The Mind (continued)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)