Are Scientists Crazy?

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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.