escaping the surface of the sun traveling at their at rest speed, the speed of light or the electromagnetic emission field. A science that doesn’t think matter emits what it is composed of when it is reduced by combustion isn’t a science, it’s a fantasy world.
Now we get our first glimpse of the cycle of the universe. If the basic unit of matter unravels in a strong field, how does that matter form in the first place, how do the affinity propensities overcome the at rest motion so they form into the units?
As the electrons come apart on the surface of the sun, or on any star for that matter, they form into a structure dictated by their properties, which we’ll describe when we discuss gravity. They begin to expand over the surface of an expanding sphere and as they do so, they diminish inversely with the square of the distance traveled. The same number of electrons covers greater and greater areas of the surface of the sphere. They reach a point at which they cannot maintain their cohesion on that surface and they began to break apart, the emission field begins to break down, producing freely moving electrons which I refer to as ambient electrons because we live in a world of ambient electrons and they explain a lot of the phenomena we experience and will be describing.
In space however, we have to assume that there are areas that contain no fields. It is this absence of a field that is the “given identical conditions” in which the units originally form to produce the atom that is the predecessor of all the atoms that we find in our periodic table of elements.
The cycle of the universe is quite simple: Matter formation, combustion, expanding emission field, dissipation and matter reformation. What happens between combustion and matter reformation are the galaxies we see, the solar systems that give rise to life, in short, the universe, which is a constant engine of the birth and movement of matter that gives rise to life.
So how do the basic units in the absence of a field form into matter and what happens to them when they combust?
(To be continued)

The Atom (continued)

2007-09-21T09:03:00.000-07:00

It’s clear that Rutherford took certain criteria that his model of an atom had to meet and then designed the atom to meet those criteria, but by failing to take into consideration the likes repel aspect of putting protons together in the nucleus and accounting for the motion of the electrons around the nucleus, his model is insufficient. There’s another area in which Rutherford’s model failed. That was in modeling an atom that could produce light, a failure that a whole new field of science, quantum mechanics, was created to gloss over.
We want to build an atom that explains solid matter and accounts for weight. In addition, the atom must explain the basic feature of gravity, that atoms of different complexity fall at the same weight but require different forces to move against gravity. We also want an atom that will account for atomic decay as well as for matter's ability to produce light.
As we shall see, such an atom forms naturally from a single elementary particle with the opposing properties of affinity propensity and at rest motion, but before we do that, we need to explore the properties of this particle as opposed to the properties of the electron because what we are dealing with when we refer to the single particle is actually a modified electron. It is the electron we are familiar with, but one to which we have failed to assign the correct properties.
First, the electron science models has no motion of its own. This is simply absurd on its face. We know electrons move in a circuit and that circuits have neither a positive nor negative poll. In the case of inductive induced current, current that travels through a copper wire whose ends have been brought into contact, any electron that would be moving through the circuit would have to travel to both a positive and a negative pole if the circuit had poles, which it doesn’t.
The notion that electrons need polarity to move was a primitive concept made up by the early inventors and users of the battery, where the motive force appears to be the potential differences in the elements used but which merely is the flow of electrons between two potential differences, where the different potential differences seek to balance themselves (that’s how batteries wear out, the potential difference of the elements is no longer sufficient to produce a current flow).
Science knows for a fact that electrons orbit the nucleus of the modeled atom, but has no explanation for the electron's motion. It doesn’t even make an attempt, and it certainly ignores the likes repel rule applied to the protons. Why would electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom if they repelled one another?
So, it seems to be self-evident that the at rest motion we are talking about with the basic elementary particle is the at rest motion of the electron.
Now let’s tackle the likes repel, opposites attract fiction. If a magnet is allowed to move freely, one end always points to the North Pole. While it is only recently that science realized that naming this end of the magnet the north pole of the magnet contradicted it’s own likes repel dictate, the end of magnets that are designated north do repel each other. Perhaps science’s blindness in this area was the result of renaming the north south poles as negative and positive when they were applied to provide a reason for the movement of electricity in a battery. When the south end of a magnet come near the north end of a magnet, they attract, and it is this concept, a transfer of north south to negative and positive, that provided a basis for the movement of electricity. The positively charged particles were being attracted to the negative pole of the battery (now, as noted, the negative to the positive).
If the electrons that are the particles that represent electricity have at rest motion, there is no reason for polarity. But let’s look at the electrons with polarity in an electric wire. As we shall see, electrons move to where there is a deficit of affinity propensity, which is to say, they move from where they aren’t needed to where they are if a path is provided for them to move in. In the battery, two elements with potential differences have terminals. When connected, electrons flow from the element with the greater potential difference to the element with the lesser potential difference. (Potential difference, the electric property of an element, alters with temperature, a fact that we’ll later use to explain the origin of life, and a fact that also explains why your car batter won’t start no a very cold morning.)
The direction of flow is what’s important in the production of electricity. When electricity is produced by generators, it is attracted to the loads using the electricity, because those loads, by definition, have a deficit of electrons and therefore a deficit of affinity propensity.
Can you imagine electrons moving in a conductor if they all repelled each other? They wouldn’t be going anywhere because they’d all be trying to get away from each other before they even tried to get to the load.
For electricity to move through a conductor, it has to be cohesive, its particles have to all move in unison. To move in unison, they can’t be trying to repel each other, they have to come together, be a single flow.
The notion that opposites attract is probably as deep seated in our minds as the notion that gravity is proportional to and therefore a property of mass. It’s extremely difficult to visualize an electric world with no polarity, but as the opposing properties of at rest motion and affinity propensity explain physical reality after physical reality, the concept that there has to be opposites to obtain movement in the subatomic world drops away.
We have to remember that science does not have any notion of why magnets act as they do, and yet they willy-nilly apply surface explanations that explain nothing to other physical realities, clouding the understanding of those other physical realities. (We’ll be able to picture the forces at work in magnets after we construct the atom.)
The simple reality is, electrons attract one another. It is the only way to provide a physical explanation for electricity. Once sufficient electrons have been collected in a conductor, that conductor can be hooked up to a load and the electrons will, at their at rest speed less the resistance of the conductor, travel to the area of the conductor where there is a deficit of electrons, the load.
The conductor has to be made up of the atoms of an element that, when formed, can give up its own electrons to the flow while the flow replaces the electrons, providing the stability to keep the atoms of the element together (we’ll understand more about this in the next chapter on field replacement. Suffice it to say, if the element’s atoms won’t or can’t give up electrons, it can’t conduct, and if the electrical flow is too high for the conductor, its atoms will separate, the conductor will melt.)
(To be continued)

The Atom

2007-09-15T10:28:00.000-07:00

Thomas Edison ran into a problem when he was attempting to create the light bulb. He was using a carbon filament and was vexed by the fact that the carbon was coating the bulb. He decided that the electricity was not only flowing though the filament, it was flowing through the evacuated bulb. He made a bulb with a third electrode in an attempt to divert the flow and stop the blackening. He found that electricity did flow to this third filament but it didn’t stop the blackening, so he abandoned the effort, patenting the new bulb in the process.
In the light bulb, electricity flows through a filament. The filament, according to science, produces resistance to the flow of electricity and heats up, producing light. In short, light isn’t made up of the electricity that produces it. The loss of electricity is due to resistance, not to it being converted to light. If the filament in the bulb is separated, the filament with the incoming flow of electrons is called a cathode because it produces a stream of what are now known to be electrons. The cathode ray tube is the basis of television.
If, instead of evacuating the bulb entirely, a small amount of gas is left inside it, Edison’s effect can actually be seen as the gas becomes a conductor for the electrons with paths of electrons being emitted by the cathode lighting up. J. J. Thomson was the first to experiment with these mysterious rays called cathode rays that the cathode produced in gas. (Edison’s effect is grudgingly acknowledged as the basis of the diode, the old electronic tubes that were replaced by transistors, but not at all for the cathode ray tube that basically operates on the effect.)
Thomson was the first to demonstrate that cathode rays could be deflected by an electric field and were therefore negatively charged particles. So we have electricity going into a modified light bulb and producing flows of electrons. Why does science insist that the filament of the light bulb is not giving off electrons, but something else? As we get into the topic of the structure of light latter in the book, we’ll see that light is a structured from of the elementary particle described in the last chapter, and that elementary particle is the electron operating in the light bulb. It just seems to me that someone, somewhere, once it was determined that a light bulb could be modified in a way that simply separated its filament and produced flows of electrons, newly named by Thomson, would have wondered whether light was made up of electrons, but no, science thinks in compartmentalized structures that excludes thought. Besides, light is not deflected by an electric current (or at least by the electric currents of the day).
At the same time all of this was going on, people were discovering and experimenting with radioactive matter, matter that decayed and in the process gave off bits of itself. One of the bits was called an alpha particle, and alpha particles were what Rutherford, the constructor of our vision of the atom, enjoyed experimenting with. He noticed that when the alpha particles were directed at gold foil, some of them were deflected. Up until this point, everyone pictured the atom as a small, round ball. However, when Rutherford found a percentage of his alpha particles deflected by the foil, he reasoned that they were bouncing off something. As most of the atoms were passing through the foil with only minor deflection, he reasoned that the material was made up of atoms and those atoms were something other than little round balls.
Rutherford’s experiments with radiation had already identified an additional particle, the beta particle that he later determined to be an electron, so he already had Thomson’s electron in mind when he set about analyzing the nature of the structure of matter the alpha rays were encountering. He started to visualize a nucleus with shells of electrons orbiting it. Dimitri Mendeleev had long before put together the periodic table of elements, arranging them by weight. Rutherford accounted for weight, what is called mass today, by creating the neutron. To keep the electrons in orbit around the nucleus, he created the proton.
This model had two major defects as pointed out in the last chapter. There was no explanation for the electrons motion and protons, being positive, were supposed to follow the likes repel rule, and therefore, couldn’t stay together in the nucleus. Science solved the latter problem by creating a strong force to hold the protons together, but has totally ignored the source of the motion of the orbiting electrons.
(To be continued)

An Elementary Particle with Two Properties (conclusion)

2007-09-07T09:31:00.000-07:00

The first question, of course, is what two properties should the particle have? If you look at the properties science makes up and assigns to particles, you’ll end up scratching your head. As in any endeavor, the first thing to do is to make sure we’re asking the right question. Here we want a particle that will describe all of operating reality, so the question becomes, what do we know about operating reality?
We know that operating reality, the galaxies and star systems they contain, are located in empty space, or in my vernacular, nothing. Going back to the definition of the universe in the Introduction, the universe is essentially matter in nothing. That matter comes in two forms, the solid matter that makes up the stars and the planets and the matter that make up the electromagnetic emission fields active stars and planets produce. As we are hypothesizing a universe that is made up of a single particle, the matter and whatever makes up the electromagnetic emission fields, are made up of the same particle, the basic element of matter.
The planets and stars and the electromagnetic emission fields they produce are grossly different manifestations of the same particle, but they should tell us something about the properties that particle needs if it is going to explain both.
Starting with solid matter, what do we know about it? We know one thing and one thing only about solid matter. Whatever it’s made of is conglomerated together and if it conglomerated together, it is held together by something. In today’s science, that something is the strong force, but the strong force wasn’t made up to hold matter together, it was made up to explain why like-charged protons in the nucleus of the atom didn’t fly apart. There is no explanation what holds the neutrons together other than, perhaps, the weak force made up to explain atomic decay.
With matter being held together, the basic particles that makes up matter must be attracted to one another. That’s a pretty simple proposition, so why not just make it one of the properties of the elementary particle?
It’s not a property without its limitations. I always find this difficult to explain, but using magnets as an example, let’s lay out several hundred identical coin-shaped magnets on a table. If we pick up two of the magnets, they will readily clamp together. If we add a third, it will clamp together with a little less force. Holding the magnetic chain vertically, we keep adding magnets to the bottom of the chain. We eventually reach a point at which the chain will hold no more magnets. The weight of the overall combination has overcome the ability of the magnetic force to hold it together.
What should we call the property of attraction of the elementary particle we are conceptualizing? I long ago termed this property the particle’s affinity propensity. Instead of saying the particles attracted one another because that's too much like opposites attract, I defined affinity propensity as the particle's affinity for occupying the same space as any other particle. While that gets us away from saying the particles attract one another, that’s clearly the result of each particle pressing to occupy the space of all other particles.
What does this have to do with our magnetic chain?
When two particles come together, the combined structure of the two has twice the affinity propensity of each individual particle. However, some of the affinity propensity of each particle has been used up holding the combined structure together. Of course, we aren’t dealing with a table full of magnets, we are dealing with particles the size of electrons, very, very small bits. In fact, I define the elementary particle’s size as being just large enough to define nothingness because we have defined nothingness by the existence of matter.
As more and more particles come together into a sphere, and they form a sphere because particles form on a surface in all directions, and all directions of a surface form a sphere, each particle adds affinity propensity but uses up some of the affinity propensity of both itself and the sphere in holding it to the growing sphere. Like the weight overcoming the magnetic chain’s magnetic ability to stay together, eventually the sphere doesn’t have enough affinity propensity to attract additional particles and it is as large as it can get.
This brings up two very important points, First, because all of the elementary particles are identical with an identical amount of affinity propensity, the resulting spheres, I refer to them as units, will be identical, or close to identical, all other factors considered (and we’ll cover those factors in the next chapter on the atom).
Of primary importance, though, the question that should have been hovering in the background of everyone’s mind is, what force are they holding themselves together against? The magnets were fighting weight, but here weight isn’t a factor. Why don’t these particles, with their affinity propensity, simply form a gigantic sphere, soaking up all the elementary particles in the universe into one big structure? What are they fighting against? What force is attempting to keep them from forming into the structure in the first place so that the particles have to use up their affinity propensity to form into the structure?
To answer this question, and find the second property of our basic particle, we have to look at the second form of matter, the electromagnetic emissions produced by the stars and the planets undergoing combustion. And here, we’ll have to take a small side trip into the word combustion. Most people are under the mistaken assumption that combustion is defined by the presence of oxygen, that when something burns, when it is undergoing combustion, it requires oxygen. This, of course, rules out calling what stars do as combusting, or undergoing combustion.
This sets combustion off from the fission or fusion process. Using labored reasoning, and the fact that science can only measure the elements on the surface of stars, and that element is hydrogen, science concluded, after the successful fusion process that supposedly occurs in a hydrogen bomb, that the sun's emissions are the result of fusion. Thus, in using a single particle to explain fire here on Earth (for which, by the way, science has no coherent explanation) and the fire that is burning on the surface of the sun, I have the same gut reaction I get when I claim that both light and electricity have induction fields around them (a subject that will become extremely important when we discuss gravity). Instead of attempting to follow my reasoning, and evidence, to the contrary, people tend to discount everything when I say that stars and the planets are combusting.
However, the dictionary definition of combustion is a chemical process that produces heat and light. It uses oxidation as an example, but the definition of a chemical process is not necessarily limited to oxidation. While fusion is not considered to be a chemical process, the scientific explanation for fusion is totally conceptual, and its application to the surface of a star ad hoc, we call it a hydrogen bomb, stars have hydrogen on their surfaces, therefore they’re the same. Science has no coherent explanation for what is happening for when something is burning. When we get to the chapter on field replacement, we’ll see exactly what makes a log burn on Earth and the sun burn in space.
Returning to the electromagnetic emissions themselves, what is the one thing we know about them that is factual? Things like being wave particles are conceptual, and specific characteristics such as those of light (diffraction grating, for instance) are factual, but not general. What is the one fact we know about the electromagnetic spectrum that is universal?
We know its speed!
What does knowing its speed tell us? It tells us that light moves from one place to another. Under Newton’s particle view, just like the planets, light didn’t need a source of motion. When light became a wave, its movement could easily be ascribed to a disturbance in an aether made up to account for its wave features. Toward the end of the 19th century, Maxwell produced his equations that placed light within the confines of the electromagnetic spectrum (light was still a wave), but these equations do not explain why light moves other than to produce a hazy picture of magnetic and electrical fields interacting with each other.
In short, no one has an inkling why light, or electromagnetic emissions, move.
Why not just admit that they are made up of a particle (which Einstein proved with his photoelectric effect), drop the wave idiocy, and assign the property of motion to the particle?
If we adopt motion as a property of our particle, then we have something that the affinity propensity has to overcome and which would therefore limit the size of the units the particles would form. We have a single particle with two opposing properties, one property tending to bring the particles together, the other seeking to have the particles return to their normal speed, which I call the particle’s at rest speed because when the particle is traveling at what we consider the speed of light, it is at rest with itself in so far as being able to move without hindrance. What better situation. All of matter has stored energy in it, the energy inherent in each of the particles that make up the matter, to overcome the affinity propensity and return to its at rest speed.
Isn’t this simply a physical description of Einstein’s e=m equation where the square of the speed of light merely demonstrates the staggering amount of energy stored, or rather at rest motion, overcome, by the affinity propensities that hold the matter together?
Of course, as soon as we have opposing properties in the same particle, we have two overriding questions, how did the particles come together in the first place or how do the affinity propensities overcome the at rest motion and how do the particles come apart or how does the at rest speed of the particles overcome their affinity propensities? How does matter come form in the first place and dissipate in electromagnetic emissions?
We won’t be able to answer these questions until we construct an atom and then subject it to field replacement.

An Elementary Particle with Two Properties (continued)

2007-08-31T09:46:00.000-07:00

Does science therefore conclude that the electron has a property of movement? Absolutely not. In the case of the orbiting electrons, the source of the motion is a taboo subject.
Given the property they then placed in the electron, one wonders what kind of fractured minds established, consensus science attracts.
Remember back in the 17the century, the argument about the nature of light revolved around whether it was a particle or a wave. Newton’s massive influence set the stage for it being a particle throughout the 18th century, but Young’s experiment, performed at the opening of the 19th century, convinced the consensus that it was a wave. The amazing thing about these centuries of musing, analyzing, arguing, and concluding is that no one, not a single mind, bothered to ask the basic question about light, how was it produced? After all, knowing, or coming up with concepts involved with how light was produced would seem to be the first step in determining what light was.
But not our blundering scientists. They stumbled on down the path of defining the nature of light until Einstein discovered that light could produce electricity, or to be more precise, light could activate the new particle now accepted as the electron.
Did our esteemed and thoughtful scientists scratch their heads and say, hey, we were wrong about light being a wave? Why would they? Light was already proven to be a wave, that was incontrovertible, therefore, it was now necessary to define it also as particle, and a particle was quickly created called a photon, Einstein’s effect named the photoelectric effect, and all in the universe was now back in an orderly, understandable, arrangement. Of course, no one could visualize light as a wave or a particle, but what the heck, why be able to explain something when we can use words and phrases to trick ourselves into thinking we understand something?
But now with light a particle affecting an atom and the material undergoing the photoelectric effect phenomena being made up of atoms, it dawned on these quick minds, about three centuries after it should have been raised, how does matter produce light?
Having assigned two different particles to one phenomenon, the photoelectric effect, science had to explain how the one particle, the photon, could affect the other particle, the electron. The conclusion agreed upon (and note, all this stuff is a consensus, an agreement to agree on a certain set of concepts by a small group of theorists that the millions of honest, practicing scientists have to swallow whole) was that the electrons were emitted as a result of the absorption of the light. That’s about as duh a statement as can be made after determining that light and electricity were made up of two different particles.
Of course, there was good observational reason to assume that light and electricity weren’t the result of the same particle because light didn’t require positive or negative poles to cause it to move, in fact, when electricity was discovered, light was considered to be ripples in a made-up aether. Electricity was clearly something because it could do work while light wasn’t able to do anything. Electricity had polarity while light didn’t, a fact that has latter been disproved by measuring the magnetic forces that occur on filaments, or on the sun for that matter.
Probably the biggest argument I get against a single particle concept is light and electricity because on the surface they are radically different phenomena. However, as we go along, it becomes apparent that on a working level, on the level at which we need to understand how things operate, they are different manifestations of the same particle.
Once science determined that electrons were emitted as a result of the absorption of light, it dug deeper, as only it can with its shallow concepts, to find out how matter produces light. The secret, it turns out, is to add a new property to the electron, one that no one suspected it had up until creative thinkers decided to create it. This property was the ability of the electron to absorb and release energy.
Think of that for a moment. Here we have a particle made up solely to explain a phenomenon, electricity, we have no idea as to its working, it’s source, its means of motion, its ultimate fate. As a matter of fact, the best we can do is call it a moving charge. We take that particle and remove it from its context of being capable of doing work and we place it in a concept we create to explain matter, we put it in orbit around the nuclei of the atoms that make up all matter. Then, after originally saying we require polarity to cause it to move, we allow it to move in its atomic orbit without polarity, and say, hey, here’s something else it can do. It can absorb and emit light!
Post a large sign on science’s door, Genius at Work, then sit back and try and figure out what a genius is. It’s someone who can say, to paraphrase the search for the Scarlet Pimpernel, they seek them here, they seek them there, they seek them everywhere. In short, the electrons circling the atom are probabilities whose location can never be fixed. However, one thing is known with certainty about an electrons location and that’s its energy level with respect to the nucleus, which translates to its distance from the nucleus. If undisturbed by incoming photons, the nucleus binds the electron tightly, as close to it as it can. That means that the electron is at its lowest energy level.
It’s when the photons start streaming in that the electrons exercise their new property of being energized. At their lowest energy level, they are at the ground state. When a photon arrives with enough energy to energize the electron, the electron, get this, the electron absorbs the photon and the electron jumps a further distance from the nucleus. Now the electron is in an excited (science’s word, not mine) state. As we all know, being in a excited state is not our normal state, so just like we settle down sooner or later, the electron settles down.
How does it do this? It gives up it photon and thus matter produces light. How simple is that? Worthy of simpletons.
Just like we have various levels of excitement, an electron can get more and more excited by absorbing more and more photons until it gets so excited, it jumps out of its skin, or shell, or atom. Thus, the photoelectric effect is explained, sort of, and also the fact that atoms ionize, become charged by losing electrons.
As the 20th century went along, the creation of particles became the way to fame and fortune. With the invention of cloud chambers and cyclotrons, particles became so numerous, no one could keep track. As a result, an international conference was held to limit the number of particles, and the result was the standard model, which we won’t spend time going into because it is just a complex way to explain atomic decay, which I will explain in a very simple way). However, it’s interesting to note that with the limitation of particles, the allowed particles had to be expanded somehow. With the ever-inventive scientific mind at work, certain particles were imbued with human characteristics, charm, flavor, even color and, of course, the electron with its ability to absorb photons like we absorb food then give them off like we burn calories.
One might think that the conceptualization of a single particle that could be used to explain not only the phenomena that are now explained inconsistently by the invention of multiple particles, but also phenomena that remain unexplainable, would be welcome, but there are too many reputations invested in the myriad particle mess. One would think that conceptualizing a mere two properties for the particle might also be welcomed, but science, once its course is set, and science’s course was set centuries ago by dead men who knew nothing, will never change its course. If light is found to be a particle instead of a wave, it’s still a wave, a wave particle, a probability, anything that appears to provide an answer to the great unwashed (and that’s anything that defies reason).
When Rutherford modeled the atom with orbital electrons, he ignored the source of the motion of the electrons. He also made another little mistake. He put a bunch of protons in the nucleus of the atom to hold the electrons in orbit. Opposites attract, remember. Well, he forgot that likes repel. Of course, this whole business of moving magnetic description first into the operation of a battery, then induced electricity and finally into a model of an atom is absurd, having no basis in reality other than shabby thinking. However, there we were with an atom stuffed with like charges that should be repelling but weren’t. What to do? What to do?
Well, science, if nothing else, is inventive. If we have like forces repelling these protons, protons that, by the way, we made up and imbued with the like forces, then there must be a greater force holding those electrons together. We know the force is there because otherwise the protons wouldn’t be together. So we’ll make up this force and call it what it is, the strong force (as opposed to the weak force that allows the nucleus to decay). The strong force holds the nucleus of the atom together and as atoms combined to produce matter, the strong force is at the basis of matter.
Sounds good, doesn’t it. We make up a neutron to account for weight, we make up a proton to account for maintaining another particle we made up, the electron, in orbit. We have that electron whizzing around with no apparent force interacting with electrons of other atoms to produce molecules that form into matter. We also have that electron bouncing up and down in its orbit absorbing and emitting the wave particles that are photons, light to us, and that’s how the universe operates.
So let’s see what a single particle with two properties will look like. First I’ll cover the properties, then in the next chapter we’ll use it to build a workable atom. Then we’ll cover field replacement, the simple principle that replaces the myriad particles of the atom with their color and charm and, well, total confusion, completely beyond reason.
To be continued

An Elementary Particle with Two Properties

2007-08-25T08:23:00.001-07:00

I suspect that the habit of naming particles for effects and then thinking that the name described the effect began with the discovery of electricity. The development of electrical theory is probably one of the more perverted areas of science. It reaches back into the mysterious effects of magnetism, where the well-known principle of likes repel and opposites attract became seated in the human mind for all eternity. Take two magnets, determine which side is which by allowing one of the sides to point to the north, mark that side on each magnet. The marked sides will repel while the unmarked sides will attract the marked sides.
Magnets were beyond understanding, so studies were devoted to merely describing their effects, a habit that has carried over into all areas of science, and especially electricity. This is a deadly process. It destroys understanding. People think that being able to describe what’s happening, they understand what’s happening. Description replaces understanding, but because we have a complex description, we think we understand. Saying monkey-like that likes repel and opposites attract doesn’t tell us anything about how magnets work, and when we don’t know how something works, we shouldn't analogize it to other things.
But that’s what happened when the first batteries generated a steady current. The battery needed two metals with what is now known as potential differences (a very important reality to the development of our understanding of how the universe operates). With two poles attached to each metal, connecting a conductor between the two produced an electric flow. With something flowing, science wanted an answer, what is causing that something to move? It’s an obvious question, and it’s a simple fact of reality that things don’t move without something causing them to move (unless we’re talking about the planets). There had to be something causing the current to move from one pole to the other.
Unfortunately, it was quickly discovered that the electrical current would deflect a magnet in the form of a compass. This meant that there was something about magnets and electricity that was similar. In casting about for an explanation for the movement of the current, it occurred to science that opposites attract. It therefore concluded, without any evidence, that the two poles of the battery were like the opposite ends of a magnet, and that when they were connected, electricity flowed from the positive to the negative (nowadays it is understood to flow from negative to positive).
The notion that electricity needs a positive pole in order to move, that whatever causes it can’t move on its own, was set in science’s thought process when the next advance in electricity occurred some three decades later. With batteries providing a constant source of electricity, scientists were able to conduct repeatable experiments and build on the results. It was finally discovered that moving a wire that had been formed into a circuit perpendicular to the electrical flow itself produced an electrical flow.
It wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that science became obsessed with particles so no one knew what the electricity was, but here was a distinct phenomenon, the flow of electricity itself creating a flow, a fact that was to become the basis of our modern technological society in the form of generators and electric motors. Needing names to describe what was happening, science named the area around the electric flow that could produce electricity in a circuit moving perpendicular to it the inductive field, something that will become of the utmost importance in our subsequent discussions as it is the force generated by electromagnetic emissions that produces gravity and planetary rotation and orbiting.
Edison, using simply the facts of electricity rather than the hazy theories about what electricity was, produced thousands of inventions that eventually lit up the world. He was a direct current advocate, which is the process of using a generator to induce an electrical flow in one direction. Tesla, another inventor, realized that by manipulating the way the rotors moved though the magnetic fields of the generator, he could produce alternating current, current that at one instant flows in one direction, and in the next, in the opposite direction. Tesla was responsible for our modern electrical system because alternating current could be manipulated better than direct current and travel longer distances.
The point of both, however, is that they were working with what they conceived to be flows of electricity and these flows needed something to make them move. Just like the concept that electricity moved from negative to positive became embedded in the universal mind, the concept of flows of electricity became inherent in electrical concepts without much reference to flows of what. However, J. J. Thomson altered that view by proposing that electricity was made up of flows of electrons, and interestingly enough, he thought that all matter was ultimately made up of electrons, a novel idea that, if it had been followed, would have probably made this book unnecessary (and my life not as exciting as it has been figuring all this out).
Here we end up with two assumptions. The first is that electricity needs a current force to cause it to move. The second is that a particle can be created to explain physical effects.
The idea that electricity needs a current force to cause it to move seems logical when we look at a battery, but seems illogical when we look at currents induced by inductive fields. In the battery, we have two potential differences that, when connected, produce an electrical flow. The normal question is to ask, what is causing the flow, now we can say electrons, to flow? However, when we move a conductor in an inductive field, electrons begin to flow if the conductor is formed into a circuit.
The idea for positive negative, plus minus came from a magnet. Did anyone bother to ask what is causing the magnetic fields around the magnet? No, because they were considered this mysterious force that was associated with magnetic material. But moving a conducting circuit in a magnetic field produces a flow of electricity too. More to the point, the circuit is a circuit with no negative or positive poles like the magnet, so where’s the explanation for the current movement of the electrons?
When Thomson hypothesized the electron, he was setting up the second assumption, one that has overpowered science. This assumption is that we can simply explain effects by calling them a particle and assigning a name to them. Rutherford was the first to do this in his very useful concept of an atom. Taking Thomson’s electron as a starting point, he hypothesized that these electrons were orbiting the nuclei of atoms in shells, depending on the type of atom involved. Atoms became heavier according to the periodic table set out by Dmitry Mendeleyev in the 1870s. Rutherford accounted for weight by creating a particle he called a neutron and putting it in the nucleus of the atom. He then had to explain what was keeping the electrons in orbit. True to his ingrained teaching about negative and positive, he created a proton, a positive particle, and also placed it in the nucleus of the atom. The neutrons provided weight, the protons provided an attraction for the electrons, and the electrons, nestled in neat little orbits, provided the way atoms were put together into matter.
Rutherford, however, overlooked one small aspect of his model. The electrons were moving. They didn’t have batteries for polarity, they didn’t have a circuit in which lazy minds could overlook the lack of polarity, they were just, well, moving.
To be continued

Introduction (continued)

2007-08-17T09:38:00.000-07:00

The basic reason my books aren’t that popular with the alternate scientific community is, they stick to the subject matter. Nothing here about magical dates where humanity will be transformed, star children, extra-dimensional interchanges, visits to exotic worlds, saucer crashes, ancient mysticism, spiritual uplift, nothing in the line of philosophy. That’s not because I don’t mentally play with such subjects, it’s because the purpose of The Copernican Series is to relate the mechanical nature of the universe and the life that occupies it.
However, that doesn’t mean I didn’t learn quite a bit along the way, or let’s say, came to view the universe in a unique philosophical way. The glimmerings of this philosophy emerged vaguely writing the last four chapters of Atoms, Stars and Minds, chapters that outlined the structure of the mind, why we couldn’t physical identify it, but still allowed us to perceive reality. Parallel with writing the volumes of the series, I had been writing very long volumes of fiction in which I would test out some of the inevitable places that the single EP (I’m going to call the elementary particle with two properties the EP from now on) and field replacement took me. In those overly long books, I kept having the characters and situations explore the question of whether this mind, this structure created so that we could navigate reality, survived the physical entity that it occupied. After all, as we will see, it is just as durable as an atom.
While I finally put that discussion to rest for the simple reason that it belongs in the sphere of religious belief, working on the 2nd volume of the series, The Cooling Continuum, dealing with evolution, how life forms (a subject, not surprisingly, for which science has no answer but a lot of verbosity pretending it does), my entire viewpoint about the universe changed, and changed drastically.
I had already faced the problem about where the EPs came from without success, another parallel to science, which has no scientific explanation for the source of atoms so uses billions of incomprehensible images to cover its ignorance. But when it came down to the question of how matter formed, the EP and field replacement explained precisely how matter could form. This then showed the picture of a cycled universe. Matter forms, it combusts as in stars burn, planets ignite and then start to cool in space, all of this produces expanding electromagnetic emission fields made up of the same stuff that is combusting, those fields expand until they begin to break down into their individual EPs, and those EPs in turn recombine into matter.
Not only did the EP and field replacement show how matter formed, it showed how matter formed into galaxies that contained solar systems. Further, an examination of the expanding fields revealed how planets rotate and orbit as they move into the approximate plane of a star’s equator, all of which we will be covering in this book. When I was working on the book on evolution, I realized that life formed as a result of a planet's rotation in front of the sun. The Cooling Continuum turned out to be the longest book in the series simply because I was so amazed at how this worked and described it in excruciating detail.
But that wasn’t the revelation. Up until then, I viewed the universe darkly, the stretches of space deadly, I still thought science wasn’t totally wrong, and therefore life was a chance happening, although not so chancy that it didn’t fill the universe. But overall, I looked at things as running down, heading in one direction and one direction only, death and darkness.
Now I saw the universe as a continuous cycle. Not only was it a continuous cycle, it had produced an EP that was precisely designed to move the matter, once it was formed, in such a way that life was the inevitable result.
The universe wasn’t designed for darkness and death, it was designed to produce light and life!
In fact, because the cycle of the universe involved matter formation, and then matter ignition, producing electromagnetic emissions that both controlled the movement of the matter and, through its ability to move matter back toward the source of emissions so that all matter would eventually participate in the cycle, and because the movement of matter inevitably produced life, it seemed that the entire purpose of the universe is to produce life.
But to what end?
Life, like matter, comes into existence, it exists for a period of time (the definition of life developed by the EP and field replacement is the organization of atoms and molecules of atoms around electrical flows), and then the life dissipates (the electrical flows stop, and the atoms and molecules of atoms go somewhere else in the environment). What was the purpose of the cycle of matter formation and destruction if it just led to the formation of life that dissipated?
One of the early questions I faced, and to be sure, we all face this question at one time or another, was, where is the end of space? We can think until we get to the end of space and then there’s always something outside that. Most of us give up on the question for religious or philosophical beliefs, or even for absurd scientific conclusions, the universe is curved and therefore endless. But I have a philosophy that if I can’t find an answer to a question, I’m asking the wrong question, and here I was clearly asking the wrong question. I was asking what was outside of the universe instead of defining what the universe was. The universe was clearly matter in nothing. When it comes down to it, matter is all there really is, and that matter exists in the absence of matter, in space, in nothingness.
When I figured out how the mind worked, that in order for us to be able to navigate reality, we have to have a picture of reality in our recall in order to compare reality with recall, I started to review all the instances for which we have recall. When we see a falling object, we can’t see what is making it fall, so we have to make up something to put in our recall to compare with reality. Our religious systems are basically a shared recall of all those things for which we don’t have answer, where did we come from, where are we going, why is there evil in the world? In order to understand something, our minds need something in recall with which to compare with reality.
What can our minds compare, what can we put in our recall, to understand nothing, because that the absence of matter is and that’s what contains the matter we see as the universe? We can’t put “nothing” in our recall because nothing is just that, nothing, it doesn’t exist. We can't understand something for which we have no recall. Thus, we have to understand it as the opposite of something. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the only thing that defines the nothing that is all around us is matter. If there were no matter, there would be simply nothing, and nothing is simply that, nothing.
This means that at some point, there must have been no matter and therefore nothing. With nothing, there’s no time and therefore all the time in the world for something to come into existence. We can never know how that something came into existence, reference the great religions of the world, but the fact is, it did, and it was the EP with the precise properties to produce field replacement and the universe as we measure it, going through apparently useless cycles producing apparently useless life.
But if there was, at one time, nothing, and now there one heck of a lot of particles making up matter that fills that nothing, then there must be two things that are obvious: First, there must be a way that the cycle of the universe, formation, ignition, dissipation back to formation, produces EPs and second, there must be an edge, an area where there starts to be no matter, and therefore an area that simply doesn’t exist, that is nothing. As the EPs increase, the area of nothingness defined by matter increases, and because nothing is just that, nothing, the process of the cycle creating EPs to increase the area of nothingness defined by matter can continue forever, and because, with nothing being nothing, there’s no end to the ability to define it with newly created particles.
A second thread developed in The Cooling Continuum as a result of my approach to the subject matter. Unlike Darwinists, and indeed, everyone else dealing with evolution, I didn’t approach evolution as a species process, but as a process of evolving characteristics. The first question I asked is, what characteristics do humans have and why do they have them?
Having worked with the mind’s operation, I realized that our main characteristic is that we are ambulatory, able to move from one place to another. This requires some sort of process by which we can form pictures of reality, store those pictures for later recall, then when we are confronted with reality, recalling those pictures for comparison. Why? So we can move safely in reality, not bump into trees or fall off cliffs. (It also required the mind operate in a way that can warn us when recall doesn’t agree with reality, but we’ll get into that later in the book.)
It didn’t take long for me to realize that evolution was actually a progressive process. We start out with non-ambulatory matter, matter that exists in existing electrical flows and can only survive within those existing electrical flows. The obvious example of non-ambulatory matter are trees. If a fire comes along, the trees are stuck in place, helpless to flee the inferno. They are also dependent on the food sources available at the location.
Ambulatory matter, the next state of evolution, involved the evolution of a mechanism that could sense the environment, in its simplest form the heat an amoeba senses to move away from, and then actually form a picture of the environment, allowing the animate matter to which the mechanism is attached to move purposively within the environment. Ambulatory matter can flee the forest fire and roam the environment looking for food sources.
The final phase of evolution is the development of sentience, which is the ability to produce a picture of reality when reality isn’t present, or even combines disparate elements of reality to produce an entirely new reality. Instead of digging holes in the ground for shelter, we, with our sentience, can create shelters, build houses against the elements, control our food supply and, if necessary, put out the forest fire.
Having this progression in mind for several years, it began to dawn on me that each stage of evolution increased the survivability of the animate matter involved, which is the animate matter that came into existence on this particular planet. That gave evolution a purpose, to increase the survivability of life, to extend its chances of existence. When put up against the cycle of the universe, where within each individual cycle (there are untold numbers of cycles occurring simultaneously), the development of life was as inevitable as the eventual destruction of the planet on which it evolved, I started to rethink where the EPs came from.
The result of sentience is technology and the result of technology is to allow us to extend our survivability. The result of evolution is animate matter that, if it has an accurate picture of reality, can produce technology that will allow the animate matter to survive the demise of the planet that produced it. Life formed and evolved to extend life beyond the life of the cycle in which it had evolved.
But why? For many years I contemplated the answer to this question, and when it finally occurred to me, it was so simple that it was, and is, an embarrassment to even put words to, although I have and I will with the strict understanding that it has nothing to do with the rationality of the explanation for reality contained in this book, but merely puts the operation of reality in some sort of context.
The purpose of the cycle is to produce life, the purpose of life is the evolve sentience, the purpose of sentience is to create, and the purpose of creating is to bring into existence the EPs that make up the universe.
The purpose of life is to survive so that it can produce more EPs that produce more cycles that in turn produce more life, the entire process encroaching on nothingness, defining that nothingness with the existence of matter.
I’m not so sure we have to have an accurate picture of reality in order to contribute to the expansion of the universe. However, I know that we have to be alive and kicking to do so. If we want to outlive this planet, we have to have as accurate a picture of reality as the facts and objective testing will allow us.
Right now, our picture of reality is a mess, incapable of producing a technology that approximates reality.
It doesn’t bode well for our ultimate future. I don't hold out much hope that science will open its eyes and start to see its memes explain nothing.
Fortunately, the universe will go on. It probably has as many successes as it does failures like us.

Introduction (continued)

2007-08-09T09:51:00.000-07:00

When the scientific community agreed to accept theory as fact, it took the first step toward the fantasy world that makes up our scientific worldview today. Here’s why.
Using light as an example, Newton’s particle view of light held sway throughout the 18th century. However, the wave features, or what were thought to be wave features, that were measurable allowed a strong minority view to thrive, and that minority view finally took over with the explanation for Young’s experiment at the beginning of the 19th century. By splitting passing light through a pinhole, then with a vertical barrier, and then recombining the light on a collecting screen, the light had dark patterns through it.
When water waves' crests and troughs intersect, eliminating the wave, there is still water. On the collecting screen there was an absence of light, clearly not an analogous situation to the presence of water. In one case, there's something there, in the other, nothing. However, the scientific community jumped at the conclusion that light was like a water wave. No one thought to explore alternate explanations, the obvious one being that the light, once it had intermingled, had recombined. With almost two centuries of toying with the wave feature of light, Young’s experiment was blindly accepted as proof that light was a wave, as it is to this day.
The structure of light, like the physical workings of gravity, are not things we can readily know, are a part of Bacon’s hidden physical reality. As such, we can do no more than create concepts that might explain the facts that we see, and light being a wave would be one concept, although because in addition to light and water waves not being analogous as to the presence of water and the absence of light, light is a three dimensional phenomena while waves occur on a two-dimensional surface, making it a pretty poor concept to explain the facts.
Light as water waves, therefore, could never be more than a concept. However, it became a simple fact!
As soon as something is a fact, then science starts to manufacture other facts that have to exist as a condition of the first created fact. In the case of light waves' analogy to water waves, water waves needed a medium through which to travel, as they did not themselves have an independent existence. Thus, light waves needed a medium to travel though and science concluded that this medium was the aether, which filled space. As a subsequent fact becomes reality, it becomes the background for additional facts, and even testing.
Seventy years after Young’s created fact and the related creation of aether, the question arose in what direction the Earth was traveling and by direction, it wasn’t the direction around the sun, but the absolute direction in space. Michelson and Morley attempted to answer this question by devising a very clever experiment. A rotating platform was placed on a bed of mercury. On the platform, a series of mirrors was laid out so that light could enter an aperture, travel to the center of the platform, be split, each split traveling 90º in opposite direction, bouncing off mirrors and being reflected back to the center where they were recombined and sent to an interferometer, essentially Young’s collection screen able to discern degrees of interference patterns. (When Young’s experiment was performed by splitting the light through two pinholes in separate cards, it was discovered that moving a card would eventually cause the interference patterns to disappear.)
The notion of the experiment was that the light traveling in opposite directions of 180º would only produce interference patterns when the incoming light was directly aligned with the direction the Earth was traveling. This was because it was only in this condition that the two 90º paths would equal. If the paths were unequal, then the light would take different times to travel each path because one would be moving with the aether, the other against it. If the later happened, the light would recombine and wouldn’t produce interference patters.
The scientific community agreed in unison that the facts underlying the experiment were foolproof. There was no possibility of error. The results would be conclusive. So the experiment was performed to the utter astonishment of the entire scientific community. No matter which way the platform was rotated, the interference patterns always appeared. What a shock!
Did the scientific community then go back and check its underlying assumptions, light as a wave and the existence of the aether? Why should it? Facts are facts, nothing can change that, so the results of the experiment had to be explained some other way, in a way that would account for light being a wave dependent on the aether. How?
A couple of scientific geniuses came up with the answer commonly known as the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction. This simply stated that the distance between the two 90º paths shortened or lengthened along the direction of their motion. How neat is that? Here we have a concept, light as a wave, producing a second concept, the aether through which light traveled, producing an experiment that used both the light and the aether, and when the experiment didn’t produced the desired results, it wasn’t the concepts that needed reevaluation, but a new fact to explain the discrepancy. And that new fact wasn’t something that was measurable in nature nor could it be, it wasn’t even intuitive, it was a fact that physical reality changed with motion.
Although Einstein disavowed both the aether and any connection to the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, his theories, which have all become facts, basically involve the alteration of matter and time with speed, and those facts in turn have begun to generate new facts, the most absurd of all being the new fact of worm holes. I could talk about all the facts the mass gravity concept has created, but it would take a book itself. To name just two of the more ridiculous, try black holes and dark matter. Here science is creating something it can’t even observe and calling it a reality, the black holes being the produce of gravity overcoming the physical structure of the matter that produces it, the dark matter being the extra mass that has to exist in the galaxy for the galaxy to behave in accordance with Celestial Mechanics, which, if you recall, turned Newton’s efforts to predict orbits around by now claiming orbits predict gravity. With the stars not having enough mass to hold the galaxy together, it must be held together by missing matter we can’t see (but like the aether of old, we apparently plow through with immunity).
So the question arises, if we can’t know certain things like the cause of gravity, the cause of orbiting and rotation, the nature of light, electricity and magnetism, how do we deal with them? We are hopefully past the time when scientists get burned at the stake for ideas and the battle for a secular worldview of physical reality has long been abandoned by the church, although there are still many that scoff at any idea that opposes the Bible.
How do we deal with ideas, make sure they stay ideas, flexible, changeable ideas, and therefore do not themselves start to produce facts? Nothing wrong with ideas producing more ideas, but how do we handle the myriad questions for which we have to say, we just don’t know because we can never know?
We can apply several principles when evaluating concepts. We have to rate the concepts we consider because we have to test our concepts in reality and we don’t want to spend a lot of money testing concepts that will never go anywhere. The first principle is obvious, Ockham’s (or Occam’s) razor. Although there are thousands of interpretations, it’s basically translated from the Latin as "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” This is another way of saying that the concept that explains the most facts with the least assumptions is the best concept. A lot of scientists state that it really means the theory that predicts best is the best theory. They use the example of the Ptolemaic, Earth based solar system compared to the Copernican sun centered solar system. Copernicus’ prediction was correct, therefore better. However, that’s not Ockham’s razor. The reason Ockham’s razor favors Copernicus is that he reduced the Ptolemaic number of orbits by half, making it a much simpler explanation for the same facts.
As an aside, the use of prediction in science to prove concepts is the cause of our fantasy world of science. A concept predicting a fact doesn’t prove the concept, it just makes the concept better because it explains one more fact. One of the biggest mistakes of science is the belief that finding a predictive fact proves a concept because it places science at the mercy of when facts are discovered. If a concept becomes a fact because it predicts another fact, then the chance finding of a predictive fact cements our thinking, forcing us to view the concept as fact and other facts that disagree with the concept anomalies, or simply non facts.
Add to the principle of evaluating concepts by selecting the one that can explain the most facts with the least assumptions the overriding rule of consistency. Science Magazine’s view of gravity demonstrates how inconsistent science is: It clashes with quantum theory, it doesn’t fit in the Standard Model, nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it and, in fact, Newton’s apple contained a whole can of worms.
Focus on the statement the particle responsible for it has never been spotted. How can science hope to be consistent if its practice is to make up a particle for every effect? With the advent of atom smashers, the particle creation situation got so bad, there had to be an international sit-down to limit the number of particles (in what’s called the Standard Model in the reference) and even then, with the particles limited, they multiplied by adding human perceptions to them, charm and color the most prominent. As a result, we end up with a mishmash of concepts about physical reality, none of which are consistent with one another, and many of which are internally inconsistent, for instance, the electron orbiting the atom, where does it get its motion from? This question in college will lose you a science major.
Consistency and simplicity are the rulers to apply in evaluating concepts, knowing all the time that the selected concepts could be wrong, even though they work to produce real products in reality. We have all sorts of technology, lasers and transistors come to mind, that work in reality but for which we have absolutely no coherent concepts to explain.
Consistency and simplicity.
I approach the problem by creating a single elementary particle. I assign that elementary particle two properties. I then apply those properties to scientific basics, the production of light, electricity and magnetism. From these applications emerge a principle called field replacement that explains much of the physical reality that we observe.
With this process, which opens the first chapters of the book, I set the stage for explaining the operation of the universe as we see it, not as we imagine it. When I was writing the first book explaining the particle (this book is a condensation of the 9 volumes of The Copernican Series into an easily understood concept application), I devised one final test to see how accurate my elementary particle might be. I said, if the particle I can describe reality with can also be used to describe the human organ that can discern and attempt to make sense out of that reality, in short if the particle could also describe how the mind worked, then I would be as close to having a correct concept as is humanly possible (although there’s no way to actually know).

Introduction (continued)

2007-08-03T09:27:00.000-07:00

What happened next set in motion events that have crippled Western science, distorted our technology, and will probably lead to our demise on this planet.
Newton, in Cambridge, was totally out of touch with the scientific thinking of the age. For instance, while the battle whether light was a particle or a wave was being fought, the general trend of consensus opinion fell on Huygens’ wave view. However, it was generally felt that even though evidence tended to support the wave view, there was absolutely nothing, in Baconian terms, that would prove it one way or the other, so it was, for all practical purposes, considered a point of view, a concept that might or might not be right.
In addition, Newton was totally insensitive to the Baconian philosophy underlying the scientific quest, that concepts were not facts and never could be accepted as fact. He proceeded to contradict both the prevailing view of light and the Baconian philosophy that dictated the scientific approach by submitting, some months after he became a member of The Royal Society as a result of his reflecting telescope, a paper that came to be known as his Theory of Light and Colors.
Nowhere is the Baconian injunction against accepting theory as fact more evident than in Newton’s paper. He had conducted experiments involving using prisms to fracture white light into the spectrum and then recombine the spectrum into white light. This convinced him that white light is made up of all the colors of the spectrum, and indeed, that is also the widespread view held today.
Here’s a man who is making pronouncements of fact on a subject he knows nothing about. For instance, it wasn’t until several centuries later that the existence of the electromagnetic spectrum was suspected, and decades longer before light was placed in its proper position within that spectrum of frequencies. Nowhere in the entire range of frequencies is there any hint that a single frequency bundles together a number of frequencies. In fact, the continuity of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum dictates that this phenomena could not happen, yet we are expected to believe that not only is one frequency, white light, a bundle of millions of frequencies that make up the colors, we are expected to believe, in a world in which life is merely a chance happening, that such a unique phenomena happens to occur at the exact frequency that our eyes evolved to see the myriad color frequencies.
This one fact gives an idea how the blind worship of a defective thinker has crippled our technology. But the fact that Newton attempted to create facts with his paper on light wouldn’t have been significant but for the events that followed and his reaction to those events, a reaction that would forever change science from a process of verifying facts to a process of creating facts.
Newton submitted his paper to the Society and sat back waiting for the accolades he had received for his reflecting telescope to come. Like his reflecting telescope, the task of review fell on Hooke. After reviewing the paper for three hours, Hooke rejected it, noting that the experiments Newton performed supported both his theory and opposing theories of light. Newton had attempted to argue that he had demonstrated his view of light to be fact when, in Hooke’s view, and indeed, in the Baconian view of science, it was nothing but words.
Newton reacted with extreme bitterness, writing the Society acidic letters justifying his position and demanding a point-by-point refutation that he could answer point-by-point. His few friends in the Society took his position, claiming that the three hours Hooke had spent with the paper wasn’t sufficient time to grasp the complex nature of the argument. Hooke, who scarcely had time for it, was caught up in a firestorm kept burning by a bitter Cambridge mathematics professor, and quite frankly, didn’t put much credence in Newton’s blustering. After several years went by and Newton’s arguments, not about light, but about what was or was not acceptable as fact, became more widely known, many famous men of the era began to take issue with Newton’s position.
While the general thinking of the day was Baconian, that theories were just theories and not facts, Newton took the novel position that his hypothesis had been tested and proven by experiment. He was blind to Hooke’s original comment that the experiments he claimed as proof for his hypothesis could also be used to claim proof for opposing hypotheses. Nothing would dissuade the cantankerous Newton, who had grown intellectually in the vacuum of the plague years and then Cambridge, depopulated by the plague years, the vain man who had, in less than a decade gone from nobody to the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, the highest mathematical post in the land, the proud man who had invented the reflecting telescope, no one could dissuade him that his thoughts, his ideas, his theories, his hypotheses, his concepts, the products of his mind, could in any way be wrong. No one could persuade him that his claims of proof were wrong. (A half century later, when he couldn’t get his mathematics dealing with Celestial Mechanics to predict the orbit of the moon, it was not his math that was in error, but rather the measurement of the orbit of the moon, the precursor of our own science where if reality doesn’t agree with theory, then it’s the reality we don’t understand, not the theory.)
Finally, under the chorus of disagreement, Newton, in 1573, sent a letter of resignation to the Society, a letter that was discreetly misdirected until Newton could be talked out of the rash action. He had never attended any of the regular meetings of the Society, and even though he grudgingly remained a member, he spent his time with his books, his vast collection of Bibles and alchemical texts, trying to find the philosophers stone and compute the exact day the Earth would end. However, political events were afoot that would provide Newton with the opportunity he needed to impose his own view of scientific process on first the Society, then the Western world.
Charles II had continued his Father’s anti Catholic practices to maintain the religious peace. However, in 1685, he died without an heir and the throne fell to his brother, James, who immediately began to return the country to Catholicism. This led to the Glorious Revolution, where James was removed in favor of his protestant daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange. Newton, who was apolitical up until this point, decided to come out of seclusion and ran for, and secured the Cambridge seat in Parliament. How did the bitter, vain, contemptuous mathematics professor pull this off?
At Cambridge Newton made the acquaintance of Charles Montagu, who was not only a close friend of the Master of Trinity College, but also a closer friend of Newton’s attractive niece, who ran her uncle’s house. The two began a lifelong friendship based primarily on a mutual interest in alchemy. But Montagu himself was somewhat of a mathematical whiz, not so much Newton’s math, but the math of national finance, and when William of Orange set foot on British soil, Montagu was part of his greeting party, the most important part many thought, because he was destined, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to finance William’s regency. He was also in charge of the mint, and this was the source of Newton’s patronage to become the Master of the Mint, a lifetime sinecure, if properly used, of extraordinary power.
Newton had published through The Royal Society, with the astronomer Edmund Halley’s help, the Principia, which set forth his theory of gravity. That book was an incomprehensible mishmash of ill-conceived assumptions, one of which was that the Earth and the moon were made up of the same particle uniformly distributed throughout each (the only way he could compute the relative gravity of each). This theory collapsed in the 18th century. Newton claimed he proved his theory that gravity was a property of matter by showing it was proportional to the amount of matter in the Earth and the moon. He then set out to predict the orbit of the moon using the gravity of the Earth and the moon. While it never worked out, Newton claiming it was reality that was being inaccurately measured, Newton had moved to London and set about in the drawing rooms of the influential to sell his theory lock, stock and barrel.
In the 18th century, astronomers tried to apply the theory to the planets with catastrophic results. However, instead of going back to the drawing board to try and figure out what gravity really was, astronomers, invested in Newton, simply said even though Newton didn’t demonstrate proportionality, his conclusion was correct. They then proceeded to do what they do today with Newton’s Celestial Mechanics, compute the amount of matter in a planet using its orbit. Science, which claims that it only accepts verifiable facts, here accepts a claim that can never be verified, the computation of the contents of a planet.
As a result of this deception, and it can be called nothing less, we universally believe that we not only know what gravity is, we voluntarily limit out technology on the basis of that supposed knowledge, instead of spending resources attempting to find out what gravity is so that we can manipulate it, building huge, jet driven aircraft that are limited to our air space, and gigantic rockets that go nowhere very slowly.
You don’t have to take my word for it, take AAAS’s house organ, Science magazine’s word for it. On its 125th anniversary, it listed 125 “big questions that face scientific inquiry over the next quarter-century.” Gravity wasn’t even in the top 25, but when it got around to the question, what is gravity, this is all they answered: Newton’s mass/gravity clashes with quantum theory, it doesn’t fit in the Standard Model, nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it and, in fact, Newton’s apple contained a whole can of worms. While we’ll be discussing science’s obsession for creating particles for effects in the first chapter, note that quantum theory and the Standard Model are recent scientific constructs, which is to say, the products of the mind, so Science magazine is saying, hey, we have a reality here that we can’t explain, but it disagrees with everything we know, so we’ll just carry on business as usual, that is, pretend we know what it is.
In London, Newton was not only interested in pushing his bogus theory, and thus his notion that his ideas could be proven to be fact, he never lost sight of his main objective, the destruction and then complete subjugation of The Royal Society in revenge for Hooke’s dismissal of his theory of light and colors. For purposes of this, his friend Montagu, financially influential, was his tool. Hooke was still running the practical affairs of the Society out of his rooms in Gresham College, but Newton had other ideas about the funding of the Society itself, and thus its viability. Dependent on patronage, when Montagu took over as Exchequer in 1692, he was able to pull all patronage away from the Society, With the Society nothing but a shell, Sir Robert Southwell left the presidency in 1995, leaving it open for none other than Montagu, who sat on it for three years before turning it over to his proxy, Sir Hans Sloane. The reason Newton didn’t assume the office was Hooke. Newton knew that Hooke was sickly and didn’t have long to live. He had no intention of forcing any kind of confrontation with the man that had kept him into a bitter rage for decades.
When Hooke finally died in 1703, Newton immediately assumed control of the Society and didn’t loosen his reigns for a quarter century, and then only by death. His first acts as President were to remove any likeness of Hooke and to have the Society publish his theory of light and colors. The reason why science today recognizes Bacon as the author of the scientific method, but doesn’t recognize Bacon’s thinking on the subject, is because Newton, in his quarter century at the helm of the Society obliterated that thinking in favor of his own.
Instead of nothing in words, science’s motto has become everything in words, damn the facts.
(To be continued next entry)

Introduction

2007-07-27T10:28:00.000-07:00

This book is going to disagree with everything you’ve learned, not about science, which is the knowledge of facts, but about the theories science uses to knit those facts together.
Generally, when a book attacks scientific dogma, it starts out attacking the scientific process that produced the dogma. Many books are devoted to just such attacks, calling into question the scientific peer review process, it’s reliance only on credentialed players, it’s exclusionary treatment of any new discovery that tends to oppose it’s official line or theoretical experiments receiving vast funding.
It is true that the scientific community has insulated itself from outside criticism, splintering its disciplines into arcane fields with their own languages, and generally relying on the protection of the well-funded umbrella organizations, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science. If somebody comes up with a theory opposing established dogma, the AAAS is quick to publish talking papers which can be used to abolish the opposing theory and members are encouraged to inundate editors with letters containing those talking points if they should be foolish enough to give the opposing position publicity.
This is a given in our society today, and is so common, that's it's a given. Western science and its narrative of the world are the world we in the West live in. It is like water to fish, taken for granted, invisible to the conscious, at least until someone is so bold as to disagree with it, then we immediately conclude that, since we, and everyone else, hold a belief contrary to the belief being questioned, the person questioning the belief is crazy or simplistic or just trying to get publicity.
Today’s model of scientific practice, in which only those trained by the proponents of the scientific worldview, the consensus view, have a voice in that worldview, and then only if they do not oppose it in any significant way, isn’t the way science began, and to introduce the defects of the scientific method, such as it is, it isn’t necessary to attack the specific safeguards such as peer review put in place to protect the status quo, it is only necessary to go back in history to a time when the project of science was open to anyone with an interest and talent for it. One of the first things the early thinkers of science faced was what exactly were they dealing with, what was science?
This takes us back to the 17th century, the end of the 1500s and the entire century of the 1600s. At that time, the worldview was controlled by the Church. On the continent, the Catholic Church was dominant, although well into its dethronement by widely spreading Protestant sects. In England, the whims of a King had replaced the Catholic Church with a more secular version. In the background lingered the first significant challenge to the invisible vision of humans as being the only creatures in God’s existence, Copernicus, who had diagrammed a picture of the solar system with the sun, rather than the Earth, as the center. The consequences were huge for the Catholic worldview, which sought to avoid any crack in its role as dictator of the worldview. It had long adopted Ptolemy’s vision of the Earth centered universe.
However, the Protestant sects and the Church of England had not invested in that worldview and it didn’t prohibit its members from pursuing Copernicus’ vision. When the Earth was the center of the universe, another invisibility was gravity. It was taken for granted that we were held to the surface of the Earth because that was the center of existence. When minds started to whirl, along with the Earth, around the sun at a now measurable speed, they grew dizzy wondering why everything on Earth didn’t fly off its surface into space.
When attention focused on objects falling to the Earth, questions were raised, what made them fall? With the planets now known to orbit the sun, and the apparent motion of the sun around the Earth due to its own rotation, questions began to be asked, what force is moving the planets, causing them to orbit and rotate? The notion of the invisible forces that were causing these motions started to interest all of the thinkers of the age.
One of the greatest, if not the greatest, thinker at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17 centuries, was Sir Francis Bacon. Bacon would dearly have loved to determine what the invisible forces that caused motion were. However, he realized that this was something that he couldn’t know. Dwell on this for a moment. Here is a scientific thinker, one of the most prominent of his age, saying he couldn’t know something.
When there were two opposing forces, one, the church, which controlled the worldview, and the other, science, which was attempting to wrest reality from the grasp of the church’s belief system, to state that a scientist couldn’t know the answer to something was significant. After all, even the church claimed knowledge of the physical world, such as the motion of the planets, through Aristotle. How could science expand its power over the worldview by claiming it couldn’t know something?
The answer is the scientific method, which Bacon is given credit for creating, but whose thinking on the subject is ignored, for reasons that will become more than apparent. Bacon lived at the beginning of the massive expansion of agricultural efficiency. People during the 17th century were eager to develop procedures that saved labor and produced efficiency. The question was, how do these procedures come into existence?
The answer was simple, by trial and error. While this is past Bacon’s time, one of the early supporters of the group that became The Royal Society, William Petty, was extremely interested in creating a mechanical sowing machine that would reduce the labor and time involved in planting. It took countless attempts before success was achieved. Each of the failed attempts produced additional knowledge that the experimenters could use to perfect the technology.
The development of technology by the predecessor to The Royal Society, The Oxford Group, was based on Bacon’s scientific method. Gather the facts around a problem, create a mental solution, which is to say, produce a concept of how something might work, then apply that concept to reality, test the concept to see if it stands up in reality.
Bacon, however, also wished to apply the process to the things we couldn’t know, things that we can’t test in reality simply because reality gives us no handle for testing, specifically the hidden forces that produced motion. Bacon said that, while we couldn’t know these causes like we could know what makes a clock tick, we still could attempt to know. Just like an attempt to create technology involved gathering as many facts as were known, so attempting to come up with a concept that explained the things we couldn’t know should involve the collection of all known facts.
Like the development of technology, testing the concepts against reality resulted in an increase in the known facts, which resulted in a change in the concept of the workable technology. It was the trial and error testing of the concepts that allowed experimenters to alter the underlying concept. New facts altered existing concepts.
However, there was no way to test concepts dealing with the underlying forces that caused the hidden motion of things. While we wanted to have answers to the causes of these forces because we didn’t want to walk around asking why that dish fell every time a dish fell, any answer we created was a concept. As a concept, it was based on the set of facts we had to create the concept. As we obviously don’t have all the facts, our concepts can never be completely right. Perhaps at some distant point in the future, all the facts will be revealed, but until that time comes, our concepts of these hidden forces can only approximate reality and can never be accepted as reality under any circumstances.
In short, concepts can never replace facts!
Bacon’s influence among the incipient practitioners in the 17th century was enormous. Charles I had a keen interest in the development of science and supported John Wilkins, Warden of Wadham College, as he gathered around him some of the most ingenious thinkers and tinkers of the day. Even when Cromwell took Charles’ head, parliament would not dismiss Wilkins. During Cromwell’s entire period of power, Wilkins was allowed not only to work unmolested, but to employ talented offspring of royalists, including Christopher Wren, a childhood friend of the future Charles II.
When Petty became involved in the group, he brought along the most famous scientist of the day, Robert Boyle, and along with Boyle, Boyles’ laboratory technician Robert Hooke, another royalist offspring who, like Wren, was living on his uncanny ability to create the equipment needed to carry out experiments.
When Charles II claimed the throne, one of his first acts was to recognize the group and The Royal Society was born. Even at its birth, however, Bacon was present. Its motto was nullus in verba, nothing in word. This means precisely what it says: Concepts are concepts, facts are facts. Facts speak for themselves while concepts require words. The Society was embodying Bacon’s scientific method in its founding motto. Concepts have to always be changed by facts because they can never be accurate without all the facts, and since we can never have all the facts, the concepts can never be accurate.
Concepts are nothing but words, and words are nothing when it comes to science, which is the analysis of reality.
The Royal Society received a charter in 1662 (it was informally established after a lecture by Wren in 1660) and took up quarters at Gresham College. While Wren was a member, Hooke was the Curator of Experiments and as such, all ideas passed through him before being reported to the Society. The Royal Society was well established by 1666, when the Great Fire destroyed London. Rebuilding London would become Wren’s signature, although he enlisted the help of Hooke throughout the decades long endeavor. By the beginning of the 1670s, regular meetings were being held, papers and books published (Hooke’s being one of the first) and experiments conducted on a regular basis.
One of those experiments is worth mentioning because I will use it as an example of the Society’s motto and course of direction. One of the most vexing scientific problems, and in those days scientific equated with technology, was the miserable roads in England and the carriages that navigated them. The carriages didn’t provide an easy ride, delivering occupants bruised and battered. The Society early undertook the development of coach springs that would actually protect the occupants. This turned out to be more than difficult, with set after set of springs devised, tested, the information from their failure incorporated into the design of a new set. This process lasted a decade before success was finally achieved (the Society had to produce in return for its patronage).
Fifty miles north of London, and a day’s trip at the time, Cambridge housed Trinity College. Trinity College was a long way from Gresham College and The Royal Society, and definitely out of the loop when it came to the pursuit of science. Isaac Newton took a 2nd class Bachelor of Arts in 1665 and then got out of Cambridge for two years while the plague ravaged the town. He taught himself math during this period and returned to enroll at Trinity in 1667, latching himself onto his namesake, the 1st Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Isaac Barrow.
Newton and Barrow had two interests in common other than mathematics, optics and alchemy, not necessarily in that order. When Barrow moved on to greener pastures in 1669, Newton stepped in as the 2nd Lucasian Professor (the incomprehensible Stephen Hawkins, who spends much of his time on black holes, is the 17th LP).
Newton’s interest in optics naturally led him to tinker with telescopes, and his knowledge of the science of optics informed him immediately the cause of the rainbow halo that the telescopes of the day experienced. He ingeniously figured out if magnifying lens were replaced with mirrors, the halo would be eliminated and the reflecting telescope was invented, a telescope that’s basically unchanged to this day. Newton sent this remarkable invention to The Royal Society where it was received with the acclaim that it deserved, no objections from anyone and a speedy presentation by Hooke. It was, after all, a fact and not a bunch of words.
(To be continued next entry

The Copernican Series – A New Attempt

2007-07-18T09:35:00.000-07:00

When I was about four, I asked my Father what made objects drop. He gave the standard explanation, gravity is a property of matter, the objects are small, the Earth is big, so the objects drop. “I don’t think so,” was my response. He shrugged and walked off, not realizing that a lifelong obsession had just been born.
Just about everything I’ve done since then has revolved around trying to come up with a coherent picture of gravity. I didn’t go to law school to learn how to practice law, I went to law school because the historical figure I thought the most impressive when it came to science, Sir Francis Bacon, said an education in law was as education in how to think.
It wasn’t until I was several years out of law school, working in the financing arena, that my ideas about gravity started to congeal. By concluding that, although clearly associated with matter, gravity was dynamic, I had to look to something dynamic matter was doing to get gravity out of hiding. It was another year or two before I eliminated everything but cooling.
Then I was faced with what it could be about cooling that would produce a force that would cause objects to move back toward the source of the cooling. It probably took another year or two staring into the fireplace to realize that I didn’t even know what was causing the fire, let alone what it might be about what the fire was emitting that would produce gravity.
Looking back over the history of light, I realized this basic question had never been addressed, at least not until all the other questions about light had been answered. The historical review, however, led me back over Young’s experiment that was supposed to prove light was a wave. Even in high school, I hadn’t understood how interference patterns could be analogized to water waves, so I started to search for a different explanation for the result.
During this period, I was also conducting some rather foolish experiments with electricity and magnets because I had concluded that everything that is recorded about electricity is merely a measurement and that the concepts underlying the field are pretty barren. I, of course, was raised, and had, as a part of my basic thinking, the concept of positive and negative, the early explanation for the motion of electricity based on the fact that it could be produced by inductive fields magnetically induced.
With Young’s puzzle in mind, and how electricity might move in the background, I was leaning against a doorframe drinking a beer one Thanksgiving afternoon. My wife had just put the turkey out on the kitchen table and asked me to watch it. As I stood there thinking, the dog took a bounding leap and ended up skidding toward the turkey. I yelled at him before he got it in his jaws and, startled, he jumped, missing it and flying onto one of the chairs.
An elementary particle with two opposing properties, one of attraction and one of repulsion, would explain everything, I thought. The idea just popped into my mind, maybe from the dog’s attraction to food (and if he’d gotten the turkey, my wife would have turned him into a turkey). I was stunned at the magnitude of the thought as my mind ran it over the Young problem and then leaped to how the emissions from a combusting Earth might operate to capture objects in their grasp (which is described in the What is Gravity entries that started this blog).
The next problem was, what to do with the concept, a concept that explained, but not in a mathematical fashion?
I decided to write a book using diagrams to explain. The diagrams worked pretty well in opening up whole new areas of thought. Diagramming the right hand rule of inductance gave a clear indication how planetary emissions would result in orbiting, rotation of the planets, as well as why they find themselves in the same plane. Further, figuring out how matter came apart in combustion forced me to face the question, how does it come together, which in turn led me to construct a new picture of the atom, one that would account for the stars and galaxies that we see. This started to become a pretty massive undertaking, running to some 700 pages. The concepts were novel, and led to pictures of reality that directly conflicted with the totality of science.
While I was writing the book, I was also attempting to contact astronomers. One I met in person told me if I wanted to know what gravity is, jump out the window. The only one that answered by mail asked the rhetorical question, why would we want to give up a theory that allowed us to measure what a planet is made of? Several well-known physicists, family friends, recognized the totality of the theory but were frank when it came to mass gravity, it couldn’t be contradicted under any circumstances.
Fat chance of ever getting the book published. I undertook other projects, one of them called, Who’s Fault is My Fault? This was a venture into how the mind produces emotions, also with diagrams, and also ending up with nowhere to go. Then, in the early 80s, I took a trip to Hungary, and, with my new computer, started banging out the original book without diagrams. By that time I had realized the fact that a cooling planet with lessening gravity would have a profound effect on concepts of evolution. I also realized that the scientific method wasn’t all it was cut out to be, wasn’t even followed in most cases, and didn’t prove anything, piling one bad concept on top of another to create the confused picture of reality we have, a reality that is claimed to be not understandable and stranger than fiction.
This time, there was simply too much for one book, so I decided to break it down. The first book would deal with theory, the second evolution and the third planetary motion and galaxies. I started the third first because that was the one I had attempted to write so many times before. All through the book I struggled with the notion of how to prove theories or concepts when theories and concepts were just that, made up stuff that was not capable of proof. Somewhere in the course of writing the book, the book on how the mind generated emotions crept into my thinking and I began to realize that the single particle with opposing properties could explain the mind, how it worked, and how it could affect the body both to act and emotionally.
I named the third volume Atoms, Stars and Minds because its basic proposition, in addition to explaining the items addressed consistently using the particle with opposing properties, was that, if the particle could explain everything that we observed and measured, and in addition could explain how the mind that could do the observing and measuring operated, I would have come as close to demonstrating the validity of the particle as possible.
In researching the second volume, I found that there was no explanation for how life got its start, so that became the central theme of The Cooling Continuum, a rather simple result of what are known as Telluric currents that course beneath the surface of the Earth. That volume, covering evolution in a cooling environment where the gravity was lessening, did become the longest book in the series. While I was writing one segment of it, I was, for some reason, driven to research the formation of the Bank of England. (I have a substantial library on banking, its history and performance). I had books all over the room opened here and there, correlating dates and participants when I came upon a very interesting set of facts. While its too long to discuss here, I had always wondered how Newton ended up as Master of the Mint, and here I found the answer in black and white.
I put off writing the first volume on theory because I wanted to finish up my thoughts on how the mind worked, which basically became the title of the unplanned 4th volume in the series. I then started with the first, seeing something that had escaped me in the third, why we see the planets moving with respect to one another when they are clearly at rest with respect to the forces acting upon them. This volume introduced the concept model.
While proofing this volume, I realized that meteorologists had been totally led astray by the restriction that the surface of the Earth could not be causing friction with the atmosphere, causing it to move. I set out to write the second most popular volume of the series, How the Weather Really Works! in which I stumbled on two other interesting concepts, one conflicting with the basic notion of what produces rain, the second not conflicting with anything, how heat moves in the atmosphere, because science doesn’t have the foggiest how it moves. Writing this volume while proofing the first, I was vacationing at the beach with my family. Both of my sons in law are mathematicians, so I had easy access to formulas. This came in handy when I got a Farmer’s Almanac to compute the seasons.
Checking the length of each season, I thought my addition was crazy. According to Kepler’s law, spring and winter should equal, as should summer and fall. Both fall and winter are longer. I was familiar with Brahe’s computation of the moon speeding up in the summer and realized it wasn’t speeding up, it was just traveling a shorter distance. Mulling this over, I realized that an elliptical orbit would be produced by a moving sun, that the orbit would travel with the sun and therefore a planet would travel a shorter distance in spring and summer because the tail of the orbit was catching up with it and longer in the fall and winter because the planet had to catch up with the moving sun. From my math classes, I knew there was a differential equation for this and asked one of my son in laws, giving him a pad. He immediately wrote it down. I realized that with this information, which disproved Kepler, I could compute the direction and speed of the sun, both of which amazed me, but which ended up being the cover diagram of the first volume.
That out of the way, I decided to face my biggest fear, light, the unification of heat, light, electricity and magnetism, no easy task, I knew. In doing so, I found out that science even messed the spectrum up, not to mention its absolutely absurd concept that white light contains all colors. That took a lot out of me. By this time I had realized I had to answer the complaint that I didn’t explain science’s position in the books before explaining my own. The reason for this was, the books were too long as it was. So I decided to write a seventh volume Where Science When Wrong, which became the most popular of the series. Then I faced another subject I knew I had to but one I didn’t want to. If I knew how the mind worked and affected the body, then I had to address how it generates behavior, which I did in the eighth volume, Human Nature. After that I took a hiatus. I had been, since the early 90s, writing weekly letters to my grandchildren, not that they could understand them, but for the record and for future interest (one actually took to them). After awhile, I decided to start writing books a bit at a time. A couple of years ago, I actually wrote the ninth volume, How the Body Works, this way.
My problem is that there are a lot of pages in the series. I have many readers that buy and read the whole set, but that’s the exception, certainly not the rule. My hope is that someday, I can get all of this stuff into a single, readable volume. I’ve been looking around for a challenge lately, and decided to try that here, so the next entries will be my attempt to put nine volumes of heresy into one.

Dinosaurs and Whales

2007-07-11T10:06:00.000-07:00

My basic proposition is that gravity is not a property of matter but rather the dynamic result of what matter is doing, cooling, and as it cools, it emits an electromagnetic emission field that produces the effect on the components of the nuclei of atoms that cause those atoms to move back toward the source of emissions.
My other basic proposition is that the Earth is cooling. As planets seemed to be formed hot and as they occupy the zero temperature of space, and as heat flows to cold, I find it ludicrous to believe the planet is not getting colder. Under my scheme of things all planets, and that includes moons, started out as emitters, miniature suns, and as they crusted over and cooled, their elements began to break down, with the lighter elements becoming the gas held to the cooling planet by the emission field. At some point in the cooling process, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms begin to combine and precipitate out to become the waters that cover the crust.
The moon is an example of a small planet that has run its course, barely emitting any heat and captured in the Earth’s emission field with one side forever facing it. Mars is a good way along in the evolution of a planet toward death, while Jupiter, with its immense size, is just starting to precipitate out its water. Just as the occupants of Mars are long gone, or perhaps even gone here, we are well on our way to having an uninhabitable planet as a result of cooling. Perhaps we will end up colonizing Jupiter. After all, under this set of conditions, Jupiter will eventually cool, and as it does so, its gravity will lessen, making it more accommodating to our form.
Of course, to science, gravity is fixed and unchangeable. To get rid of gravity, we have to get rid of matter. There’s no two ways about it.
However, many rational people, even practicing scientists, are coming to realize that since the dinosaurs couldn’t have fed or supported themselves, it’s a physical impossibility given their supposed bulk, heart size, mouth and throat size and so forth, that gravity must have somehow changed from the time of the dinosaurs until now.
Reviewing briefly the history of the discovery of dinosaurs, when the first bones were brought to scientists in the 19th century, the unfortunate discoverers were labeled what science always labels something it doesn’t understand, frauds. However, the sheer volume of the discovery of the bones led science to recognize the existence of these huge creatures. Then, of course, as soon as science took over, the fun really began, fun meaning obfuscation to the point of absurdity.
The first task was to determine what the creatures looked like. This, to science, was a fairly simple task. All that need be done is to measure the amount of meat the bones would hold and then to place that amount of meat on the bones. Unfortunately, the amount of meat these massive bones could hold, in today’s weight, was too much for the creatures to carry. Therefore, science hypothesized that the creatures spent their lives primarily submerged in water. Artists' conceptions of dinosaurs, before the necessity of movies required them to move about, were simply vast steamy swamps filled with huge dinosaurs.
With the advent of motion pictures, dinosaurs were pared down so that they were at least in some sort of fighting trim. However, this didn’t jibe with the calculations for the amount of flesh that the bones could hold. The divergence between the public vision and the scientific view prevailed until the early 60s when the cold v. hot-blooded dispute broke out among dinosaur scientists. This led to a melding of the public and scientific perception in Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs are presented as a mixture of the slow, oversized behemoths, and the smaller, more agile, meat eaters, with the former being cold-blooded and the later hot-blooded.
None of this really answered anything about the dinosaur’s size because, as the years have gone by, finds of larger and larger bones able to hold more and more meat produced dinosaurs so large that they were physically incapable of existing. This is when the accretion theories began to pop up, theories that said over the eons, the Earth collects meteorites and space dust that add to its mass increasing its gravity. There are several other maverick theories around which, while wilder, result in the same thing, an increase in the Earth’s mass and a resulting increase in its gravity.
The whole notion involved with this line of thinking is that, when the Earth had less mass and less gravity, the bones could support the greater amount of meat, which was lighter then than it is now.
I first ran into this backward thinking decades ago when I ventured to posit in a letter to an alternate science magazine that the reason the dinosaurs could grow so large was because the gravity was greater than it is now. The Editor very kindly published my letter and followed it up with a two-page letter railing against the absurdity of my claim and positing that the only way the dinosaurs could have existed was if there had been a black hole circling the Earth that lessened the Earth’s gravity. (I really like that one!)
Before getting into my reasoning, let’s just take a look at reality. What’s the biggest creating on Earth today? That’s simple, the whale. One reason the whale grows so large is that its displacement in water lessens the effect of gravity on its structure. We don’t have the saying for helplessness, beached whale, for nothing. Here we actually have a huge creature that evolved in a lessened gravitational environment. If the people who claim that gravity had to be less for the dinosaurs to grow so large are correct, then the whale’s bones should be just as massive as the dinosaurs.
But they aren’t. While substantial, they are nowhere near as massive, as pictures of whale skeletons illustrate.
In fact, using the logic of how much meat the bones would hold today, if we had nothing but whale skeletons littering dry land to go on, we’d have to conclude that whales couldn’t hold enough meat on their bones to survive.
There are certain commonsense rules in any field of science that are often overlooked. In the case of dinosaurs, the basic rule of life on Earth applies. That rule is, life that is not sustainable does not evolve. It’s as simple as that. The dinosaurs had to be normal life forms or they wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. That means that a healthy dinosaur would in all likelihood be as sleek and capable of both movement and obtaining ample food supply, as well as getting it down its throat, as you or I. I realize that elephants still roam around, so long as there isn’t a crack they have to jump, but while I believe they are a hangover from a prior era, they have evolved that marvelous trunk to take care of all of their needs. Hippos, seemingly large and ungainly, speak for themselves by being the largest killers of humans in the world.
So our starting assumption has to be, the dinosaurs had only so much meat on their bones. They were not these behemoths that could barely move, their neck substituting for an elephant trunk, and they weren’t creatures with hearts that could sustain normal weight but somehow beat for five times that weight. They were normal animals, although oversized.
Why would they be oversized?
Because in a field where the gravity is stronger, they would need stronger bones to move around. Not only would the bones have to be stronger and bigger, they would be heavier, which means, the substance necessary to carry the bones and any flesh they carried against the greater gravitational field would have to be much sturdier. This is exactly what we find when we look at dinosaur bones, large sturdy structures designed to hold a lot of weight.
But what weight?
Their own weight and the weight of the flesh that was the animate dinosaur. I have no idea what the strength of gravity was when the dinosaurs evolved, although it would be an interesting problem, probably solvable, for any scientist with an open enough mind. But for the sake of example (and going by the amount of flesh artists put on the bones), let’s say it was today’s gravity times three, three times as great as it is today. That means that when the normal amount of flesh was added to the bones, the bones would end up being designed to hold themselves and about four times their weight. (Our skeletons support 80% of our weight, elephants’ skeletons support about 84% while cattle skeletons support 90%).
Let’s then say that if we took all the meat off a dinosaur and put it in a package, it would amount to two cubic yards (I have no idea, but this is just for purposes of comparison from the dinosaurs time till our time).
Present day arrives, and we find the dinosaur bones (or bits and pieces, whole dinosaur skeletons are rare). We don’t, of course, find the two cubic yards of meat and muscle. Gravity is one third what it was in the dinosaur’s time, but being the captive of Newton’s gravity as a property of matter, we know that because gravity is constant, the weight of the dinosaur then is the same as its weight today.
So we weigh the bones. We then put them under a stress test to see how much they’d hold. We conclude that the bones would hold, not two cubic yards of meat, but six cubic yards of meat. While the bones weigh less today than they did when formed, their strength is the same as when they formed, and they formed to hold six cubic yards of meat at today’s gravity, although they would only hold two cubic yards of meat in the gravitational field in which they evolved.
Our scientists, knowing all their facts are absolutely correct (and not even thinking that gravity might be variable and therefore a factor in their calculations) proceed to put three times as much meat on the dinosaurs as they carried when the dinosaur was alive and moving easily though its environment, consuming enough to feed itself and generally having a ball.
The dinosaurs were cold-blooded simply because they lived in a hotter environment, the heat coming predominantly from the Earth. There was no need for animate matter to regulate its body temperature under these conditions. Characteristics don’t evolve that aren’t necessary.
However, as the Earth cooled, mammals evolved and dinosaurs slowly died out, unable to survive the alternating cycles of hot and cold as the environment because more dependent on the sun for its heat. The mammals, with the ability to regulate internal body temperature, fell heir to the Earth in a process that hopefully would lead to the development of sentience and the ability to develop tools that would allow animate matter to manipulate the environment in order to extend its own survival, build house as protection against the cold, and then, in the ultimate extension of itself, build space vehicles that would allow it to escape the ever cooling Earth as it spiraled into first the condition of Mars and then the moon.
And, I suspect we were well on our way until an unfortunate physical occurrence turned us into a bunch of mystical, mindless, blatherers. That occurrence was the result of the simple fact that all planets, including the Earth’s moon, evolve the same way. That means the Earth’s moon was once also warm and also precipitated out water, in short had oceans. As the moon cooled and its gravity lessened, it lost the ability to keep those oceans, and they were eventually lost to its closest companion, the Earth, resulting in the destruction of what was up till then a normally evolving civilization. The water damped the Earth, cooling it fast, leaving the survivor with little arable land on which to live, land that, as the population recovered, could only be fought over for food.
But none of this actually happened or could happen because gravity is a property of matter and therefore unchangeable.

Why Doesn’t Science Recognize Friction?

2007-07-06T09:12:00.000-07:00

Friction would seem to be a fairly simple fact of everyday life. Let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about it (I avoid using this source unless it is totally objective, in which case there isn’t a bunch of backdoor sniping putting in negative information).
Friction is the force that opposes the relative motion or tendency toward such motion of two surfaces in contact. Friction between solid objects and fluids (gases or liquids) is called drag. In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called resistance) is the force that resists the movement of a solid object through a fluid (a liquid or gas). Drag is made up of friction forces, which act in a direction parallel to the object's surface, plus pressure forces, which act in a direction perpendicular to the object's surface.
In short, when we’re dealing with a solid with respect to a liquid or gas, friction slows the solid down. If we want to propel a ship through water, a plane through the atmosphere, we’re going to have to use energy, a current force, to overcome the drag caused by the friction between the sold and the liquid or gas.
Pretty simple, pretty straight forward, and not too much question about the outcome of friction. So, we’d think science would deal with friction when it came to the Earth and the oceans that cover it and the atmosphere that encases it.
You think?
Newton knew what friction was. After all, he had his planets moving in straight lines except for gravity. But Newton’s planets needed a source for their motion and Newton, one of the most devout collectors of different versions of the Bible, knew the source of the force that moved the planets in a straight line but for gravity. The source of the force was God, pure and simple, no questions need be asked.
Because God was the source of the fundamental forces, forces such as gravity, then God was also the source of the force that kept the planets in their orbits once gravity had caused their straight-line motion to be curved into circular orbits. Newton didn’t have to face the very obvious question, did gravity produce friction, cause drag, tend to make the planets slow down, simply because Newton’s planets were kept in constant motion. As to the rotation of the planets, Newton wasn’t much concerned with that little detail. A God that could cause the planets to careen around in the solar system was a God that could easily set the planets a spinning.
In reality, though, anything that could cause the planets to move from a straight-line path to a circular path did so by producing friction by definition simply because the only thing that could affect the motion of the solid through whatever it was moving through is drag.
In fact, the only person who was really concerned about friction was Galileo. Galileo was obsessed with proving that Copernicus was correct. To do so, he sought ways to show that the Earth was rotating on its axis. If he could demonstrate this, then it would show that the vision of the sun going around the Earth we see every day would be the result of the Earth rotating rather than the sun moving.
He spent a lot of time showing that the tides were the result of the Earth’s rotation. This, it would seem, is fairly obvious. While Galileo didn’t have the knowledge we have today of ocean currents, those currents are certainly caused by the action of the rotating Earth. For Galileo, the tides were caused by the water building up away from the direction in which the Earth was turning until they reached a height that could not be supported against the gravitational pull of the Earth (yes, Galileo was familiar with gravity before Newton, so familiar, he measured it).
When the building up of the tides reached its highest point, the weight of the water then pushed the ocean down on that side, causing the water level to rise at the other side of the ocean. Because the tides were repetitive, Galileo instinctively knew that some sort of force had to be driving the process. Back before Newton, people actually believed physical phenomena controlled these sorts of things, not magical mathematical formulas. Because the only force that could continuously keep the tides in motion was the rotation of the Earth, it was the rotation of the Earth that was causing the tides.
Because The Church was the source of all authority in Italy, Galileo’s “proof” of Copernicus using the tides didn’t gain much traction. The much more open England was attempting the same end using parallax, the measurement of a star at the opposite sides of the Earth’s orbit, if it had an orbit, so England wasn’t very interested in Galileo’s tidal theories either.
Thus, they sort of languished. When Newton’s gravity as a property of came along, he used the tides as an example of the effect of the moon’s gravity on the Earth and it was bought hook line and sinker. Later in the 18th century, when Laplace was replacing God as the mover of the solar system with his equally mystical swirling mass of gas, he set about demonstrating mathematically the effect of the moon’s gravity on various volumes of water. After all, if it’s mathematical, then it’s got to be right.
What would be right, of course, would be for scientists to sit down and produce a table that shows the movements of the moon predicting the tides. This they cannot do, so science makes such silly statements as "the long-known correlation of the tides with the movement of the moon." The heck with long-known correlations. Let’s see tables showing the motion of the moon predicting the tides. I have a two volume set on my bookshelf written by a scientist named Newton (no relation to Sir Isaac) in which he attempts to use Einstein’s laws of relativity to do just that. Alas, after hundreds of pages of incomprehensible equations, he admits failure, but holds out hope that further perfection of the theory will result in success – sounds like Sir Isaac saying, my math didn’t work, but more exact measurements of the moon will bring reality into accord with my theory.
The idea that the oceans or the atmosphere for that matter produced friction with the surface of the Earth was fried with Laplace’s swirling mass of gas fantasy. This picture of the past had a universe, in which the only force was gravity, taking the condensing gas that had to have been the source of the matter that made up the solar system, and starting that gas to swirl. Last time I checked, gravity is a straight-line force while swirling results from a circular force, but no matter, a straight-line force somehow got this gas that had to have been there a swirling and once it was swirling, the sun and all the planets and the moons and some other junk to be named later condensed.
What was the proof for this ad hoc explanation for the solar system? Primarily, the solar system was in motion, there was no God to put it or keep it in motion, therefore, the only logical explanation was condensation out of a swirling mass of gas. To keep the solar system moving, science reached back to Galileo, who had rolled balls down inclined planes and measured their motion as they arced into space. He concluded that what was moving the balls was something called momentum gained from the trip down the inclined plane. He decided that, but for the friction of the air through which they passed, they would travel forever. What about gravity? Galileo said, gravity does not produce friction. How did he know that? Because, if he removed the air, the balls would travel forever.
Tell that one to course correction teams or anyone attempting to keep a satellite in orbit. Oh, they’ll tell you that the satellites lose altitude because of stray molecules of atmosphere they encounter in their orbits. Let me repeat that loud and clear. SATELLITES LOSE SPEED BECAUSE THEY BUMP INTO MOLECULES OF ATMOSPHERE.
Laplace used Newton’s Celestial Mechanics and Galileo’s frictionless space to come up with an ever-moving solar system propelled by momentum, a sort of perpetual motion machine that science is always telling us can’t exist. This was all well and good so long as everyone’s attention was focused on the orbiting billiard balls called planets. However, when attention started to focus, as it did in the 20th century, on the rotation of the planets, primarily the rotation of the Earth, it produced some big trouble.
As an aside, by this time science had determined how much momentum the solar system obtained from the swirling mass of gas. Did it measure swirling masses of gas and determine the force they impart to their parts? No, that’s a little too inexact. Science determined the age of the Earth first, using the time estimated for Darwin’s species evolution as a guide, and then once it knew the age of the Earth, it could take it’s mass, produced by Newton’s unproven theory of gravity, and compute the amount of force it would take to propel that mass through frictionless space for the required period of time. Any way to check the math? Why check something that’s absolutely correct? Like determining the amount of mass in a planet, which can never be checked, science has computed the amount of momentum which has to be present to experience the conditions we are experiencing today. It’s the scientific way!
I think it’s pretty clear today that space isn’t frictionless, but since we don’t experience frictionless space as a part of our lives, science can maintain the fantasy. However, when it comes to the surface of the Earth, it’s hard to swallow that the oceans and the atmosphere operate as science says they operate, with no friction between the surface of the Earth.
All that we, the great unwashed, have to do is point out that air at the equator is moving at about 1,000 mph, air at the poles is moving at about 0 mph (theoretically, there’s so much weather from the clashing of the upper polar bound masses with the lower equatorial bound masses that it’s a maelstrom). At ground level, the air is moving at the speed of the ground, otherwise, we’d be blown over. The speed of the ground between the equator and the poles varies between 1,000mph and 0 mph. Now that’s math that can’t be denied because it’s not based on any assumptions.
The only way the lower moving masses of atmosphere traveling back toward the equator could continually increase speed is if they were interacting with the surface of the Earth. If they were interacting with the surface of the Earth, then the drag of the Earth was imparting motion to the atmosphere. By definition, the atmosphere is causing friction with the surface of the Earth.
If the atmosphere is causing friction, then it is slowing the Earth down. However, it isn’t slowing the Earth down. Therefore, the Earth has a current force causing it to rotate. Five billion year old momentum isn’t going to cut the mustard.
Science openly admits that five billion year old momentum isn’t going to cut the mustard. So what does it conclude?
Since the Earth is still rotating, there is no friction between the Earth and it’s atmosphere (or its oceans).
With one stroke, the entire field of meteorology is rendered dumb, spouting things like high and low pressure areas to explain the movement of the atmosphere. When the movement of the atmosphere causes enough friction to destroy a city such as New Orleans, it wasn’t the movement of the atmosphere, it was a hurricane, which, I guess, is something else.
Go outside on a windy day and see how much friction the atmosphere is causing with your body. Then wonder how science can profess such ignorance when all it has to do is face the real questions of reality, what is the current force that is causing the planets to orbit and rotate?
Afterthought: I just finished watching a special on the 54th Sidney to Hobart yacht race that ended in catastrophe when weather got out of control. It seems the polar winds switched direction to match the waves, causing them to increase from a normal 50' to an astounding 100'. Now here's an example of the frictionless atmosphere whipping water into a frenzy.
Frictionless?
Don't think so.

What’s the Use?

2007-06-28T10:25:00.000-07:00

I don’t normally get into discussions of my various theories with others. I learned a long time ago that just mentioning the possibility that Newton was incorrect in his conclusion that gravity is proportional to and therefore a property of mass gets me instant recognition as someone who not only doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but is also probably unstable.
Forget the fact that absolutely no one understands the importance of first saying “gravity is proportional to” before saying “it a property of,” in short, what the qualifier "therefore" means, and absolutely no one understands what the meaning of mass is, using it as shorthand for matter.
Both the qualifier and the word “mass” give the lie to Newton. The only way that Newton could prove that gravity was a property of matter (not mass) was to prove it was proportional to matter. To prove it was proportional to matter, he had to compute the amount of matter in the Earth and the moon, assuming that each were uniformly made up of the same particle, and then he used that computation to predict the orbit of the moon. Although he was off quite a bit, everyone accepted his theory and assumed that the orbit of the moon wasn’t, in the early 18th century, exactly computable. Royal Astronomer and lifelong Newton supporter Sir Edmund Halley took the fall for that one.
However, when Newton’s process was used on the other planets, it was clear that it didn’t work. This meant that Newton didn’t prove that gravity was proportional to matter, pure and simply. Of this there can be no dispute. Newton’s proof failed.
What is the early 18th century scientist do about this? Did they say, well, Newton is in the crapper, we better start over figuring out what gravity is? No. Scientists said Newton had to be right, after all he was Newton and universally thought of as the greatest genius of all time. It’s not our place to criticize Newton, especially with universal belief in his theory that gravity is a property of matter. What should we do?
What they did is to reverse Newton. Scientists concluded Newton, while wrong in his proof, was right in his conclusion. What science should do is use the orbit of the planet to compute the amount of matter in it. As the computations reflected the same error that computing the orbits by the amount of matter, science simply said we don’t know the amount of matter in a planet, so whatever Newton’s math computes it to be from a planet’s orbit is how much matter is in the planet. This matter is now called mass because some very big planets don’t have as much matter as their size would indicate (the origin of the gas planets).
It was foolproof because, while Newton’s computation of orbits could be verified, the amount of matter in a planet couldn’t, so there was no way to disprove the new mass gravity computations. This leads to two salient facts about the practice of science, at least on a theoretical level: First, science will never correct itself and second science does not follow its basic tenant that it never accepts as fact that which can’t be verified.
I have, of course, talked about this with some very famous physicists who I knew on a personal level, and while they all readily admitted that gravity was a mystery, none would accept it wasn’t a property of gravity (or was the result of what gravity was doing) simply because their lifework was based on the assumption. But as to talking to anyone without intimate knowledge of the subject matter, I kept my peace.
An opportunity, however, arose recently to get into another of my pet peeves, the handling of light. I was having lunch with several people, one a nonscientist who is very opinionated about the science he knows, textbook science, the other a preeminent practicing, as opposed to theoretical, scientist, the ultimate authority in his particular field. For some reason one of them brought up the subject of aether, and the scientist said, no one believes in aether anymore. That opened the door for me to discuss the Michelson Morley experiment, perhaps a bit too wide.
Reviewing the history of light, I pointed out that before Newton, the argument was whether light was a wave or a particle, and the knowledgeable community was leaning towards Huygens’ position of light as a wave. However, when Newton took over The Royal Society and had it publish his Theory of Colors, the view switched to the particle side where it stayed throughout the 18th century. Then, with Young’s two-slit experiment, which was taken to show wave patterns, light became a wave for the 19th century (hmmm, must be wrong about science being self-correcting).
Now, here’s where my scientific friend’s comment about the aether came in. Young was analogizing light to water waves. Water waves are a disturbance on the surface of water. They do not have an independent existence. Thus, the water is the medium though which the waves travel. If water waves have a medium and light waves are being analogized to water waves, then it only stands to reason that light waves must also have a medium.
Ever ready to create something that isn’t there, scientists made up aether, said everything was permeated with the stuff, and this was the medium through which light waves traveled.
Pretty heady stuff, no? Not one thinker has bothered to ask the basic question about light, how does matter produce it, but all the thinkers have gotten together and given a minute description of light as a water wave traveling through a medium no one knew existed, but which, because everyone now knew light was a wave, had to exist.
As science mulled this over in its collective mind for, oh, perhaps seventy years, a new question started puzzling these geniuses of rational observation: What is the absolute direction of the Earth as it travels in space? We know it travels around the sun, but we don’t know the precise direction it is traveling in, there being no east, west, north or south “out there.”
Now here is a really important question to answer. What better piece of knowledge to have than to know in what direction everyone is traveling? Michelson and Morley, one a theoretician, the other an experimental apparatus designer, sat down and attempted to answer this question. They concluded that because the Earth was traveling through the medium aether, the aether itself could be used to compute the direction of the Earth in space. Because light used the aether as a medium, it could be used for this purpose.
The point of the experiment was to build on Young’s two-slit experiment to produce, or not produce, interference patterns. Light would be collected and sent down a course of a circular platform to the center, where it would be divided by mirrors. One path of light would go in one direction 90º, the other path the other direction, 90º. The light would be reflected when it reached the edge of the platform and sent back to the center, where it would be recombined and sent to an interferometer, a device that could compute interference patterns. As each path of light had traveled through the aether in different directions, and as the platform was moving through the aether, one path would take longer to reach the end than the other and there would be no interference pattern.
Because these enterprising men didn’t know which way the Earth was traveling in the aether, they place the entire apparatus on a bed of mercury so it could be rotated in any direction. As the apparatus rotated, the light would travel different distances in the aether, and the direction of travel could be determined by when there was and when there wasn’t interference patterns.
Everybody agreed that the scientific logic was foolproof, that the experiment would produce the desired results. However, no matter which way the platform was turned, the interference patterns always appeared. Thus, a foolproof experiment didn’t produce the expected result. In fact, it produced no results at all.
Oh my! Our open-minded, stalwart inquirers into the nature of reality would certainly sit down, like they should have done when Newton was found to be a failure, and said, wow, guess there’s no aether, light isn’t a wave, we’d better rethink our whole concept about what light is.
You think?
Actually, since the entire scientific community already knew what light was, it started looking around for an explanation that would explain the non-results of the experiment. And the answer was so simple, it just startled the world (and enthralls us to this day). The answer was reflected in something called the Lorentz Fitzgerald equations. You see, since there was an aether, and since the experiment was foolproof and since the experiment didn’t produce the expected results, there must be something about the physical equipment that was changing. Because it was known the light in the two paths was traveling different distances, there must be something that was counteracting that change in distance.
The only thing that could be counteracting the difference in distances was if the physical dimensions of the apparatus were changing in precise proportion to the change in distances caused by the apparatus’ movement through the aether. Thus, speed was causing the physical dimensions of the equipment to contract.
First these nitwits make up aether, then they use it as the basis of an experiment, and when the experiment doesn’t work, instead of rethinking aether, they make up something that is impossible to measure, measurements change with speed, the size of physical matter depends on its motion.
Although it gets very unclear at this point, Einstein’s theories employed much the same logic. However, Einstein disavowed the Lorentz Fitzgerald equations, and except for possible two times in his life, never mentioned aether, which is totally unnecessary in Einstein’s universe. This led to the gradual death of aether, at least until today, where zero point energy theorists like to trot it out, claiming its frictionless (that’s really confusing, a frictionless medium).
Einstein’s contribution to the light story wasn’t the death of aether, however, it was in his one solid discovery, the photoelectric effect. Now here’s science once again operating as science always operates. The photoelectric effect demonstrated once and for all that light was a particle. So, of course, science would now, after going back and forth between wave and particle to wave would now return to particle. Self-correcting, right?
Not on your life. Our stalwart thinkers said, well, isn’t that interesting, light is a particle. But we know it’s a wave. Therefore, isn’t it amazing, light has dual properties, it is a wave and a particle, a wave particle.
This stuff, delivered by a stand-up comic, would bring the house down.
So, I finally got off my high horse after delivering my peace. Was there discussion about all the untaken chances honest scientists had to revise concepts created in the light of newly discovered facts?
No, through dessert I had to enjoy a lively discussion between my two friends about how space travelers would stay young when compared to those remaining behind unless, of course, they used the newly discovered (read made up) worm holes to move from one end of space to another.
Ain’t science fiction wonderful?
What's the use in trying? The consequences of not trying!

Do We Expect Too Much From Science?

2007-06-20T10:08:00.000-07:00

A traumatic even occurred in Milwaukee in the mid-90s. People started to get sick, with some of them dying. Before it was over, about 400,000 people took ill, with about a hundred of them dying. The dead were inevitably people with compromised immune systems. With such a widespread problem, many suspected the water supply. Because Milwaukee’s water supply is used to make a good portion of the beer produced in the United States, something had to be done fast to prevent this sickness from spreading beyond Milwaukee.
I like these medical detective stories because they show science at its best, with its nose to the grindstone dealing with real facts in the real world. The root of the word science is reality, and science should first, deal with reality, and second, leave questions that don’t have anything to do with reality alone. However, we tend to think that because science deals with reality, it should be able to solve all the problem of realty, and in the Milwaukee case, even solve them before they arise.
The first thing scientists did in the Milwaukee case was to plot the locations where people became ill. It turned out that the vast majority of victims was clustered around an area served by one water processing plant. The water was immediately tested for any impurities, and found to meet the EPA’s clean water guidelines. I should point out that having a national standard setting for safety levels is important. Some of the standard setters are associations of scientists, others government scientists such as those employed by EPA. It’s only by having one location where all the technical information can be funneled, evaluated and promulgated that we can expect the process of science, which is to gather and compare observations, to be accomplished.
The next step was to start to examine the material from the patients' intestines. Again, nothing showed up on the slides. The scientists were almost certain by this time that they were dealing with a parasite because of the nature of people’s illnesses, but parasites from sick patients normally show up as active on slides. After a period of frustration, one scientist remembered an axiom she had learned in school, that it wasn’t always what was obvious that was important, but sometimes what wasn’t obvious. She began to study the slices carefully, looking for something that might seem normal background, but which, if contained in all the slides, would be a clue.
She finally found some inert dots that fit this bill and she went about seeing if she could activate them. This part of science I find the most fascinating. I don’t remember much of my high school chemistry, in which I got a perfect grade, but my, at least until this month, high school grandson can reel off bases and alkaline and acidic, what activates what, all the tools of a good chemist (which might be because his father is a chemist). Knowing what reacts with what and then being able to use the knowledge creatively to get real results in the real world is a trait I most admire about the practice of science.
After a number of failed attempts, she was finally able to activate (I’m not sure that’s the right word, might be identify) the parasite and it turned out to be called cryptosporidium or crypto for short because it was so rare and illusive. At the time, its only presence was known to occur as a result of runoff on cattle grazing land. Scientists reasoned that the heavy rains that had occurred around Milwaukee the prior spring had caused the runoff to be washed away in the tributary creeks of Lake Michigan where the intakes of the water purification plant were placed. The Milwaukee mayor had ordered water boiling early in the game, before this was all discovered, and has now undertaken a modernization of the Milwaukee water system that will kill the crypto. But the scientists hadn’t finished with their process yet. Something about the crypto mystified them because it didn’t seem to behave like any crypto that was on record so far. After doing extensive tests, they determined that the crypto wasn’t from animal feces, but rather from human feces, and they began to explore the sources of the intakes of the water purification plant. They found that a waste disposal plant had been located about two miles from the water purification plant. The waste disposal plant was dumping processed refuse into Lake Michigan just two miles away from the water plant’s intakes. Testing the refuse from the waste treatment plant disclosed the source of the crypto.
At that point, someone started in with, well, science should have known better!
Now this probably belongs under the heading, no good deed goes unpunished, but for the fact that here the good deed, finding out what was causing the sickness, was the job of the scientists doing the digging. However, there’s a difference between good science and sloppy science, and this definitely wasn’t sloppy science. Why would an attitude that science should have known in advance and prevented the sickness arise in the first place?
To answer that question, we have to focus on another area of science, probably the area that gets the most press, the area that deals with the things we can never know. When we get into areas concerning light, gravity, subatomic particles and the like, we have nothing that we can put under glass in the local museum to display. Everything we think we know about the subjects we can only know about indirectly is hypothetical, theory, made-up stuff if you will.
When a rational approach to the physical universe began to emerge from the dark ages, people wanted to experiment directly with reality in order to learn what that reality was. All the myths, primarily created by church authorities over the centuries, about how the way things were, were in the process of being challenged. Even Aristotle, whose worldview had been pretty much incorporated into church thinking, came under fire. Everything old was up for questioning, anything new and novel up for discussion.
The people doing the discussing at this time came from many areas of life. The only qualification to participate in the discussion was an active mind, the willingness to accept what was found in reality, and pretty much, a disdain for the unexamined thoughts that had been around for centuries. There were not many people that fit into this select group, and the educational backgrounds were many and diverse. William Smith, the man who mapped the stratiography of England and is therefore indirectly responsible for much of modern day geological thinking, was a surveyor. Others were explorers, or wealthy hobbyists who amassed large collections of artifacts and fossils. The atmosphere was open and honest.
Francis Bacon was the first to set out what should be the scientific method. He was the first to observe that there were physical phenomena that our senses did not have direct access to. His most famous quest was for the hidden source of the force that caused movement, objects to fall, planets to orbit and rotate. While he realized that the cause of some physical phenomena are not accessible to our senses, he said there is a way that we can reveal them. He said the more facts we had about a phenomenon, the more accurate our hypothesis of the phenomenon’s cause would be. Sooner or later, he ventured, we would collect enough facts to get a clear picture of the hidden cause.
The most important feature of Bacon’s process was that any picture we proposed from the facts be just that, a proposal, a theory, a hypothesis. He stressed that no theory, no hypothesis, no proposal to explain a set of fact surrounding a phenomena could itself be taken as fact. We always had to ensure that our theories remained theories and never became facts because if our theories became facts, then subsequent explanations for phenomena would incorporate among the facts things that weren’t a fact, things we actually made up.
Bacon was taken very seriously and in the early 1760s, when The Royal Society was formed in England to organize the exploration into reality, it’s motto, translated into English, was (and is) “nothing in word.” This underscored the thinking at the time that scientific exploration must be based on physical results and facts rather than theory. Theories were just words. Facts were facts. Facts should always trump theory.
The Royal Society was founded on royal patronage, and when, over the years, this dried up, it attempted to limp along on its inventions to no avail. In the meantime, the great battle between secular scientific thought and age old religious conclusions was starting to heat up, with the vast wealth of the pie that fed those that controlled society’s worldview, controlled by the church, starting to be nibbled at by science. Practically all of the questions addressed by religion had nothing to do with science. Even church authorities agreed that it didn’t make much difference whether the sun went around the Earth or the Earth around the sun when it came to religious questions, yet to call into question this belief was to call into question the faith. To call into question the age of the Earth as dictated by begats, the flood, or any aspect of the bible, was to call into question the faith, and this the church could not continence.
Secular science was given a great gift at the beginning of the battle for control of society’s worldview. Newton had delivered his reflecting telescope to The Society in the 1760s to deserved acclaim. When he honored the society with his Theory of Colors a few years later, it was pretty much considered nothing but words and ignored, much to Newton’s lifelong anger. He attempted to set up a parallel society, but that crashed. Over the next twenty years, he built a core of powerful political allies and when he published his theory of gravity in an incomprehensible format using a form of math he invented, the description of what he had done, rather than the method that he used, was what sold the theory. After all, he was claiming that he described how the planets moved and how objects fell. Of course, at the base of his entire house of cards was a simple fact: God was what caused objects to fall and the planets to move. However, God was so far removed from his theory, that His presence in the theory didn’t have to be addressed until later in the next century, when Laplace replaced Him with the rotating mass of gas and theorists finished the job by pointing out that Newton’s math didn’t work anywhere in the solar system so, instead of using the math to have the “mass” of the planets predict motion, which was the only way Newton could give color of proof to mass gravity, his math could be used to predict “mass” from the motion of the planets.
In short, Newton’s proof was wrong, his conclusion correct!
At the beginning of the 18th century, Newton used his political connections to take over The Royal Society and for the next three decades used it to promulgate his view that theories could be demonstrated to be fact, turning Bacon and the society’s founding principle on its ear. It also allowed secular science to make pronouncements about all sorts of things that have no basis in reality, leading to today’s all seeing eye that can tell us when and how the universe began, how big it is, how long it will last and when it will end. Its latest fad is to come up with the TOE, the theory of everything, all of existence contained in a simple equation.
Because when it comes to this type of science, science that is not based in reality, science knows so little and is, in fact, totally ignorant, after all, it admits it doesn’t know what gravity is, and even goes so far as to put it low on its list of priorities, it has to constantly present a picture of itself knowing everything, one fact away from the TOE, the epiphany where we’ll all know everything in a flash and the world will become paradise on, well, this and other planets that happen to benefit from our knowledge.
Theoretical science with its quantum musings, its string theory, its dark matter and black holes, has been driven to present itself to the public as all powerful, all seeing, the Wizard of Oz.
Thus, when the poor scientists working on the ground dealing with actual reality uncover the cause for massive sickness and save countless lives, they’re accused of not knowing something in advance, something they, of course, couldn’t have known because there was as yet no science dealing with the illness.
But, hey, to the theoretical fantasists, that’s bull. Science is all-powerful, all seeing, all knowing, it can tell us everything there is to know about the universe.
Seems to me the millions of practicing scientists would want to get serious about doing some house clearing.

How Can Science Deny the Earth is Cooling?

2007-06-15T08:48:00.000-07:00

One of the more technical questions I received over the years, or at least before I started The Real Skeptic Columns, was, why do I capitalize Earth? Before the Real Skeptic presence on the Internet, scientific bulldogs liked to email what appeared to be legitimate questions, and then proceed to attempt to entrap me. It didn’t take me long to determine which were the legitimate questions and which were the entrapments. For one thing, the legitimate questions usually were intelligent, while the entrapment questions soon led to a clear path of stupidity, ending usually in the use of the very definitions I was criticizing to prove that I was ignorant of the definitions of science.
But the Earth capitalization criticism seems to have some validity to it. Having been an English major in college, I am very familiar with the rules of whatever. However, I’m also an avid proponent of the living language because I know for a certainty that the language is what the majority of speakers say it is. Just like species, words and phrases are born and die, with the panoply of variety constantly changing. At the rate we’re going, “nuclear” will become “necular” in my lifetime (which pretty much means, it already has).
If I go out into the backyard to work on my garden (like I had one), I would be dealing with plants that were rooted in the soil, which is called earth. However, if I were coming to visit the solar system from some far-off system, one of the places I’d certainly want to visit would be the Earth. When the Earth is capitalized, we’re dealing with the planet, when it’s not capitalized, we’re dealing with the stuff that covers the planet. I imagine the Martians would have faced the same problem if their word for soil happened to be mars. Our commonsense ancestors simply named our planet after what produced their food.
One of our commonsense ancestors, a guy named William Thomson, found himself in a heap of hot water as a result of, well, using his commonsense. William Thomson was not one of, he was the most renowned all-around physicist of the 19th century, one whose name is probably repeated, everywhere but in the United States, billions of times a day. Otherwise known as Lord Kelvin, he set forth the heat scale that is universally used in scientific circles, and pretty much everywhere else, but in the good old English offshoots which still use the more practical mishmash of, let’s see, pulling up my conversion dashboard, fluid ounces to liters, miles to kilometers, pounds to kilograms, and yes, Fahrenheit to Kelvin. (I remember I was collaterally involved with the great, I think it was 80s, goal off converting the U.S. to standardized measurements. After all, if you think of the money lost in international trade, you’d croak. Every one I met doing serious work in the field, which I wasn’t, said, this is a waste of time, it’ll never happen. And it didn’t, with the current intermediate phase where both are printed on labels and boxes, serving hopefully for the arrival of a new generation.)
Kelvin had a small obsession. He thought that he could take the size of the Earth, the assumed temperature of space (it hadn’t at that time been demonstrated that space approaches zero Kelvin, and, by assuming the Earth was as hot as the sun at one time, compute the amount of time that passed between the time it was molten hot and now, when balmy breezes across the oceans are broken by the occasional calved iceberg.
Could anything be more logical? After all, what is one of the basic facts, not, mind you laws, but facts about physical reality. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold. I’m not a cook, but I can cook eggs and I know that if I put the freshly cooked eggs on a plate and forget them, I’m going to have cold eggs. Hot objects seek out the temperature of the environment they occupy. It’s not rocket science (which by the way is engineering), it’s a simple fact of reality, physics if your will.
Although Kelvin could only assume the space around the Earth was close to zero, we now know that it is. Thus Kelvin’s notion that the Earth was hot and it was sitting in cold space was pretty reasonable given what we know about heat. I should mention that Comte du Buffon used heated balls to estimate the age of the Earth a century before. Kelvin came up with just under 100 million years to Buffon’s 75,000.
Now, bowing to science’s claim to using the best method available in order to compute difficult dates, we would all expect the scientific community to celebrate Kelvin, roll out the magic carpet, give him honors and awards, perhaps even attempt to fine tune the calculations or even find a more accurate way of computation.
Well, not if we actually knew how science operates. The scientific community demanded that Kelvin renounce his heresy or face public humiliation for being an ignorant, deluded, perhaps even insane, wannabe.
To make such a claim, the scientific community must have had an ironclad method to compute the age of the Earth, a method far better, far more accurate than Kelvin’s rantings, right?
And it certainly did. You see, a guy named Charles Darwin, a man who spent his life studying heat flows (I joke) published his theory of evolution. This theory was based on a theory of geologist Charles Lyell, uniformitarianism, that was simply a popularization of an idea expressed by Scottish natural philosopher James Hutton. (You can see the disciplined scientific thinking that went into all this, at least if you're blind.) That notion was that events on Earth only happened over extremely long periods of time. This allowed Darwin to propose his species evolution, which meant that fish turned into dinosaurs that became dogs, apes, and Lord Kelvin (never can get the sequence of wings to arms, fins to arms, legs to arms right).
You can see the strict scientific calculations clashing here. A philosophical notion against a reasoned computation. It took the nonscientific bluster of Thomas H. Huxley to defend Darwin. Who was Huxley defending Darwin against? Why, anybody that opposed Darwin was a religious bigot. When it came to Kelvin’s calculations, they simply weren’t correct because they didn’t provide enough time for Darwin’s beaks to become teeth.
So we have a scientific community balancing two proposals, one a philosophical idea that allowed for an explanation other than creationism, the second, a soundly reasoned scientific calculation. Which one were they going to accept? The one that opposed creationism, of course.
Before the 19th century, the religious authorities dictated everyone’s view of the world. The 19the century was witness to the great battle between so-called science and religion. Which one would dictate how everyone viewed the world?
To see how bitter the battle was, we have only to ask what was (is?) at stake in the battle. The answer is quite simple. Whoever or whatever dictates our view of reality reaps a substantial portion of society’s riches. Whether it’s the church selling indulgences for people who enjoy wine, women, and more women, indulgences that automatically freed the purchaser from guilt, or we have pseudoscientists selling carbon credits to people living in twenty-million dollar mansions and flying all over the world in jet planes preaching about how we have to give up our cars and bicycle to work so these hypocrites won’t have guilt feelings, controlling our worldview leads to lined pockets.
But the flow of money goes deeper, from glorious hundred million dollar churches to glorious billion dollar atom smashers and ten million dollar sculptures to many billion-dollar space elevators.
When that much money is on the line, people line up and when it looks like one authority is going to replace the other, they jump on board.
Thus, Kelvin was told in no uncertain terms that his name would be blackened in the history books if he didn’t come around, jump on board the gravy train. After much soul searching and prayer, Kelvin raised his estimate to between two and four hundred million years.
Not enough, his detractors yelled. We need more, much, much more (They were talking about time, not money). Huxley claimed Kelvin’s computation was based on unfounded assumptions To Darwin and his supporters, anything that disagreed with any part of the theory of evolution had to be based on unfounded assumptions. Much the same argument is used today to defend species evolution.
While Kelvin wouldn’t go further than four hundred million years, his reputation was saved by the discovery of French chemist A. Henri Becquerel, of radioactivity. To listen to mindless scientists today, one would think that Becquerel and Curie came upon this molten field of pitchblende. Puzzled by what was causing this massive amount of heat, they discovered radioactivity and the reason why Kelvin’s computations were off. Kelvin hadn’t added into the equation the massive heating effect of all these massive pitchblende fields that, to keep the Earth hot, had to be covering the Earth’s surface.
Or so the Darwinists, and every other dater that spirals off into the billions of years for the Earth, then jumps to precise dating for the universe, would have us believe.
The simple fact is pitchblende had been around for years, the pitch being its dark color, and the blende being the mixture of metals that scientists of the time had no way of analyzing. Miners didn’t have to use potholders to pick up a nugget of pitchblende. It was the same temperature as everything around it. It wasn’t heating up anything.
If the pitchblende, and for that matter, any material from which radioactive material could be isolated, wasn’t hot, how did these scientists come to the conclusion that they were heating up the Earth.
Well, here’s a source of energy, and energy heats things. Evolution had to take billions of years, so the Earth has been here billions of years, The Earth would have cooled off long ago, but because it has been here long enough for species evolution to occur, something must be heating it. Therefore, we have conclusive proof that radiation is heating the Earth.
Calculations? Don’t need them, the facts speak for themselves. The mechanism by which the radiation heats the Earth? Why bother to examine something that’s self-evident, after all, gravity is a property of matter isn’t it, and heating up the Earth is the result of the Earth having radioactive materials.
One of the more amusing aspects of science’s abysmal ignorance, its refusal to face answering simple questions, involves the explanation for gravity I posted in earlier entries. Without going into the details, my view is that gravity is not a static property of matter, it is the dynamic result of what matter is doing, cooling.
What would be one way to demonstrate the planet is cooling?
Well, if the planet were cooling, the gravity would be lessening, something that would not necessarily be measurable because everything is calibrated on a relative basis. However, one thing that would certainly happen would be that the water on the surface of the Earth would decompress. The water pressure at ocean level is the result of gravity, and if there were less gravity holding the water down, the water would decompress and its level would rise.
What do we find when we measure ocean levels?
We find that they are slowly rising.
What does this mean?
Well, because we know gravity is a property of matter, we know that gravity can’t change, so lessening gravity isn’t causing the ocean levels to rise.
Could only be one thing.
The water is rising because the ice caps are melting, and thus, our problem is our planet, sitting in the zero temperature of space, is getting warmer.
And we’ll gaily skip along, delusional, as the heat slowly escapes us and, as the life that evolved on this planet (by characteristic, not species evolution), freeze to death in the belief that we are roasting.
We may not be getting much of value from the people we pay to provide us with our worldview, but if we’re looking for humor content, we’re underpaying.

Do Honest Scientists Deserve Blame?

2007-06-08T09:39:00.000-07:00

Talk about mad! My parents moved to the Washington D.C. area when I was 7 and it didn’t take me long to discover the historic Little Tavern hamburger chain (since bought by a Congressman who immediately closed the stores and sold the real estate they were on). I had never had a hamburger before and my Father used to joke about the dollar dinner, 19 LT hamburgers and a coke. They were about 4 bites, although you could get a larger size for a dime. Cheese was an extra penny or two, depending on the size.
I’d never had either a hamburger or a cheeseburger and when I got my first taste of what were widely call death balls, I fell in love. As the years went by, my tastes turned to big, juicy, rare cheeseburgers, a heavenly treat, and I spent a lot of time finding the restaurants that knew how to cook them. Then a catastrophe occurred. A dozen or so kids fell ill, one of them dying. A background check for commonalities led to the conclusion that all the kids had eaten at a Jack-In-The-Box fast food restaurant. It was speculated and widely reported as fact that undercooked hamburgers were the culprit because they had a high incidence of e coli, which is what the kids were sick from.
All of a sudden, finding anyone that would serve a cheeseburger less than medium was next to impossible. While there are still a few restaurants that buy their own cuts of meat and grind them up into hamburger, and therefore have no danger of e coli, these establishments are few and far between. As far as getting a rare cheeseburger anywhere but at home became too much of a chore, so one of my greatest enjoyments bit the dust.
That was then, and now I find out the real story of the kids' sickness. It wasn’t hamburger at all, and therefore, I had been deprived simply because of speculations that were reported as fact. The real story is one that demonstrates how real science works and how intelligent, inquisitive, painstaking and challenging its practice can be. It also shows that there are certain aspects of our life here on Earth that science can’t, and for that matter, shouldn’t deal with.
The first clue came when a person that should have been in the population of hamburger eaters wasn’t, and it turned out that person was not only the sickest, she was the only one that died. That person was a baby, and she had never had a hamburger nor eaten at the suspected restaurant. However, while she lived several states away, her parents had just moved, and they had moved from the affected area.
This meant that something else caused the e coli, and because it was something else, its source had to be identified quickly or others would become infected. The public, of course, never heard a word of this and newspapers aren’t in the habit of making their mistakes of haste front-page news, so I’ll forever be out my rare cheeseburgers. Researchers went to the parents of the sick girl and started the exhaustive process of retracing their every step before they left Washington State, where the incident was occurring. Eventually, the mother remembered an incident in a grocery store where the girl had wanted a drink, and she’d taken a small carton of apple juice. She remembered the design on the carton because it was so unusual and the researchers quickly identified the apple juice’s maker. Although all apple juice was pasteurized, companies weren’t required to do so by law, and this brand was marketed to the new market for health foods by stating that it was natural, that it wasn’t pasteurized. When notified the company immediately emptied the shelves of the product. It was quickly established that the juice was the source of the e coli.
Next, the scientist in charge had to determine where the e coli originated. They reviewed all the contracts the company had with apple producers, and all the contracts required that only apples picked from trees be included in any purchase. This was because it didn’t want to take a chance on apples lying on the ground subject to the environment polluting the purity of its juice. The scientists then visited the apple providers and found that they were using unregulated and unsupervised help to fill the apple orders. As the orders were for the bushel of apples, workers were picking up apples from the ground to more quickly fill the baskets.
The next step was for the scientists to determine how the e coli got into the apples on the ground. Like most western states, and many others, impeding the movement of wild animals was strictly forbidden. I remember visiting some friend in 70s California. They were spending vast amounts of time trying to landscape in a way that would keep deer from eating the product of their work, but they were about to give up because everything that was effective had been prohibited and everything that was not prohibited was not effective. It turns out that deer are a major carrier of e coli, and upon examining deer droppings in one of the apple orchards, the scientists found what they were looking for, the source of the e coli.
I think this is absolutely remarkable and certainly the practice of science in all its glory. Both my son-in-laws do the same sort of work, and over the years, I’ve had many friends who practiced science. They have to have unique knowledge in their fields, and when it comes down to it, they become the only source of that unique knowledge. One group of scientists might spend their days performing trial and error work on possible drug cures while others spend years testing different artificial threads to determine quality in order to produce better products. As each scientist in each field does so, the store of knowledge related to the area of expertise is collected, processed, and added to. It’s a great system. I wasn’t surprised one day when I found out that there are men and women who devote their entire lives to the nature of rope. It sounds silly, but the body of knowledge that has grown up over the centuries dealing with this common product has produced all sorts of improvements. Technology marches forward on the shoulders of unsung scientists working in isolated fields on practical problems.
And with the technology, our prosperity increases, our lives grow easier, and we have a lot to thank them for.
It harkens back, in my mind, to one of the earliest assignments of The Royal Society, one that occupied Robert Hooke for many years. This assignment was to produce a spring for a horse drawn coach that would make riding in the coach comfortable. Much of the early work of the society was devoted to projects of this type because wealthy people were willing to subsidize the projects in the hope that the results would make their life, and everybody else’s who used horse drawn coaches, better (and in those days, horse drawn coaches were the means of transportation for everyone).
I guess the question I have to ask now is, why haven’t I heard of any of this before? Why do I have to still be subjected to restaurants serving my cheeseburgers ruined? It doesn’t have anything to do with science, or the practice of science, and I point it out to underline my point that there are certain subjects that can be approached on a scientific basis, and there are certain subjects which can’t, which, in fact, have no place in the scientific community.
The e coli outbreak, and the death, was the direct result of certain social movements. First, with prosperity, people were able to transcend the basic need we have for food. When we lived in feudal societies, we’d eat anything we could get our hands on, and risked limb, and even life, to obtain food for our family. With prosperity, we are removed from our food source and work for paychecks that in turn are traded for food and other necessities. When this situation arose, scientists added preservatives and color fixers to increase the time available to move the food from the ground to our tables. Some of us didn’t trust these additives and started a health food movement. While pasteurization is a proven method to make food safer, the pasteurization laws don’t encompass everything, and in this case, apple juice slipped through. However, the industry, due to the possibility of ground apples, knew the dangers of e coli and voluntarily pasteurized its product until one discovered a good market for “healthy” unpasteurized apple juice. How was the buyer to know? The buyer was focused on the “unpasteurized’ as a good thing because it was an intermediate process between production and consumption, and the health food movement objected to all intermediate processes (just listen to the fear of irradiated food as if it were going to explode in the stomach or cause radiation poisoning).
The health food social movement is relatively harmless and only affects its practitioners. The animal preservation movement is an entirely different story. When the number of deer killed by motorists approaches the number shot by hunters, not to mention the number of motorists killed by deer, something is wrong. However, the deer preservation (and now pretty much any wild animal preservation) has stretched from the West to the East coast. When I moved to Washington in ’46, we could swim in the Potomac and the tributary streams. By the early ‘50s, we couldn’t and later in the decade I would lifeguard Potomac cruises with specific instructions to only throw lifesavers to anyone who drunkenly fell overboard.
The environmental movement of the sixties changed all that and we spent hundreds of millions of dollars improving both the water and the air quality. By the late ‘70s, we could water ski on the Potomac and children could play in the tributaries. Then in the ‘90s water pollution warnings were once again posted, only this time there was no environmental movement to correct the situation. Why? Because the pollution was from wild animals that were using the tributaries, much as the deer were using the apple orchard, as toilets.
Any society that doesn’t take steps to protect its urban population from the diseases wild animals carry is not a society, but a shambles. However, the scientists that tracked down the e coli, while knowing the cause, could not take any scientific steps to correct the situation. If they felt the situation should be corrected, they could, on their nonscientific time, attempt to form social movements to pen deer out of places where food for human consumption was grown, but it wouldn’t have been successful because environmental groups would contact the association that provided the scientist with credentials and the association would bring pressure on the scientist to stick to science.
The third societal pressure that led to the e coli outbreak was the use of uneducated, migrant labor to harvest farm products. It doesn’t do much good to sign a contract saying all apples will be picked from the tree if the signer has no intention of supervising the work force to ensure that no apples will be picked up from the ground. I’d hate to be either the company that made the apple juice or the company signing the contract to pick only from trees because any jury is going to see that, under the situation, its foreseeable that the contract is going to be breached.
That's why all companies had been pasteurizing apple juice.
While the scientific process shone bright when it came to tracing the source of the e coli, it can do absolutely nothing about the social movements that brought the e coli into the marketplace. Some things are just beyond the realm of the scientific process.
Like what else?
Well, a lot of things science claims do fall under the scientific process.
Let’s start with the easiest one, gravity. Manipulating gravity is clearly a part of the scientific process. However, saying what causes gravity is not, simply because there is no scientific process that can tell us what precisely it is that causes gravity. The cause of gravity can only be theorized.
A better example is the age, size, origin and possible ending of the universe. Science has no process to tell us what the universe is, yet it claims to know how it started, how it evolved and how it will end, as well as where the physical end of the universe is (and what’s outside of that?).
None of use, least of all scientists, are in a position to say, adding preservatives to food is dangerous to our health, allowing wild animals to roam in our cities is more amusing than dangerous or that migrant labor can no longer harvest because it is a dangerous practice. Everybody is capable of disagreeing with just about everything but cold hard facts.
Gravity may be a cold hard fact, but what causes it isn’t. The origin of the universe is not even a cold hard fact, so it’s just not a fit subject for science.
I could go on. We can only speculate at what causes the planets to orbit and rotate, or what the nature of light is, or what makes it move, or what electricity is, or what magnetism is. We will never know.
But, and this is a big but, we need to speculate on the nature of these phenomena if we want to conform our technology to reality. We have no other choice.
However, we live in a world in which the scientific establishment has co-opted the explanation for things we can only speculate about. Explanations for gravity, planetary orbiting and rotation, light, electricity, magnetism, were all created before there was an organized science and definitely before there was the technological society in which we live today.
However, because all the answers to questions that need open speculation were set in stone, our technology had to conform, not to reality, but to the ancient answers to the questions. Mass gravity doesn’t just provide an explanation for why an object drops, it closes off technological inquiry into the possibility that gravity, like electricity, might be able to be manipulated. Celestial Mechanics provides an iron clad navigational system to guide our rockets in space, and when it doesn’t, when sunspots make satellites drop from orbit, we make up all sorts of frosting on it to ensure its failure is not recognized.
All of these laws and conclusions are learned early in a scientist’s educational process. There’s really no one responsible for altering or updating them. They just hang in history, passed down from mind to mind, mindlessly believed and mindlessly followed. Associations work to protect the knowledge in their field from encroachment, but at the same time, they are subject to the discipline of the overall scientific community, which enforces its collection of mindless laws and conclusions, and yes, assumptions, vigorously, because everything that has been done in every field of science has been done with these laws in mind. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can oppose the laws.
Thus, the brilliant scientists that traced the e coli have been taught these mindless laws and know them by rote, even though mass gravity has nothing to do with the scientific process in which they are engaged. Their association officials are the gatekeepers who ensure that no one in the field does anything that would oppose any of the mindless laws that might affect that field. Supra gatekeepers on a national and international level monitor associations to ensure that they don’t adopt any theory or attempt any process that violates the mindless laws.
Can an honest scientist, a category that pretty much makes up all scientists, do anything about these mindless memes?
I started writing The Real Skeptic columns in October of ’04. During the time I was writing them, I found out, through email correspondence, that there are at least 3 disciplines in which the rank and file members are trying to clear out the unproven assumptions that formed the basis of the field. This isn’t done without pain. There are meetings at which dissidents get ignored, or more often, booed. It’s just the nature of consensus thinking. But in each of these three fields, a significant minority position has been established that it is now given the respect all opposing factions to a mere idea deserve (to give you an idea without naming disciplines, one of the disciplines is finally throwing off uniformitarianism, that unfounded belief that the Earth formed over vast eons without any significant disruptions).
But these incremental advances won’t touch the heart of mindless scientific belief, the gravity is a property of matter, the light is a wave, solar system motion is not the result of current forces, simply because there are no disciplines that are in a position to challenge these ancient assumptions, and there is no one willing to face the catcalls and boos that actually challenging these core consensus beliefs produces.
In addition, even though we find daily that our technology doesn’t match our concepts, we simply move forward, stumbling all the while over the ancient, unfounded beliefs. Just as Edison’s direct conversion of electricity into light didn’t change the view that electricity and light were different things, just as Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect didn’t change the view that electricity and light are different things, there is nothing that anyone can do that will change these useless beliefs.
But it wouldn’t be a problem if the beliefs were simply useless. They are harmful, because they block creative investigation into all sorts of technologies because the investigations are ruled impossible by the ancient beliefs.
We live better lives than out ancestors simply because the inventors among us ignored the ancient beliefs and forged into new territory. But other than isolated successes here and there, we're just as ignorant as our ancestors when it comes to viewing how the world we find ourselves in works.
So, do honest scientists deserve blame for the situation?
No, but they can open their minds to the mindless memes that were inculcated in their youth and start to recognize the limitations of science. Then perhaps the black and white of these gray subjects can start to enter the popular literature and textbooks.
Maybe, over the years, things will start to change.

Are Scientists Crazy?

2007-05-29T09:44:00.000-07:00

There’s a pretty vile scam going around. It thrives during periods of college vacations, like spring break, but it goes on constantly. It’s done by cold calls, people sitting in a boiler room picking numbers out of a directory. The call goes out, it’s answered, and the caller says, your son has just been in a horrible accident and he needs immediate medical help.
A lot of people don’t have sons, and the call is terminated as a mistake. However, many do, and some of those that do don’t live with their sons. The caller, like a psychic, gets clues from the ensuing conversation that can be used to entrap the mark, the person being scammed. As the scam continues, it turns out immediate evacuation is needed, and the caller gives the mark the name of a police dispatcher. The police dispatcher, another person in the boiler room, tells the frantic parent there are no helicopters available, and commiserates with the mark. After awhile, the “dispatcher” says, “I shouldn’t be doing this, but I have the name of a private helicopter firm that can do the job for you.” The mark is then given another number to call, someone else in the boiler room. The phone is answered and the mark is told there’s a helicopter available, but it will take a $3,000 deposit in cash to get it off the ground. Western Union is fine.
As the scam plays itself out, the mark wires the money to an address given on the phone, and the money is never seen again. Of course, there’s no accident.
Now let’s play this out a little differently. The mark calls the supposed helicopter company, is told the amount and where to mail the money, and as the mark is about to leave for the Western Union office, the phone rings and it turns out to be the son, who says, hey, I’m fine, I’m sitting on the beach enjoying a drink. The mark then says, well, you go ahead and enjoy yourself, I’ve got to wire some money to a helicopter company so you can be flown to the nearest hospital.
I think we’d all agree, the mark in this case would be certifiable, plumb crazy. When it is known that we have been operating on the basis of incomplete information, in this case, information about the well-being of the son, we are acting recklessly, to say the least, and definitely stupidly.
The ancients identified the four things that made up the world: Earth, water, air and fire. You’d think that they would have included light, but why include something that’s already included. Light obviously was produced by fire, so it was a secondary feature to the four primary features.
Then, during the great period of questioning, the post Copernican scientific world of Baconian quest, the great debate about the nature of light arose: Was light a particle or a wave?
Up until Newton seized the reigns of The Royal Society, Huygens’ view of light as a wave took sway. It’s rather humorous that the ancients had considered light secondary to fire, and here these great thinkers were considering it an artifact of water. Fire is produced by matter, which is akin to earth, while water extinguishes fire, and therefore the light it produces. That’s just wild and crazy, guys, worthy of a Saturday Night Live skit.
Moving right along, though, Newton’s authority prevailed throughout the 18th century until Young’s two-slit experiment, described in earlier entries. After that experiment, light officially became a wave, and “science” set about to demonstrate the existence of the substance whose disturbance produced the wave. After all, a wave doesn’t exist, it's just a distortion of a medium, like water. Science quickly made up aether and called it the medium of light. (During all this, these disconnected thinkers were claiming that, according to Laplace, the Earth had been circling the sun in frictionless space since the beginning of time, the same space they were claiming was filled with this light medium, aether, but, hey, what’s a little inconsistency when you’re wild and crazy.)
When Michelson and Morley attempted to demonstrate the speed and direction of the Earth using its movement through the aether, the experiment failed, fantasy prevailed, but aether sort of disappeared. Fortunately for the deep thinkers about light, Maxwell published his equations on the electromagnetic “spectrum,” which pretty much did away with the need to explain how light could be a wave without a medium. After all, no one basically could understand Maxwell’s equations, so this was enough to keep everyone in awe.
Now, at this point, the scientific community is in the position of the mark who’s gotten information where to send the money to get his son to the hospital, but hasn’t gotten the wakeup call from the son who is sipping drinks on a beach. Science had been led down a primrose path. It had spent the better part of 3 centuries arguing about whether light was a wave or a particle, how the mark should get the son to the hospital, and hadn’t even given a thought to how light was produced, in the mark’s case, whether his son was injured in the first place.
Nobody in their right mind would continue to accept the fruits of an argument that was based on a glaring omission. How could anyone discuss anything about what light is until they discussed how it is produced?
Unfortunately, as the deep thinkers about light mulled over Maxwell’s equations, which is about the same as getting the money for the Western Union transfer, others, primarily Rutherford, were experimenting with those mysterious non-light particles called electrons. By modifying light bulb technology, cathode ray tubes were invented that could shoot the electrons in streams. Rutherford, finding the streams blocked in places, theorized the existence of the atom, and before long, the world was treated to the classic view of the atom, proton in nucleus to keep electron in orbit, neutron in nucleus to give the atom weight, and electron in orbit to interact with other nuclei to form matter.
The deep thinkers about light sat on the sidelines never, for one moment, observing that, wait a minute, we’re using the conclusions of people, people who told us what light is, and these people didn’t even have knowledge about the atom, the matter that produced the light. We’re in la la land here. We’d better start over and figure out first how light is produced, and then figure out what it is.
As they slumbered on the sidelines, Einstein came along and demonstrated that light is a particle with the photoelectric effect, which has light producing an electron in a circuit. There was no photon until that point, but, with the light boys slumbering in their deep chairs, there was no one to say, hey, maybe light is made up of electrons, maybe the light isn’t producing an electron, maybe the light is an electron. Instead, the photon, like aether and everything else in science, was quickly made up to explain the obvious fact that light produced electricity.
It was the photon that was activating the electrons.
All of sudden, the great light sleepers, deep in slumber, started to stir. Light matter, light matter, light matter, matter light. Could there be a connection between the two?
Now we would expect the mark to say, hey son, it’s really you, I don’t have to have you flown to a hospital, do I?
But not a scientist!
Instead of saying, Gee, light is not a wave, it's a particle that interacts with matter, so to understand light, we have to figure out how matter produces light and then figure out what light is, the scientists said, we know light is a wave, we know it’s a particle, all we have to do is figure out how this newly discovered atom produces a light wave and we’ll have the last piece of the puzzle clear in our questing brains.
The quest began, and what a quest it’s been.
No quest at all!
Science’s starting point is what science’s starting point always is: Science is right.
Therefore, science already knew what light was, it was a wave. Being a particle at the same time made it a little more complicated, but since when has science shied away from making things so complex, they’re incomprehensible?
Actually, the particle notion of light combined with the photoelectric effect gave science something to chew on. See, the second thing science knew was that matter was made up of atoms and atoms were composed of a bunch of particles which are encompassed in what’s called the standard model, a sort of international agreement limiting the number of particles scientists could create. The standard model, of course, has the familiar orbiting electron whizzing around the atom. Before the invention of electron microscopes, science stuck by its idea that there were fixed numbers of electrons orbiting an atom’s nucleus in fixed shells although now, representations of the atom supposedly captured by electron microscopes produce a haze around the nucleus, demonstrating a cloud of electrons. This was then, though, and science was sticking by its individual orbiting atoms.
Here’s where it gets difficult for me to remember because it’s sort of like whether electricity flows from positive to negative or negative to positive or wave lengths get longer or shorter from red to blue or blue to red, examples where science has, at one time, believed firmly in one or the other, belief, of course, being consensus agreement like the standard model. There are many issues in science that cast me into the roll of the accountant who sits at his desk, every once in awhile opening the drawer and looking in. Finally, a coworker had to know what was in the drawer, so the accountant opened it for him. Written on the bottom of the drawer was “debits to the left, credits to the right.” Or is it credits to the right, debits to the left? Hmmm.
Anyway, it seems those orbital electrons now have specific characteristics, the basic one being in a ground state. When an orbiting electron is a ground state, it has its lowest energy. Now not only can this electron orbit the nucleus of the atom without science ever once attempting to explain how it can do so, it can absorb energy. Isn’t that just peachy. All of a sudden, the electron has an entirely new property, one that no one ever heard of before, but one that certainly can’t be denied. It is capable of absorbing energy. Here’s the particle that represents a fundament form of energy, and its pliable, it can soak up energy like a sponge. A fundamental energy that can absorb energy. Couldn’t the idiots just give it the property of motion so we’d have to stop asking what’s causing it to move? If it’s going to come up with an exotic energy absorbing property, why not motion?
Oh, well.
When an electron absorbs more energy to the point that it can absorb no more energy, then, boom, it takes off on its own, ionizes as they say in the quiet chambers of serious thinking. But we don’t have to worry about these ionized electrons because they are no longer orbiting and we want to know how matter produces light.
There is a state between ground and ionized, and this state is an excited electron. We all know what an excited electron is, don’t we? Well, maybe not. An excited electron is one that has absorbed energy. If you absorb energy, you get excited, too, right? And when you’re excited, why, you have to get rid of that energy, right? Right.
So how does the electron absorb energy? Why, it absorbs a photon or packet of light. What happens when it gets excited? It jumps to a higher orbit around the nucleus (this is where I go debits or credits, is it higher or lower). It seems that each orbit around a nucleus requires a specific amount of energy, so the orbit the electron jumps to depends on the number of photons it absorbs.
When the electron loses its energy, passes out of its state of excitement, it falls to a lower orbit, and as it does so, it gives up the same number of photons it absorbed to get excited in the first place.
If you don’t believe in this hogwash, just ask a scientist. He’ll have miles and miles of chalkboards covered with squiggles and symbols to categorically prove it all to be as real as the brown clay that gets stuck to your shoes when you run through the farmers field. If you wonder why it’s "he'll have," female quantum scientists are hard to find. After all, one of the basic features of the female mind is practicality and common sense, qualities that aren't evident in this jumble of incomplete and inconsistent ideas.
The creation of quantum mechanics was the act of the mark paying for the helicopter to evacuate the son after the mark finds out the son is sipping drinks on the beach. Science finds out as clearly as it can that light is not a wave, it’s a particle. It realizes that no one has ever sat down and tried to connect light to matter. It has matter with particles and light with particles. It then proceeds to graft its concept of light as a wave, created early in the 19th century, onto an atom created early in the 20th century. It does so by taking a particle, the electron, it made up to explain a phenomena, electricity, it discovered decades after it had cemented its idea of light as a wave, and then goes on to add a property to the electron that says it can absorb and emit light.
In reality, the mark realized he was being conned when he got the call from his son and simply abandoned paying for the helicopter. In reality, science refused to realize its concept of light needed revising and simply forged ahead working on concepts that had clearly been disproved by demonstrating the photoelectric effect.
For the mark to proceed in the manner of science, the mark’s reality would have to conform to the idea that his son was mortally injured. He’d have to injure the son to continue the fantasy. Science doesn’t have any son to kill, and unlike the mark, whose need for money forces reality into the picture, science has nothing that would force it to face reality.
In fact, its reality is the creation of more and more confusing and incomprehensible explanations so it can keep the paychecks popping, the grants giving, the honorariums honoring from the only source of money it has, us, the great unwashed.
It doesn’t matter what tripe they feed us, it just needs to keep the collection plate full. What’s the phrase, crazy like a fox, dumb as a doorknob? One applies to scientists, the other to us.

Are All Scientists Blind?

2007-05-24T09:39:00.001-07:00

When it comes to light, which separates the blind from the seeing, science is totally blind, so blind, in fact, that it costs billions of extra dollars to come up with technology dealing with light, and that technology, I’m thinking the blue laser and LED, only occurs when an inventor throws out the scientific view and embarks on the opposite.
There was a time, back before Newton extended his influence to the entire world, that people held a reasonable view of light. While no one knew what light was, and no one even bothered to ask the question, how is light produced, scientists spent their time arguing whether light was a particle or a wave, with Christiaan Huygens holding mental sway through much of the 17th century with his view that light was a wave.
Other than arguing the light particle nature of light, color was taken for granted. Light struck an object and the properties of the object changed the light and therefore changed its color.
I mentioned briefly in my entries on gravity that science is pretty arrogant about light. It continually claims that humans are animals that hold no special place in the universe, that we are an accident of chance, that we adapt to nature. Yet when it comes to light, humans hold a very special position. While all of our thoughts about color are inherited from Newton, a man who lived hundreds of years before the discovery of the range of electromagnetic frequencies, Newton’s thought is stamped on the one portion of the range of frequencies that affect us most, color.
Looking at any frequency chart, we can see the frequencies getting smaller on a regular basis, and as they get smaller, they have different characteristics and are adaptable to different uses. However, when it comes to light, we don’t have a series of frequencies. With light, for some reason, we have a bundled frequency. And, while humans are just an accident of the universe, that bundled frequency just happens to be the one that allows us to see color. It’s as if the universe created a whole range of frequencies, with one special bundled frequency, and we are the ones the universe created the bundled frequency for. Evolutionists could argue, if forced to face the fact that white light is the only frequency in the entire range of electromagnetic frequencies that is many frequencies bundled together, that our eye evolved to see the bundled frequencies. But our eye could only evolve to see the bundled frequencies in their unbundled form, as green leaves, blue sky, brown dirt.
Which brings us to the basic question. Did nature bundle the frequencies, or did we bundle the frequencies?
Using the term bundled is just a substitute for the scientific fiction that white light contains all colors, or to put it another way, all frequency colors are contained in the frequency of white light. I’m certainly no artist, but I do know that there are millions of colors, or at least that’s what my computer monitor claims it can resolve. With white light containing all colors, when white light strikes the surface of a leaf, the leaf absorbs millions of colors and only reflects the green color back (of course, if the leaves are changing, every section of the leaf is absorbing millions of colors and reflecting a different one so we see the symphony of colors that is fall).
This is really a complex thing for nature to develop when all she had to do was alter the frequency of the white light with the nature of the material it was bouncing off. But Newton “proved” that white light contained all colors. He passed light through a prism, which broke white light into the color frequencies, then recombined the color frequencies to come up with white light.
How this proves white light contains all color frequencies escapes my ability to discern the verities of scientific dogma, but the consequences, turning pigment into something that absorbs, rather than reflects, light doesn’t. Instead of matter reflecting light, it is now absorbing all sorts of frequencies and reflecting only the color frequency we see.
Actually, I can go to the color wheel on my computer and disprove Mr. Newton. The color wheel uses the computer's ability to combine color frequencies to produce all sorts of colors, millions of them. What is this thing called color adding? It’s the same thing Newton did when he recombined all color frequencies. He increased the frequency of the reflected light, in Newton’s case back to the white frequency, in my computer's case, any frequency I want.
Frequency adding has produced a very accurate test for color blindness, which shows a deficit of either red or green. As we all know, combining red and green produces yellow, another case of frequency adding. This fact has been incorporated into the anomaloscope, a device that allows a viewer to see half a yellow disk with one eye, and the other half of the disk, which is a combination of red and green, with the other eye. Using a calibrated knob, the viewer adjusts the knob until the adjustable half of the disk is the same yellow color as the yellow half of the disk. The calibration tells the tester what portion of red and green it took to produce the yellow frequency.
The anomaloscope not only works to demonstrate color adding (as well as determine the type of colorblindness involved), it disproves another of Mr. Newton’s unfounded notions, a notion that is taken as gospel today, one that cripples technology. Newton determined that light was lined up the way it came out of the prism. This is the famous Roy G. Biv notion, where we have light emerging in order of red, orange, yellow, blue and so forth (could never figure out what the indigo and violet were doing in there).
On a practical basis, we are only concerned with red, yellow, green and blue. After much hoop-de-do, science decided that red was the longest wave (science still thinks of light in terms of water), with blue the shortest wave. In my lexicon, that would translate into red being the longest frequency, blue the shortest.
How many ways is this wrong?
For starters, any idiot knows that heat translates into frequency. The shorter the frequency, the more it’s going to scramble your cells. Radiation 101. Scientists can simply turn on their Bunsen Burners, assuming the last time they saw one wasn’t in college, and notice the color of the flame. The inner cone is blue, and its temperature is about 500ºC. Proceeding to the outer cone, the red flame is graded from 500ºC to 950ºC, when it starts to turn yellow, where it stays till it reaches 1450C at the peak of the outer cone and turns, what else, white. Blue is clearly the longer frequency, with red the shorter. But according to this, yellow is even shorter than red.
Returning to the anomaloscope, the colorblind viewer sees a yellow half of the disk and something other than yellow, which is adjusted until it is yellow. The adjustment changes the mixture of red and green. If we go back to Roy G. Biv, where does yellow fall in this interpretation of the lineup of frequencies?
It falls between red and green!
If the viewer is deficient in seeing red or green, or both, how is it he can see the yellow side of the disk without any adjustment? And how is it that, after color adding, he can see yellow on both sides of the disk? The simple answer, in fact, the only answer, is that yellow has a higher frequency than either red or green.
Before Newton’s color folly, people sensibly thought that the light moving through the prism was being changed (they didn’t understand what light was, so they didn’t know how it might be changing) by the glass in the prism, with the further the light traveled in the prism, the bigger the change. If we examine light’s path through a prism, we can see clearly that yellow travels the shortest distance. Thus, in modern day lingo, at least in my lingo, the white light’s frequency has been reduced the least at this point. Red and green come out of the prism on either side of yellow, with the red traveling a slightly shorter distance than the green, so this put the frequency lineup yellow, the longest, then red, then green, then, traveling the furthest, blue.
How scientists can’t see what’s right in front of their eyes demonstrates the ideological blindness science operates in. With disciplines fracturing basic scientific knowledge, educated scientists learn the basics by rote, gravity is a property of mass, white light contains all color, light is lined up the way it comes out of the prism, and because these statements are attributed to the scientific deity, Newton, a deity who can never be questioned, scientists go through life parroting this mindless tripe back and forth to each other and out to us, the great unwashed.
Unfortunately, engineers soak this stuff up and, when it comes to searching for technological improvements, are themselves blinded by mindless ideology. Take the laser. The first laser produced red light. If red is the longest frequency, what the heck are the chances that experimental fishing would stumble upon the weakest laser around. It’s simply more logical to conclude, trial and error is going to stumble over the laser that’s the easiest to produce, the laser with the highest energy content. But not to scientists and the engineers (for one, the scientists were too busy attempting to take credit from the engineers).
While a blue laser was sought, the blue LED was much more critical. If light arrays were to be constructed from LEDs, blue would be needed along with red and green, the second laser to be found, in order to produce the millions of colors necessary to realistic viewing. The hunt was on. Billions of dollars was spent looking for something that would produce the shorter wavelength blue LED. After a decade, during which several possible materials were ruled out because they would only produce longer frequencies, a maverick named Shuji Nakamura said the heck with theory, let’s just start working by trial and error on the materials considered to be unworthy of the time. He had a blue LED before anyone else could blink an eye, and, because he was smart, no scientist could touch him.
But that’s not where the blue LED/Laser story ends. As soon as the blue LED was proven, the blue laser followed quickly behind. Perhaps you have purchased a new piece of electronic equipment in the last year or two. I remember when I had a bank of recorders that, when I turned the lights out at night, made the room look like a Christmas tree with all the red indicator lights. I shuddered at the electronic leakage this was producing, along with the cost. While there’s nothing we can do about the cost of indicator lights on equipment that has to stay on, all of a sudden, the color is changing from red to blue. Now when I buy a piece of electronic equipment, at least one that is high end, it has blue LEDs. Why? Because the blue LEDs use less electricity than the red LEDs. Why? Because the blue LEDs are a longer frequency than the red LEDs, and thus take less electricity to produce.
But the real payoff is for the recording industry. Disks recorded with blue lasers hold considerably more information than disks recorded with red lasers. Pretty soon, all of our DVD players will be using blue lasers to read disks. Why does a blue laser, the so-called shorter frequency, access so much more information than the supposedly longer frequency red laser? Because the longer the frequency, the less intrusive it is, and the less intrusive it is, the smaller area of information it can access. That means the blue laser, accessing more information, is less intrusive than the red laser, and therefore a longer frequency than the red laser.
But why stop in the laboratory, or in technological achievement, to see just how blind scientists are? Why not just step out into one of the glorious Pacific sunsets? Ask scientists why the sky is blue, and they’ll respond that the atmosphere is scattering the blue wavelength so that it become visible. The red and yellow, why they pass right through undisturbed because they are longer frequencies.
Does this sound logical? Logical would be if the longest frequency was scattered first. Is there a way to demonstrate this? Simply wait until the light has more atmosphere to pass through. This occurs as the sun sets and the sunlight we see is no longer the shortest distance, straight up, but now passes through many layers of atmosphere as the sun moves lower on the horizon. What happens? If the atmosphere is cloudless, we'll see a yellow sun. The red is being scattered, but it is lost in the darkening sky. However, if the atmosphere has clouds, those clouds will pick up the scattered red light and provide dazzling sunsets, with yellow and red, and every hue in between. If this were happening according to science's color lineup, a little bit of atmosphere couldn't scatter the longer wavelengths, but a lot of atmosphere could. It's not logic, it’s the reverse of logic.
In fact, blue, the longest frequency, scatters first when the sun is overhead, and as the sun sets and has to pass through more layers of atmosphere, it starts to scatter the next shortest, red, then the shortest of all, yellow, producing the incredible, multicolor sunsets we enjoy. What happened to green in all of this? Well, there is an unusual effect called a green flash that has been reported off and on, but it is very rare. Why? In my opinion, the transition from blue to green is subtle, whereas the transition from blue to red is startling.
But let’s assume our scientists, after a day on the links, and an even longer stay at the 19th hole, are too snookered to even see the sunset, and thus can be excused for their blindness. We can always turn to day-to-day life to see if they are aware of anything. While there are probably as many insurance agents as there are scientists, the insurance agents aren’t as blind as the scientists. They do studies of accidents and car colors. Guess what car gets hit the most: A blue car. Guess what car gets hit the least: a yellow car. Wonder if it has something to do with visibility, which couldn't possibly have anything to do with frequency, could it?
Sure it does! When was the last time you saw a blue fire engine? They’re traditionally red. What color are safety experts starting to paint them? Yellow. These fools must know something scientists don’t, but don’t try and tell a scientist that because, by definition, no one knows what a scientist knows.
So we’ll muddle on through our ignorant lives, making improvements to our electronics, increasing our safety, and enjoying our sunsets, in spite of what blind scientists mindlessly repeat as they stumble through life reaping tremendous rewards for providing nothing.

Gravity is . . . Part IV

2007-05-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

Scientists, who claim that they go only where the evidence leads them, that nothing is sacred but the truth, are quick to point out that my explanation of inductance is meaningless because it doesn’t conform to the scientific definition of induction. That definition states that inductance is a property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it by a variation of current either in the circuit itself or in a neighboring circuit. What’s an electromotive force? Something that moves or tends to move electricity. What’s electricity? A fundamental form of energy. What is fundamental? When science knows nothing about anything, here energy, it simply classifies like things, here forces that produce work or can be converted to BTUs, and calls them fundamentals.
So let’s see what science knows about what it pretends to know about. A fundamental form of energy, electricity, something science has no idea where it comes from, can come from a property of an electrical circuit doing something to produce the fundamental energy, electricity.
When I was in my mid-twenties, I went out and bought a huge encyclopedia of science about 1,300 pages long, a really big book. I also purchased a stack of 5X8 cards. At the time, I still thought science knew everything it claimed to know and it was my understanding that was falling short. Each morning I’d start the day by excerpting one of the entries, along with its cross references. During the day, whenever I had a free moment, I’d refer to the card, finding out what I understood and what I didn’t understand, using the back of the card to jot down questions I had about the entry.
This went on for several years when I started to realize something. I was going in circles. Every explanation contained in the encyclopedia, other than just those items that categorized things such as the table of elements, referred to other entries for a fuller understanding. Those other entries referred to still other entries. If I followed the path of referrals, I ended up with the referrals being to the original entry that raised my question.
In short, I found that science, at its base, was nothing more than a giant ring of circular references that didn’t explain anything. It was like the actual circular explanation for gravity. What produces gravity? Mass. What is mass? Mass is what produces gravity. No one can get out of the circular pile of non-information once inside it.
With electricity, all the words, property, force, something, fundamental, energy, they’re all meaningless as explanations for anything. We all know how electricity behaves. We can measure how it behaves. It doesn’t add to our knowledge to say a grump stitcher forces ploobars as a result of moving a wire in a zolloback field around the electricity. But neither does saying it’s a property whereby something moves something else to produce electricity.
It’s even worse when the labelers and categorizers of our scientific ignorance claim an electron produces electricity and the definition of an electron is a moving charge, which is what, of course, electricity is. No one explains anything by describing what it is. When something is dynamic, it takes a dynamic explanation, an explanation that actually explains.
One thing is pretty clear about electricity. It is produced by particles that have two properties, one a property of motion, the other, a property of attraction. The property of motion is self-evident. When electricity was first harnessed, it was done so in a battery that had terminals. Thus, using a magnetic analogy, electricity was thought to move from positive to negative (or vice versa depending on the decade and logic).
When inductance was discovered some 30 years later, positive and negative clearly had no application. A circuit, while it has two points, does not create a flow between those two points. By definition, a circuit is circular, so the electricity is not moving from one point to another, it is moving around in a circuit.
The one thing we do know about the electricity, though, is it’s moving, so instead of making up properties and electromotive forces and the elusive “something,” let’s just assign the electron the property of motion, which it obviously has.
Next, the property of attraction is also pretty clear. Once electrons begin moving in a path, they move in unison, so it’s pretty lame to think they haven’t come together in mutual attraction. It's simple logic that if electrons repelled each other, circuits would not exist. The electrons simply wouldn't stay together. Also, it’s only normal that a flow of electrons would attract a circular flow around it simply because at every point in the flow, there are electrons. If those electrons had a property of attraction, they would attract other electrons out of the environment to form the circular flow.
Of course, all this is impossible because by the time inductance was discovered, a whole generation had grown up with the notion of positive and negative and by the time anyone got around to wondering how matter was constructed, another three or four generations of labelers and categorizers had cemented their reputations on the notion, so, like gravity is a property of matter, it simply became a given. Thus, when the atom was constructed with electrons orbiting a nucleus, the only thing that could hold the electrons in orbit, which had become negative by that time, was a positive particle, so a positive particle was made up, put in the nucleus to hold the electrons in orbit, and now that particle is as real as grey clay. In the scientific view, there's no force moving the orbiting electrons, just a minor problem.
The simple fact is, moving a conductor in an inductive flow around a primary flow of electrons will produce a flow of electrons in the conductor if the conductor is itself in a circuit. What easier thing to explain? The physical material of the conductor is capturing the electrons orbiting the primary flow, I prefer to use the image tipping the electrons into the conductor. They in turn become a flow of electrons. The electrons lost in the inductive flow are quickly replaced by electrons in the environment.
And here’s the key, a small point science wishes to ignore, much like it ignores, no, will destroy, a scientist who presses for an answer: What's the force that makes the electron obit the nucleus in the first place? There’s no question if motion is assumed in the electron, but as it is, science has no answer to the question and has no intention of providing one. The key is the movement of electrons in what I call the ambient field.
Science readily acknowledges that an electrical current will ionize atoms. Lightning ionizes atoms in the atmosphere. True to form, science doesn’t bother to explain how this might occur, but does admit that the atom loses “an electron” in the process. Wonders behold, science’s vision of the atom has, in recent years, evolved into one of an amorphous cloud of electrons orbiting the nucleus, rather than fixed numbers in fixed shells. Thus, ionization results in a massive loss of electrons in an atom.
Where do these electrons go? Into the ambient field, which is to say, the atmosphere. What do they do? Chase concentrations of electrons, be that concentration an atom, an electric flow, the clouds that generate lightning, or perhaps as inductive flows around flows of light from the sun.
Which brings us back to Young’s two-slit experiment, where the spheres of expanding light are intersecting and, in the process, recombining. The only way they could be recombining is if the expanding light had inductive flows regulating its expansion. When the light intersects, the light that matches up on the basis of direction and frequency acts like flows of electricity in two electric wires that are brought into proximity with one another. The inductive flows combine the primary flows of light, and this results in the uniform absence of light on the collection screen.
The question is, how do the inductive flows regulate the uniform expansion of the light in the first place?
Picture light expanding on the surface of the sphere. At any point on the sphere, the light, like the light in the two-slit experiment, is overexpanding. Thus, the expanding light on the surface of the sphere is like the light intersecting in the two-slit experiment: Each point is a tiny sphere, and the light in these tiny spheres, light from the same source that has traveled the same distance and is aligned with respect to frequency, intersects and recombines.
What is the physical description of this recombination? Unlike the light in the two-slit experiment, where the light has been grossly overexpanded, the light doesn’t disappear. As soon as it overexpands, the light contracts, not to the point that it was at the time it began to expand, but at the next point further on, the next expanding sphere. It is the consolidation of the light after it overexpands that creates the next expanding sphere (in effect, replaces the next expanding sphere which has itself expanded into the next, and so forth).
Thus, while the flows of light that make up the expanding sphere of light are frequencies, the expanding sphere itself is an oscillation, a sphere the surface of which is constantly expanding and contracting. When the sphere expands, it is moving out into an area available for it to expand. When it contracts, it is consolidating itself.
What effect does this consolidation have?
The consolidation of the overexpanded light by the inductances regulating its expansion produces a mechanism at any point on an expanding sphere of light. The overexpanding spheres are intersecting at every point. Every point of intersection is connected to the expanding sphere by a flow of light. Thus, mathematically, these points are vertices of cones. The surface of an expanding sphere of light is therefore covered with cones that have the pointed end facing away from the expanding sphere. The inductive flows collapse this cone. The mechanism that regulates the uniform expansion of light can be visualized as a cone, with the vertex pointed away from the expanding sphere, collapsing back into the expanding sphere to form a new expanding sphere of light.
However small this mechanism is, it has force, and anything that might be caught in the mechanism would move back toward the source of the emissions. Once a unit of an atom, for instance, was caught in the mechanism, it would move back toward the source of the emissions. As expanding spheres surround the area around a source of emissions, at each point a unit of an atom was pushed back, it would be caught in another mechanism, a point closer to the emissions, and be pushed back once again, only to be caught in the next closer mechanism, and so forth until something intervened to stop the movement.
If we visualize the nuclei of atoms as having units, without attempting to put names to them, we know that these units are held together by some force. Whatever force is holding the units of the nucleus of the atom together would not come into play as long as all the units were being caught up in the mechanisms and being pushed back toward the source of the emissions. Only when something stopped the atom's movement, and the atom came to rest still subject to the mechanisms that were holding it to whatever stopped it, would the force holding the units together come into play. If an attempt were made to move the atom against the mechanisms, then the force holding the units together would require all the units be moved at once. Thus, the more units, the more work it would take to move the atom against the force, and this is exactly what we have when it comes to matter acting in a field of gravity.
As to the measurement of the unit’s force at any point in the expanding sphere, the light is diminishing uniformly with the square of the distance from its source. As the inductive flows are proportional to the primary flows, the inductive flows are also diminishing inversely with the square of the distance from the source of the emissions. As the force of the mechanism equals the force of the inductive flows, the strength of the mechanisms are also diminishing inversely with the square of their distance from the source of the emissions.
This, of course, is the measurement for gravity.
Examining how emissions expand provides a mechanism that describes exactly how matter moves as a result of gravity.
As to the inability to detect magnetic qualities in expanding light, with the inductive flows equaling the expanding primary flows, there is no measurable charge.
The mechanism that produces gravity is associated with a dynamic source of matter doing something, it results in the inverse square acceleration of matter as it diminishes inversely with the square of its distance from the source resulting in objects of different weights falling at the same rate but moving against the mechanisms at different levels of force, and the mechanism itself has, as its primary purpose, the regulation of the expansion of the electromagnetic emission field, which in our example, is represented by light.

Gravity is . . . Part III: Regulating the Expansion of Light

2007-05-09T09:40:00.000-07:00

One point that is important to keep in mind is that light, without something regulating its expansion, is going to overexpand. If light overexpands, then its flows will be smaller than had the light expanded normally.
Interestingly enough, Young’s so-called two-slit experiment demonstrates this fact well. I use the term two-slit because that is how the experiment is conducted today, although Young didn’t use what we now consider the classic set-up.
In the experiment, a single source of light, and this, of course, is important because we are dealing with light expanding in an expanding sphere, which means it’s light from a single emitter, hits a screen with two slits in it.
Light passes through the slits. As I pointed out in the last post, light expands and diminishes uniformly in an expanding sphere if there isn’t something blocking its expansion. Here, its expansion is blocked by a screen and only the light that hits the slits is allowed to pass through the slits. The rest is simply no longer a factor in examining the effect that results.
To see what happens when the light passes through the slits, I will digress. I spent a lot of time figuring out how we see what we see. We see what we see because of light. But it’s not just the light that allows us to see what we see. We need information in the light we see if we are going to be able to reconstruct in our mind an accurate picture of external reality.
What information does the light we see contain?
The light our eyes collect contains specific information as to the precise distance, relative to everything else we see, of a specific point. It also contains color information, but that isn’t relevant here.
How can the light contain information about the relative distance of all points we see?
Because, the light is expanding uniformly with the square of the distance from its source. If we turn the light on in a room, the emitted light expands out into the room and reflects off every point of each object in the room. When it arrives at each point, it has traveled a different distance depending on the point's location with respect to the source of the light.
When the light strikes a point on an object, it bounces off. When it bounces off, it begins to re-expand. If we enter a room with the light on, we see light that has bounced off every point of every object in the room. Because each point is a different distance from the source of light, and because the light therefore that is re-expanding off the points we see traveled a different distance before it began re-expanding, the amount of light that is reaching our eye from every point in the room is different from the amount of light from every other point, and we are therefore able to take this information, the distances of all the points in the room, and reconstruct a picture of the points in our mind (or brain or whatever, I don’t want to get into that discussion here, although I have two books available on what the mind is and how it operates).
Over a decade after I theorized how we see what we see, the observation gained credence with a company called Powercast that you’ll be hearing a lot about. If you want to charge your cell phone, you have to plug it into a wall socket. Powercast has developed a charger that is plugged into the wall socket. If you are in range of the charger, it charges your cell phone over the air.
This was an impossible technological dream throughout the 20th century. How did it become possible? Powercast engineers realized that the low frequencies generated at the wall socket were not strong enough to charge anything if they were tapped directly. But, they reasoned, those frequencies were expanding in expanding spheres that were bouncing off every point in the room. Thus, one frequency was becoming thousands of frequencies. All that was needed was to produce a chip that could gather thousands of frequencies rather than just the original generated frequency, and that’s what they accomplished.
Powercast’s technology demonstrates that the electromagnetic range of frequencies that includes light bounce off points that are in the way of their expansion, and in the process, the rate of expansion and thus the frequencies are altered.
When the light passes through the slits in the two-slit experiment, the light is doing the same thing it does when it bounces off an object, only it is doing so because a portion of the light from an expanding sphere has been directed through a slit which gives it a new center of expansion.
There’s another feature to this light that is not present in the light bouncing off all the points in a room. The light passing through each slit, once it begins to re-expand, is identical. At any point in the expansion of the two resulting spheres, the light is the same in each sphere.
And, because the expanding spheres of light are right next to each other, the light from the two expanding spheres is commingling.
Everyone knows the result. The result is collected on a screen that now shows bands of light and no light. What happened to the light that should be, but isn’t, hitting, the collection screen?
Because the light from each sphere has overexpanded, and because the frequencies of the light in each sphere are precisely aligned, the overexpanded light forming the two spheres has, as the spheres expand and intersect, combined. The light hasn’t disappeared. It has simply combined with other light so that when the result hits the screen, the bands of light are the combined light and the bands of no light are the areas out of which the overexpanded light has been combined.
Change the frequencies of the spheres by changing the distance of the slits from the original source of light, and whatever is combining the light will no longer be able to combine it, and the dark bands will disappear from the collection screen.
It’s easy to see why the analogy to water waves is so lame, so lame, in fact, that any scientist, or any novice scientist, that proposes it, is simply not a scientist. Seeing an analogy between the absence of light and the presence of water that is found in the area where the troughs cancel out the crests is simply ignoring reality. Just as science’s watchdogs go for the easy kill when it comes to apostates, ruining their reputations rather than rationally arguing their points, science jumps at the first easy explanation around and turns it into dogma.
After all, who’d expect the beneficiaries of this multi billion-dollar enterprise to give up their international travel, their lavish vacations disguised as conferences, their sizeable grants and plush salaries, and spend a small amount of their time actually using their minds. Science claims the mind doesn’t exists, anyway, so what’s to use? It’s practitioners get the best of both worlds, first, using their non theories to claim credit for the mental sweat of people that produce technology, second, leaching the prosperity that technology produces into their own pockets. No better example exists than the effort of theoretical scientist Charles H. Townes to wrest control of the invention of the laser away from its actual inventor, Gordon Gould, in a decades long battle (and even today, no one knows Gould’s name). See The Inventor, the Nobel Laureate, and the Thirty-Year Patent War, Nick Taylor (Simon & Schuster, 2000).
Seriously, how neat is this for them. In the middle ages, the arbiter of how we view the world, the church, slaughtered people right and left and then said, hey, it’s God’s will. Now, the arbiter of how we view the world, science, is slaughtering us with ignorance, and then says, what they hey, we don’t have minds, we’re not capable of rational thought, we’re just following where the math takes us.
As it’s obvious something is recombining the light in the two-slit experiment, the next question is, what could be recombining the light?
Induction is one of the most important phenomena of electricity, at least for technology. Induction is what produces the motors that drive our prosperity. It’s pretty clear that Joseph Henry discovered the actual effect, a discovery that Faraday, after visiting Henry, turned into an invention that allowed him to claim precedence. After going back and forth on this dispute (it was a dispute in the middle of the last century, it’s never mentioned today), I have, from reading Henry’s comments, concluded that he actually wasn’t aware of the uniqueness nor the possible potential of the effect he was first to observe, but that Faraday, seeing the effect, realized instantly what it’s potential was, and being a member of The Royal Society, knew how to present it so as to gain precedence. For once, I think the old history books were right, it was in effect a joint discovery, although not a simultaneous independent discovery as they implied.
But that said, induction is a fairly straightforward electrical phenomena. Forgetting the fiction of positive and negative, electricity flows in a wire. If it’s direct current, it flows in a single direction. If we take the thumb of our right hand and point it in the direction of the flow, and then curl our fingers, we will see the inductive flow around the primary electrical flow in the curl. An inductive flow surrounds the primary flow and moves at right angles to that flow.
If we increase the primary flow, we find the inductive flow has increased. Thus, the inductive flow is proportional to the primary flow.
If we take two current carrying wires, each of them is producing an inductive flow. If we place the two wires in proximity, the inductive flows will combine the wires because, in essence, the inductive flows, in combining, will bring the two wires together to form a primary flow.
It’s the efficient result of the physical effect.
But, light is not electricity, so how can we analogize inductance to flows of light?
We generate the electric flows ourselves and as a result, we concentrate the particles responsible for the electricity in the flow.
The light, on the other hand, has expanded to a point that it is miniscule compared to the generated electrical flows. Go back to the battery charger using multiple frequencies. The amount of electricity in a cell phone is small, but it is huge when compared to the radio frequencies being tapped to charge the cell phone. Thus, thousands of frequencies are needed to produce enough electricity to charge a single phone.
But wait, how can frequencies even charge the phone? Well, high frequency chargers have been around for decades, it’s just a matter of degree. Science keeps seeing effects that demonstrate that light and electricity are interchangeable, and continues to bury its head simply because the guardians of the scientific dogma don’t pay attention to the incremental technological advances that warm our homes (even though science claims its dogmas produced the light bulb, and thus, all the technology we have at our fingertips).
Remember, our esteemed elders of scientific protection, with modern knowledge of frequencies at their fingertips, still follow Newton's idiotic claim that white light is made up of all colors of the spectrum while at the same time saying there is nothing to distinguish humans from rocks. They then claim that nature created a small portion of the range of electromagnetic frequencies, light, different from the rest, for the benefit of our eyes. This small range, white light, travels in a unique packet of all the other frequencies that make up light even though this peculiar situation exists nowhere else on the range of electromagnetic frequencies. Just one more dogmatic statement science uses to hide its own abundant ignorance (and perpetuate ours).
Just suppose that the light passing through the two slits in Young’s experiment is intermingling at the same frequency, and the fact that the frequencies are identical allows inductive flows, miniscule flows of particles, the same particles that produce electricity, to form around the flows.
That’s not only precisely what it would take to recombine the flows, it is the only possible explanation for the fact that there are areas on the collection screen where the light has simply vanished.

Gravity is . . . Part II: Expanding Spheres of Light

2007-04-30T09:04:00.000-07:00

Light expands, it does so inversely with the square of the distance from its source, and it does so uniformly.
Let’s ask a question. The sun is sitting in our sky, but in actuality, it’s sitting in empty space, space that’s empty but for the light that is streaming out from the sun’s surface. The sun has a specific surface area that’s defined by its physical size. That surface area is determined by a simple formula, pi, 3.1418, a constant determined by the relation of the circumference of a circle to its diameter times the diameter of the circle squared.
If we move away from the surface of the sun, the area of any sphere at any point is determined the same way. Therefore, as we move away from the sun, the area of the surface of a sphere any point defines increases by the square of its distance from the center of the sun. This is because the only term in the formula that is changing is the distance figure.
As we move away from the sun, the area of any sphere increases by the square of the distance, and therefore, the areas of spheres are increasing directly with the square of the distance.
This surface area is physically mirroring the inverse square expansion of light, that light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance from its source. If we keep this in mind as we think of the light being emitted in every direction from the surface of the sun, we can see that the light is expanding uniformly over the surface of an imaginary sphere whose area is expanding inversely with its distance from the sun.
When I refer to expanding spheres of light, many practical people can’t see what an expanding sphere of light is, but it is precisely as described above. Light is emitted, whether from a light bulb or the sun, and it expands into the area around it. As that area is defined in all directions as the area of a sphere around the source of expansion, and the area of spheres are related by the square of their distance from the source, light from the same source produces an expanding sphere of light at all points around it.
The "all points around it" statement raises another point. Whether a match, a light bulb, the sun, at any instant, the matter is emitting a new sphere of light. Thus, around any object emitting light, there is a volume of light containing spheres that have differing amounts of light depending on the distance of each sphere from the source of the light.
However, because light is emitted at any instant, any sphere emitted has a connection with the next sphere emitted. This connection is the point of emission. At any point on the surface, light is being emitted, and thus, the light emitted at that point is connected to the light in the sphere emitted the instant before and the light in the sphere that will be emitted in the next instant.
Thus, the particles that make up light are a part of the sphere in which they are emitted and a part of a flow of light, with all the flows of light in an expanding volume comprising the light of all the spheres.
You won’t find this in any textbooks and, if fact, you won’t find much at all about how light behaves. Textbooks pretty much describe the effects of light, what light does in a prism, diffraction grating or other affective material. This is because science simply doesn’t have the foggiest idea what light is. To science light is just a description, a wave or a particle, and science spends very little time actually looking at how light must behave in order for it to act the way we see it acting.
Going back to our flows of light, we know one thing about them. A flow of light that is emitted on the surface of the sun is going to expand as the area available allows it to expand. What does expand mean? It means that at any point on the next sphere, there is going to be less light.
The only conclusion that can be made from this is that the flow of light divides as it expands. Less light means less light, and to get from more light to less light, the existing light is going to have to split up so it can cover a bigger area.
These are inescapable physical facts of reality. Science doesn’t emphasize that light diminishes uniformly with distance simply because there’s no way it can explain how a wave might do that. Let’s face science’s analogy to water waves squarely. Water waves do diminish with distance, but light waves don’t, for instance, astronomers claim to see light from the beginning of time emitted from galaxies at the end of the universe, so light can’t diminish if they see what they claim they are seeing. And because their claims are fact, at least to them, light can't geometrically diminish.
Light is a three dimensional phenomena, it expands in all directions. Water waves, while breaking a plane into three dimensions, are two dimensional, occurring on the flat plan of the surface of the water.
And the deal-breaker, Young’s experiment that “proved” light was a wave, shows an image of light and no light on a collecting screen and then analogizes this to water waves where the crests cancel out the troughs. There’s not nothing at the point of cancellation, but something, water.
Light, no light, water, water. What wonderful analogy!
When it comes to light, science is still in the stone age, not because I have a better theory, but simply because I take the physical realities of light and explain what has to happen for light to behave the way it’s measured to behave.
Around an emitting object we have flows of light which, at any point, produce a sphere that defines the amount of light, with the series of spheres around the object expanding, allowing the light to expand and diminish uniformly in the process, which means, the flows are breaking apart to cover the larger surface area available at the point of expansion.
At this juncture, we have to ask the logical question about uniformity, why doesn’t the light simply overexpand? What is keeping the light from expanding in every direction, with some of the flows retaining their strength, others, losers in a battle for what must be predominancy, overexpanding into the area that the stronger flows bypassed?
We know that light expands uniformly. We don’t see the sun in blotches of light. A light bulb doesn’t light up one side of the room, leaving the other side dark. Unless physically obstructed, light expands uniformly. Why? What is regulating the expansion?
We know light starts off as an electrical phenomenon and we know it ends up as an electrical phenomenon. We can note that without electricity there would be no artificial light, but I’ve already noted that the surface of light producing matter is alive with electromagnetic forces. On the other end, when light strikes matter, the matter emits electrons, or at least this is the view of a science that creates a particle for every effect. Light is one effect and thus is represented by a photon, while electricity is another effect and is represented by an electron. The reason science treats the two as different effects is that electricity is clearly generated and passes through wires while light is not (or at least wasn't before fiber optics). The magnetic properties of an electric flow can be measured while the electric properties of light are absent.
However, the difference might simply be a difference on how the same particle is structured. Electricity produces massive flows of electrons while light is composed of very small flows that constantly get smaller as the light travels. However, that smallness of the flows would not account for the fact that light does not evidence electric properties except in its production and its dissolution.
Is there something about the structure of light that, even though light is composed of electrons, neutralizes the magnetic properties of the light?
If we produce a mechanism that regulates the expansion of light and that mechanism would, at the same time, neutralize lights magnetic properties while it was expanding, perhaps the objection that light is not composed of the same particle that electricity is composed of would disappear, at least for objective observers.
I’ll use recognized electrical phenomena to construct a mechanism that regulates the uniform expansion of light.
Constructing this mechanism is not hard, visualizing how it works not so easy. However, if we keep in mind the picture of flows of light breaking down over the surface of an ever expanding sphere which is a part of a series of spheres that make up the volume of light around an emitting object, we can actually understand how this mechanism both regulates light’s expansion and neutralizes its magnetic properties.

Gravity is . . . Part I: The Dynamic Source of Gravity

2007-04-22T08:49:00.000-07:00

While Galileo apparently gets the credit for measuring how gravity accelerates matter, with the square of its distance, Tartaglia, earlier, had measured the angle at which a cannonball obtained optimal distance. This angle, 45º, was the same arc described by Galileo’s balls as they rolled off an inclined plane.
When an object accelerates with the square of its distance from the assumed source of the force, the Earth, it demonstrates a field that diminishes inversely with the square. Thus, gravity quickly became viewed as a force that diminished inversely with the square of its distance from the Earth.
Tycho Brahe is credited with making the first observation of gravity’s analogy to light, that both diminished inversely with the square of their distances from their sources. Descartes, the theorizer of gravity as a product of vortices in space, flirted with the idea that gravity must have something to do with sunlight, that the planets orbited and rotated as a result of the sun's emissions.
To Hooke, Halley and Wren, sitting in a coffee shop in the cold London winter hashing back and forth the possible cause of the motion of the planets, discarding Descartes’ speculation was simple. While the sun’s emissions as the cause of the motion of the planets might seem plausible, it didn’t answer the question of why the moon orbited the Earth or why objects fell to the surface of the Earth. The sun might well produce light, but the Earth didn’t. Therefore, any speculation that analogized light to gravity was ruled out at the starting gate.
Let’s dwell for a moment on the concept, raised in prior entries, of dead men who knew nothing creating unquestionable rules prior to the acquisition of all relevant facts. These three were meeting over coffee in the closing decades of the 17th century. It would be 200 years before Maxwell would propose the existence of the electromagnetic emission field (although he referred to it, because of the general understanding of light as a wave, as a spectrum).
This is 2 centuries between rule making and fact-finding. In the interim, another dead man who knew nothing, Young, would memorialize light to be a wave as a result of an experiment that analogized light to water waves when the experiment showed an absence of light and water waves always had a presence of water. In addition, a number of people would experiment with, and determine the boundaries of, electricity.
While science didn’t have to create a particle for light because, being a product of a wave, it simply didn’t exist other than as an effect of something else (science made up the aether as that something), it did create a particle to explain electricity, starting off a distinguished practice of making up a particle to describe everything, a practice that continued until an international agreement created the standard model, which limited the number of particles that could be made up.
These determinations by dead men who knew nothing are vary important to our inability to understand gravity because, while Maxwell’s electromagnetic emission field was composed of electrons, it also included the nonexistent light, which might lead someone to conclude that light was composed of electrons. Not science, though. Note that Young determined what light was without ever bothering to determine how it was produced, and when Einstein, a century after Young, demonstrated that light was indeed a particle, science didn’t abandon light as a wave, it simply created a particle to describe light and then called light a wave particle and proceeded to come up with fantastical explanations for how matter could produce light, matter which, by the way, had only been hypothesized to be composed of structured atoms by other dead men who knew nothing several decades before.
While this two centuries of who struck john might seem off-subject, it serves not only to shed some light on what gravity might be, it demonstrates the appalling ignorance that the three gentlemen in the coffee shop were strapped with. However, Hooke was no Newton. He believed in Bacon’s assertion that concepts could never be more than concepts rather than Newton’s fantasy that concepts could be proven to be facts. What happened with his speculations is not the fault of honest men making speculations but of rigid science turning concepts into fact.
The abandonment of any attempt to analogize gravity to light carried forward even after Maxwell placed light in the electromagnetic emission field in spite of repeated measurements to the contrary. When Edison invented the light bulb, one of the first things experimenters noted was the mass of magnetic fields that swirled around the filament. As the century went on and the sun became more susceptible to measurement, magnetic fields were measured broiling on its surface.
Regardless, science settled firmly into the belief that planets didn’t emit anything, holding solidly to the unmeasurable fantasy (up there with measuring the amount of matter in a planet) that the Earth received the same amount of sunlight in the day it radiated at night (including the addition of starlight at night, which also radiated in like amount).
This went on until the maverick Velikovsky predicted that radio waves, a part of the electromagnetic field, would soon be measured from Jupiter. When radio waves were measured consistently from Jupiter, science shrugged its shoulders, said Velikovsky’s prediction was based on no coherent scientific theory and was therefore not a prediction, and then pretended to have considered the possibility of radio waves all along.
However, it never once, nor has it to this day, admitted that Jupiter was emitting anything, claiming that atmospheric aberrations were broadcasting the waves.
And all this claptrap in the face of geography books that display a molten core of the Earth sitting down there glowing with as much brightness as glossy paper can display!
Anybody, and this includes the eminent gatekeepers of scientific orthodoxy, who doesn’t realize the Earth is hot and its heat, the act of undergoing cooling, is a dynamic process that produces an emission field, is simply bonkers.
Not only is the Earth hot, but, with the exception of Venus, all other planets are relatively hot and producing emission fields according to their size and distance from the sun. Venus, the object of much controversy as to the length of time its been a part of the solar system, is hotter than it should be, but other than that, we can expect Mars, smaller and more distant from the Earth to be cooler than the Earth (and therefore the host of life earlier than the Earth), the moon, smaller than the Earth, to be cooler, Jupiter, larger than the Earth by a bunch, to be hot, perhaps still with surface cooling going on as evidenced by the giant red spot which science attributes to everything but the obvious, molten lava showing through the crust.
None of this could be envisioned by Hooke, Halley and Wren sitting in the 1600s London coffee shop, and none of it was ever even fantasized by Newton, who created our ironclad view of dynamic gravity as a static property of matter.
And yet, if we think about it, there isn’t anything else matter can do but, for want of better term, undergo combustion and begin to cool. When matter undergoes combustion, it is doing so in a lesser field of heat and as heat flows from hot to cold, the heat moves in the form of emissions from what is cooling to where it is cooler. Just as the fire in the hearth cools, producing emissions that flow into the room, warming everything in it, the Earth cools with its emission traveling into the colder regions that surround it.
And, just like light, the electromagnetic emission field, produced by a dynamic process in matter, expands inversely with the square of its distance from its source, does so uniformly, and therefore requires something to regulate its expansion.
These are the same characteristics of gravity!

What Do We Know About Gravity?

2007-04-14T08:56:00.000-07:00

Newton set gravity as a property of matter in stone without knowing too much about it. He could, had he been of an analytical bent, sat down and listed the things we know about gravity, but that is not the way of science. Science seeks out concepts, ideas, products of the human mind, that it can claim are scientific fact, and then drops the scientific, claiming that it knows a fact it can never know, that gravity is a property of matter.
Science makes its claims to scientific fact long before all the facts are in, but once a scientific fact has been accepted by everyone as fact, there’s no going back. It’s true of gravity as a property of matter, light as a wave, and electricity as a moving charge. These are all statements that don’t tell us anything substantive, but which control our thinking about the nature of the items so labeled forevermore.
Basically, our picture of reality is controlled by dead men who knew nothing!
The two things Newton accepted as knowledge about gravity are that it is associated with matter and objects accelerate in its field with the sqaure of the distance over which they fall.
We know some other things about gravity.
One thing we know for sure, but which Newton and science refuse to recognize, is that gravity is a dynamic force. It moves objects from one place to another. Say what you will about the glory of Galileo, but his notion that gravity could not overcome momentum is simply absurd. Anything that can hold an object to the Earth can overcome motion, and thus Newton’s concept that gravity could overcome momentum is at least valid, if not applicable to the motion of the planets.
Science knows, or at least science should know, that a dynamic force cannot have a passive source. Gravity can overcome the motion produced by energy and therefore has to have as dynamic a source as the energy that produces the motion, whether that motion is produced by flowing water or jet fuel. Properties are characteristics we associate with matter in order to distinguish one type of matter from another. Properties let us categorize matter.
Thus properties are traits such as color, hardness and the like. These traits are not dynamic, but rather are simply the passive characteristics of a particular type of matter.
Properties do not produce energy and therefore gravity can’t be a property of matter.
When we look for the source of gravity, we have to look for something that is dynamic, something that is happening, if we want to find the source.
Experimenting with the effects of gravity on matter, we find out some other important information about the nature of matter, information that gives us insight into the probable mechanism that produces a force that causes objects to move back, with precisely increasing speed, toward the matter with which it is associated.
Weight is a very common experience in our existence. We know from childhood that some objects are heavier than others (the fact that Newton conveniently overlooked in constructing the first half of his proof that gravity was a property of matter).
We measure weight on a relative basis. We create a scale that allows gravity to move a particular object as far toward the ground (the source of the gravity) as it can while measuring on a relative basis the distance it allows other objects to move toward the ground. This leads to a conclusion science refuses to make, that gravity gives objects their weight. Science, believing that objects have some sort of mystical mass that produces weight, engages in such stupid pursuits as computing the weight of the Earth, when the weight of any matter depends on the gravitational pull that body is undergoing.
If gravity is what is producing weight in objects, then we would expect gravity to have no affect on the rate it causes an object to fall. This leads to a fourth fact we know about gravity. Regardless of weight, all objects fall within a frictionless gravitational field at the same rate.
This leads to still another fact about gravity, that objects within a gravitational field move against that force at different levels of force.
This is what produces weight, the ability to categorize matter on a relative basis by how much force it takes to move them against gravity.
These facts lead us to several more facts about gravity, facts that are perhaps a little subtler than the measurable facts.
If gravity accelerates objects with the square of their distance from the source of the gravity, then the gravity around the matter diminishes inversely with the square of the distance from the source of the matter. This is a mirror image of the fact that objects accelerate inversely with distance. Gravity can be considered to be a force emanating from matter (and anything emanating needs a dynamic source to produce the emanations) that surrounds the matter at any instance in a diminishing field. The further away from the source, the weaker the field, and the field is weaker precisely by the square of its distance from the source.
Reversing the acceleration measurement to show that the gravitational field diminishes, we find another very interesting fact about gravity, probably the most important fact of all. We find that an unimpeded gravitational field diminishes uniformly with its distance from the source of the gravity. We don’t see dropped objects speed up and then slow down, we see them uniformly accelerating toward the source of the gravity and therefore we know that gravity diminishes uniformly.
Why is this fact so important?
Because it provides us with the final, and absolutely most important fact, about gravity. With gravity diminishing uniformly, it needs a mechanism to regulate its expansion as it diminishes!
We therefore know 8 things about gravity, and as 8 things are far more than we know about many other things, they should provide us with a clue as to the nature of gravity, how it is produced, how it travels, and how it acts on matter to cause the matter to move.
The 8 things we know are:
1. Gravity is associated with matter.
2. Gravity accelerates objects with the square of their distance from its source.
3. It is a dynamic force.
4. Objects in a field of gravity fall at the same rate.
5. Objects moving against a field of gravity require different levels of force.
6. A gravitational field expands inversely with its distance from its source.
7. A gravitational field expands uniformly.
8. Expanding uniformly, gravity needs a mechanism to regulate its expansion.
Science congratulates itself on how well it uses analogy to uncover the nature of phenomena it seeks to explain. Analogy, science claims, is one of its most important tools.
Let’s see if we can find an analogy to gravity. All we need to do is find something that conforms to some of the 8 facts we know about gravity.
What could conform to some of those facts?
How about if 6 of the facts, on their surface, were identical to gravity? Wouldn't that lead us to suspect that the other two were also identical to gravity?
What are 5 of the facts identical to?
Light! It's associated with the matter producing it, it is dynamic (all you have to do to prove it's something is focus the sun's light with a magnifying glass on some cotton), it expands inversely from its source, it expands uniformly, and it therefore needs something to regulate its expansion.
What facts aren't, on the surface, identical to light?
Facts 2, 4 & 5, objects accelerate inversely, are measured to fall at the same rate and rise with different levels of force in a field of gravity.
What do facts 2, 4 & 5 equate to?
Gravity!
Does science pursue the analogy?
No, because one of its dead men who knew nothing has already determined that light is a wave and therefore nonexistent.
Can’t analogize something that exists, a property, to something that doesn’t exist, light!
Ah, the glory that is science.

Admittedly Unproven, Why Does Science Accept Gravity as a Property of Matter?

2007-04-07T10:00:00.001-07:00

Newton died at the end of the 1720s, the subject of universal adulation. He had, during his lifetime, created what we would call today a cult of personality. He was considered infallible, his creation of universal gravitation, Celestial Mechanics as it came to be known, a milestone in the march of humanity from ignorance to light.
While his mathematics, designed to show that the amount of gravity in the Earth and the moon equaled the amount of gravity it would take to curve the moon’s straight-line motion into circular motion, and therefore that gravity was proportional to and therefore a property of matter, still fell short of his goal, few people were capable of understanding his math, and fewer still his reasoning, and he had long since discredited any reputable scientist who had deigned to disagree with him. It took poets like Alexander Pope to venerate his memory.
He needed poets because, as the 18th century progressed, Newton’s equations were increasingly applied to the planets and found to be wanting, and not in amounts that could be dismissed as minor.
An honest science, one that was interested in self-correction, that actually wanted to uncover the true nature of reality or at least attempt to come as close as humanly possible, would have said, well, we tried, but it didn’t work. Let’s go back to the drawing board and figure out exactly what’s going on.
Unfortunately, science wasn’t then, nor has it at any time since, been interested in correcting its mistakes simply because its mistakes are so ingrained, not on a theoretical or factual basis, but on the basis of religious mantra, the dogmatic repetition by the unwashed masses, gravity is a property of matter, that once its conclusions are out there, science can never go back.
The reason it was forced to stand by Newton’s conclusions in the face of his failed proof was a part of the contest of the times. In the 18th century, the unwashed masses still believed in biblical conclusions, and biblical conclusions were dictated by religious authorities. There are only so many seats at the banquet table, and there were not enough seats for both religious authorities and scientific authorities to feast. A life and death battle was going on to determine who should shape the picture of the world for the unwashed masses. Religion had performed the function, and reaped the benefits, for thousands of years. The new religion of science was shouldering its way to the table, in the process elbowing religion away.
Great battles, including the origin of man and the age of the Earth, battles that had little to do with science but much to do with capturing the minds of men, were looming. Science couldn’t just admit that its founding principle, the explanation for the most puzzling phenomena we experience, falling objects, was erroneous. What would that mean in its battle for supremacy over religious explanations? Such a large helping of egg on the face might be fatal to the young science gaining a foothold over the popular imagination.
Therefore, it wasn’t a question of Newton being wrong that faced science, it was a question of where Newton went wrong.
In the opening decades of the 19th century, William Whewell would write volumes on the history of science, focusing on the scientific method. Inherent in all this verbiage was an organizing principle, that Newton’s induction of gravity as a property of matter was valid regardless of his failure of proof. Whewell is absent from the scene today, with chronological listings dealing with the scientific method stopping in the 18th century and beginning again in the 20th, but Whewell’s verbiage went a long way to justify what science was carrying out on a practical level.
I was once asked to document the fact that Newton’s proof of gravity failed, leaving gravity an unproven assumption with not even the status of scientific fact, but I don’t have to prove it. All I have to do is refer the reader to Newton himself, his logic and mathematical process in proving the hypothesis, and what science does today with the hypothesis.
It is quite simple, really. Science said Newton’s process was flawed because he was using the motion of the planets, the amount of matter in the moon and the Earth combined with the orbit of the moon, to predict the motion of the planets.
What he should have been doing, science now claims, is to have used the orbits of the planets to determine the amount of matter in the planets.
Think about this turnaround for a minute. Newton used the amount of matter in the moon and the Earth to predict the orbit of the moon. The orbit he predicted was the actual orbit of the moon as altered by gravity from its straight-line course. Science is saying we use the orbits of the planets to compute the amount of matter in the planets.
Newton devised his process because he was trying to prove gravity was a property of matter. To make this proof, he attempted to show that gravity was proportional to matter.
If gravity isn’t demonstrated to be proportional to matter, then there’s no proof that it is a property of matter.
How does science’s interpretation of gravity demonstrate that it’s proportional to matter?
It doesn’t. It merely uses Newton’s math (more or less) to compute the amount of matter in a planet.
Newton needed to know the amount of matter, and therefore, gravity in a planet in order to compute proportionality. Science says we assume that gravity is a property of matter and therefore proportional. We then determine the amount of gravity in a planet using its orbit and use proportionality to convert that gravity to matter. Because the matter doesn't conincide with size, we call the matter thus computed mass.
Instead of using gravity to predict orbits, science is using orbits to predict gravity, and because gravity is proportional to matter, predicting the amount of matter in a planet.
What is the one tenet of science that must never be violated?
Any hypothesis must produce measurable predictions.
Is the amount of matter in a planet measurable?
Absolutely not. No one, and this was Newton’s fallacy, knows the proportion of the different densities of matter in a planet, and therefore the use of Newton’s unproven theory to demonstrate the amount of matter in a planet is inherently unscientific.
Science basically said we have to save Newton, but how do we do it? We simply accept Newton’s conclusion, then use Newton to produce all sorts of fuzzy math that results in meaningless conclusions. The beauty of the thing is, like black holes and dark matter, the meaningless conclusions, being meaningless, can never be disproved, and therefore, no one can ever challenge them.
The result is, we have universally come to believe our own subterfuge. We believe we have answered questions we haven’t, and we believe that we have answered questions that we can never answer, increasing the awe with which we view ourselves.
And all the while, we are abysmally ignorant of the most basic forces in our existence. We have no idea what the mechanics of gravity are, we ignore totally the fact that for the planet to rotate under the friction of the atmosphere, it has to have a current force causing it to rotate, accepting instead the fiction of inertia, crippling meteorology in the process. We have absolutely no idea why the moon or the planets are moving, and using Newtonian assumptions, we lose billion dollar spacecraft as a matter of course.
We think we know everything and we know absolutely nothing, and if you think Newton created a can of worms with gravity, imagine what a can of worms our own ignorance is creating.

What’s with Straight-line Motion?

2007-04-03T09:15:00.000-07:00

To prove that gravity is proportional to and therefore a property of matter, Newton said that but for gravity, the moon would be traveling in a straight line.
The most obvious question, other than how does anyone know how the moon will be traveling without the force of gravity affecting its motion, is, what in the universe travels in a straight line?
Well, there’s one thing that does, a falling object so long as nothing interferes with its fall. But the moon is not a falling object, and even if it were removed from the Earth’s gravity field, it would not be a falling object, unless of course, it fell into the sun.
So there’s little chance the moon would be moving in a straight line. Where is there any object in space that is moving in a straight line? Nothing does, and to say nothing does because of gravity is sort of distorting the point. To move in a straight line, the moon would need a force moving it in a straight line, and the absence of a force moving it in other than a straight line.
Where is the force that is moving the moon in a straight line?
There is none!
Actually, Newton needed the moon to be moving in a straight line for one reason, and one reason, only. If the moon weren’t moving in a straight line but for the force of gravity, there’s no way he could compute the amount of gravity it would take to move the moon from its straight line motion, and thus, he wouldn’t have a second equation with which to balance his first equation.
His first equation dealt with the amount of gravity between the moon and the Earth and he assumed both bodies were made up of a uniform particle uniformly distributed in order to make the computation, a notably false assumption. Now in order to balance the first fallacious equation with a second equation, he had to make up another “fact,” he had to assume the moon would be traveling in a straight line but for the force of gravity.
Galileo had experimented with metal balls rolling down an inclined plane to come up with his own view on motion. As the metal ball gained momentum from falling down the inclined plane, it carried that momentum with it when it reached the end of the ramp and was let loose to fall in space. As gravity reclaimed its motion, the metal ball lost its momentum.
Galileo called this momentum inertia. Up until Galileo clouded the issue, the general consensus was that a moving object would eventually come to rest because of gravity. Galileo, in creating the concept of inertia, believed that if he rolled a ball down an inclined plane and up another of equal height, the only thing stopping the ball from reaching the same height was friction. If he could remove the friction, the ball would reach the same height from which it had started its roll.
From the first guy to measure the nature of gravity, this is pretty misguided. What Galileo is claiming is that gravity has no affect on the motion of the ball. Newton couldn’t really use Galileo’s inertia, which was only overcome by friction, because then his computation of gravity between the Earth and the moon wouldn't be capable of overcoming the straight line motion of the moon.
As a result of this little problem, Newton neither agreed with the general thinking that objects would eventually come to rest as a result of gravity, nor Galileo’s thinking, that the only thing restraining inertia was friction, Newton had to go to great difficulty in beginning the Principia with a restatement of the laws of motion. He needed a law that would justify his second equation, that the gravity of the Earth and the moon were overcoming the straight-line motion of the moon.
Newton therefore very carefully rephrased all prior points of view in a manner blatantly favorably to what he was attempting to do on a theoretical basis: Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
The general thinking was, a moving object would come to rest as a result of gravity. Galileo’s was, inertia, once acquired, could only be overcome by friction. Newton turns both observations on their heads, and note I say observations simply because Galileo merely hypothesized a condition in which no friction existed, he didn’t say such a condition existed, by assuming motion, motion in objects that simply didn’t exist in reality.
And he did so quite cleverly. He created one law in which half the law dealt with observable reality and the other half dealt with a hypothetical reality, a reality based on no observable reality, and he made it sound so very reasonable. An object at rest will stay at rest and an object in motion would stay in motion unless another force intervened. Who could disagree with the statement? It was obviously a true statement. An object in motion would indeed continue in motion unless another force intervened. It’s only common sense.
The only problem with the dual statement is, there’s no equivalency between the two because the physical situation of each of its parts is not similar.
When an object is at rest, we know why it is at rest. It is at rest because of gravity. An object at rest with respect to gravity will continue at rest until some force overcomes the gravity.
However, an object in motion assumes that there is a force maintaining that motion. In our experience, or anyone’s experience, objects don’t move without a current force causing them to move.
Newton didn’t rely on Galileo’s inertia to keep his moon moving in a straight line but for the force of gravity because Galileo concluded that it would take friction, not gravity, to overcome inertia. Thus, Newton, a very religious man, simply said that God would keep the moon moving in a straight line but for gravity (for someone reputed to have uncovered how the solar system operated, Newton’s view of the planets was fairly parochial).
In fact, it wasn’t until the end of the 18th century, when science was shedding itself of religion, that it became necessary to replace Newton’s God with the ad hoc swirling mass of gas evoking, what else, but frictionless space, or Galileo’s inertia, ignorant as that era was of Newton’s carefully crafted law of motion to do away with the Galilean concept of inertia.
Today the planets move because of Galilean inertia, but their straight-line motion is overcome by Newtonian gravity.
Science unabashedly uses two conflicting concepts to explain something, while admitting the whole thing is a can of worms.
The fact that both sides of Newton’s equation were based on false assumptions pales in comparison to what science did when, toward the end of the 18th, and during the beginning of the 19th centuries, science discovered that Newton’s equations didn’t work anywhere in the solar system.

What’s With the Uniform Particle Assumption?

2007-03-31T07:54:00.001-07:00

In order to prove that gravity was a property of matter, Newton had to prove it was proportional to matter. To prove it was proportional to matter, he assumed that matter was uniformly made up of a uniform particle.
Even the most ignorant among us knows that the Earth isn’t made up of a uniform particle uniformly disturbed among it. One of the first things we learn about is weight because as we go through our day, we find we can easily lift some things and we can’t lift other things at all.
Weight is at the basis of our learning experience, as pervasive as falling objects. We explain weight by saying that the atom has a nucleus and the heavier the nucleus, the more particles the nucleus contains.
So at the least, a uniform particle is not uniformly distributed, making Newton’s assumption absurd. As absurd as the assumption is, however, it was absolutely necessary to Newton’s proof because his proof required that he compute the amount of gravity in the planet. Even with today’s false use of the Cavendish experiment to produce what is called the gravitational constant, that constant cannot be used to compute the amount of gravity in the Earth.
Computing the gravity of the Earth with sole reference to the Earth (or, as we'll see, reference to anything else) is impossible, so to accomplish his proof, Newton had to accomplish the impossible. To accomplish the impossible, he made up an assumption that was clearly erroneous. Why doesn’t science simply admit Newton’s assumption was wrong, roll up its sleeves, and get on with the task of uncovering the nature of gravity?
After all, when something is wrong, when gravity is admitted to be a can of worms, ignoring it is not the proper course of action. Rather, looking back over its history to find out where it went wrong is the proper course of action.
Why doesn’t science take the proper course of action?
Simply because the explanation for gravity as a property of matter is unquestionable, and it’s unquestionable simply because Newton proved it to be mathematically true.
We’ll see how absurd this becomes a few entries on, but for now I want to highlight that Newton not only created the theory of gravity, he created the template for belief in a theory's conclusion. As far as science is concerned, there are two types of facts, real facts rooted in the physical world and scientific facts created by scientific theory.
Unfortunately, when it comes to a conflict between real facts and scientific fact, science puts credence in scientific facts over real facts. It does so because its entire edifice is built on the use of scientific fact in creating new theories. The assumption that gravity is a property of matter permeates all of the disciplines that make up the scientific world, whether its astronomy with its array of nonexistent matter, black holes and dark matter, or geology, with its absurd notion that the weight of the earth builds up the further down we go until the pressure compresses the earth into molten matter (if gravity were a property of matter, the center of the Earth would be subject to gravitational pull from all directions and thus be neutral, weightless, as Jules Verne so unscientifically pointed out).
Newton took over the moribund Royal Society in 1703 and used it to promulgate his views throughout what was then the community interested in searching into the nature of reality. Because he was desperate to have his views accepted unconditionally, his everything is made up of a single property, which he extended to light, formed the basis of scientific thought in the 18th century.
Most of the effort to counter Newton’s uniform particle conclusion was directed at his light is a particle dictum, the opposing forces claiming that light is a wave becoming too great toward the end of the century. It’s amusing that Newton’s light is a particle conclusion, the only proposition he made that is probably correct, was reversed by the scientific community, while his theory of gravity, having no competition, was accepted hook, line and sinker, which incorporated his uniform particle with his motion as a result of God, and all the rest.
The ultimate break with Newton, when his equations failed to come close to describing the motion of the planets, would turn out to be a hoax rather than a break, and wash away the need to justify a theory based on false assumptions in the rush to accept a theory based on an absolute failure in proof.
Thus, his assumption about a uniform particle became invisible, a minor factor that is just a footnote in the nonhistory of science.