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)

The Weather (continued)

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

The Weather

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

Field Replacement (continued)

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

Field Replacement (continued)

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

Field Replacement (continued)

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

Field Replacement (continued)

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