The physics of


                CHAPTER 101            Link to other pages


  1. This essay is a journey into the nature of heat and expansion how, and why, and by what these come about. Unless similar essay's have been read all of this data will be new, as in previously unheard of.  It therefore should be interesting as well as educational.


  1. How will it be to know what heat really is, and not just by what cause expansion comes about, but exactly how that comes about? As I searched the minds of our scientists and educators into the nature of heat and of expansion - I was astonished to discover that as a race we have no idea as to the nature of either.

  2. How in fact we have no conception in what either one of these phenomena in nature are. And yet I know them perfectly, and how that places me so far apart from everyone.  It in fact is quite difficult for me to fathom how that can be - that we do "not" know what by me is like "second nature"

  3. I do not understand man, nor his lack of eyesight.  In that I am truly at a loss, while wisdom and knowledge is as were it inborn. And so indeed it must be with such that are born of God, that He places among the sons of the earth.

  4. That by them these may be educated in the knowledge proceeding from Him.  Accordingly that is what is taking place here and now by still another essay, this one primarily in reference to heat and expansion.


  1. If by probing the mind of man I may show where and wherein we err it should come to reveal what is, and what is not, as well as how that may be right, or wrong.  Accordingly, we come to our quest: What is heat? 

  2. By a quotation: "Heat is a form of energy, arising from the motion of particles, that is present in all matter." This answer, as but a partial answer, leads to another question - as to what energy might be? For as it arises from the "motion" of particles - what is arising?

  3. What is that motion giving off, or producing, so as to be energy? If then we look up what energy is - it comes to nothing more than motion.

  4. And so the answer should have been that - "heat is a form of movement arising from the movement of particles." But then that is not a very accurate reply is it?  The proper reply here would be to say that - "heat arises as movement from and/or by the movement of those particles."

  5. That then of course boils down to - heat being the motion, or motion being the heat.  If on the other hand it were some product of those parts in motion. We will come to question what a bullet may give off when it is on the move?

  6. Or an automobile on the road traveling at some mph? To my knowledge  nothing whatsoever, its movement simply being movement, with no Martians nor any green cheese flying off to be called heat.

  7. If then that bullet heats up as it travels - that fact can be attributed to its friction with the air.  The automobile does not go fast enough to heat up.

  8. With more and more questions it appears that the answers come down to motion, that - heat is in fact motion, and by motion.  And why then did we not say so in the first place?

  9. Why the coy disguises if not because we were speaking without eyesight, or as I might say, without insight, not realizing the common logic of it. 

  10. Heat then is indeed motion, and since heat comes in degrees of, heat must logically be in and by degrees of movement. 

  11. Logical is it not? Indeed it is since 2 plus 2 must always add to 4. Or would we rather say - how two, plus two more, comes to pairs added to other pairs, the outcome of which is energy?  Silly is it not? And yet so indeed at times are our words in defining heat and/or energy.

  12. Heat then being motion, and energy being motion - why are we missing the head of that nail each time we swing with the hammer? Are we blind to see that nail? Or so poor in our aim not to hit that nail on its head?

  13. For the answers that I have seen it appears both. Consequently, that nail will never be driven in - unless we come to a truth, to come to the right expression and education of it.

  14. Yet we do know, or at least some among us do, quote" "All forms of energy are associated with motion."  These words are a fact, while it could also been said: "All forms of energy are motion."  

  15. And for another quotation; "Heat is a form of energy, but it is energy in transit. Heat is not a property of a system."  If heat - as said - is a form of motion that can only be in transit. What is the logic of that?  Or was it meant only when it moves?

  16. And so it appears - we are in need of how to speak in addition to our need for insight.  If we truly had insight we would no doubt also know how to pronounce things, to use the right expression for the right term.

  17. To call things by their true nature, rather than calling a pig a swine, even though both refer to the same animal of which obviously some among us are unaware of..

  18. And yes so it is, for when we do know our subject our words are accordingly, but being ignorant in the subject at hand we make all sorts of wrong expressions not really comprehending what in fact we are saying.

  19. How for example can heat as motion "not" be a property of a system of motion? Is that not rather debatable?  Atoms are said to have movement, in other words, they have energy, which is motion, and motion being heat, or heat motion, how is that movement of or upon that atom not any property of it? 

  20. And yet again it is as said; "not a property of it," since heat itself as such is but a sensation, a property by interpretation.

  21. If anything were idle, it would be devoid of energy, but then it could not exist in the first place.  But having movement that then must be a very part of it, if not its main part.   Or how can a "system" be a system without movement?

  22. What is "system" if not that term invokes motion as well as coordinates as the very ingredient of it? Obviously it is expedient to foremost be well educated before we become educators. And to my dismay I discovered that is not the case with all educators.

  23. Then for another quotation: "Motion has a special meaning in science. In science, motion is a change in position compared to a place or an object that is not moving. The place or object that is not moving is called the frame of reference. Motion is a kind of puzzle because every object in the universe is in motion."

  24. This person did find the head of the nail, especially where he said that "with all else in the universe being in motion." And of course that movement must be related to a frame of reference, be it idle, or as I will say also moving. In every part that statement is correct. 

  25. But additionally, in speaking of energy or heat, we must comprehend that we are speaking of movement. Anything less than that comes to a failing grade.

  26. Next quotation is from one attempting to explain the nature of heat, quote: "Consider a block of metal at high temperature, that consists of atoms that are oscillating intensely around their average positions. At low temperatures, the atoms continue to oscillate, but with less intensity.

  27. If a hotter block of metal is put in contact with a cooler block, the intensely oscillating atoms at the edge of the hotter block gives off its kinetic energy to the less oscillating atoms at the edge of the cool block.

  28. In this case there is energy transfer between these two blocks and heat flows from the hotter to the cooler block by this random vibrations."

  29. Here we are missing the nail completely, for in the first place the atoms in metals and such substances never at all oscillate nor move about. They can be pushed upon to move slightly in the elastic nature of their magnetic field, but nothing more.

  30. That part thus is completely wrong. Nor has such movement ever been detected, it cannot have been since that is simply not happening. A bit further down the evidence to that fact will be shown. 

  31. The essence of what is taught in this last quotation does however come to something factual namely that at low temperature the movement increases by the speed of that higher temperature. 

  32. But from that point on it lacks common sense -  as if there is something other than movement to flow between the two. 

  33. By example, when a pilot shuts off his turbines they slow down coming to an idle. Shall that be because its paint was peeling off? Or its blades were getting smaller? No, it is simply a decrease in the speed of its movement, none of it being conserved. 

  34. Unless we tied a generator to it, that from its high speed to idle we quickly extracted a little bit of electricity from it. In that case we can say how energy was conserved, at least that little of it. For in no other way is energy conserved, our law as such being very much in error. 

  35. The higher speed of the movement (heat) of the block at high temperature coming in contact with the lower speed of movement of the other - simply came to a decrease. The two in contact coming to equalize themselves. (in speed of) 

  36. And once having come equal will cool some more. That is by its surrounding at lower speed, lower temperature, like that of air or water, etc. 

  37. I know that this does not raise our ego with things becoming too simple, for by fantasizing a few things we think to make ourselves look more cunning. The reality of that is however the reverse.

  38. Another quotation:  "In general, when two objects are brought into thermal contact, heat will flow between them until they come into equilibrium with each other.  When a temperature difference does exist heat flows spontaneously from the warmer system to the colder system."

  39. This person tries but is still hung up on that illogical notion as if something is given off when two movements equalize themselves. The word "thermal" for example should have been "physical.'

  40. And instead of "flow" the term diminish would have been better. We do have to get away from that absurd notion as if green cheese is formed by our tires riding on a pavement.

  41. For while we know that to be absurd, our ideas about heat as well as energy is just so, contrary to common sense. And so allow me to accurate display what heat really is.

   Rate of Movement to Sensation

  1.  That my dear people is what heat really is, we sense the rate of movement as temperature, just as we sense or interpret lengths of movement into light, and the angular deviation of those lengths into color. And the coordinates of movement into smell as well as taste.

  2. Even as sound is our interpretation by movement, by vibrations, and we in turn produce vibrations that by others are interpreted for sound. For it is by what we interpret that all things are as they appear to be.

  3. This my dear people - putting it short and simple is wisdom. This is understanding, this is unique, this also is by revelation, by God's gift unto the sons of the earth that these may have understanding to become into the image of Him. 

  4. And He blessed me to relate these things to all the earth.  It therefore is not in my cunning, wherefore grant your Creator the praise of it.

  5. Does it not make common sense that all of nature comes to us by sensation, by interpretation? And how all interpretations are from and by movements? For to realize these things is wisdom,  as in understanding rightly.

  6. What for example might possibly be in the atom to account for heat? It is not green cheese, nor any particles, nor anything of a material nature. But as the illustration figure 1, here shows - it is movement, a system of movement, or coordinate for the proper term of it.

  7. It is angular movement always proceeding by a full circle, always returning from where it came, over and over.  And as I might coin to say, always singular, as in each single one, since there are many such lines within and upon each atom, both greater and smaller. And throughout its whole like unto a sphere.


 Figure 1 The atom with its magnetic system of movement.

  1. But notice how these circulars have a twist in them whereby they come to resemble the way in which we write the number of eight. And that for its unique being becomes and is a system of movement, my reference mostly being to coordinate, to form a pattern.

  2. And that pattern is unique, and absolutely essential for all things in nature to come about, since it presents both of the two factors of movement, namely Linear and Angular.

  3. That angular by its format in eight then becomes what we term magnetic as the one and only entity in nature whereby linear power is produced in all that is fundamental, not pertaining to kinetic movement, as secondary means to movement. 

  4. This I mention because we are as yet starting out, otherwise I could just as well have said - that all movement, even kinetic to come forth from and by magnetic.  For that understanding if one wishes to come to it there are a number of essays published whereby I came to explain that greater understanding. (Ref 1, 2 and 3)

  5. Accordingly when warmer air comes in contact with cooler air it is like two wheels at different rates of revolution equalizing their rate of speed simply by contact. And nothing whatsoever is given off, nor produced by that, no Dutch cheese, no green cheese, no heat, no cold, no waves, nor anything that we would like to fantasize into it.

  6. It is no more than a change in the rate of speed for both wheels. And it is "the rate" of that speed, and of any movement, that we in our spiritual nature interpret for warmth. In all essence no different by which we see and hear, taste or smell.

  7. Does this explain it? Are we now the wiser? We ought to be for what more can I say to clarify these fundamentals of nature for us? In my judgment I am being quite clear and accurate for the mind of man to absorb that of which I am speaking in terms that are most common to us.

  8. I am not man's average scientist, nor physicist, nor did God appoint me to be a preacher. Nor do I speak like any of them, nor is my education from anything of this world, that is not my world, not my home for which I long so much. But I must bear this exile for the sake of man, to his welfare. And to his welfare it will be.


  1. Next on the agenda is our erroneous notion about conservation. And to start with a quotation: "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed but only changed from one form to another. This principle is known as the conservation of energy or the first law of thermodynamics."

  2. I did not make that law, nor can I agree with it, seeing it is not a law of nature, but of deception by eyesight - something by which man has come to many of his errors.

  3. Things are not always as they may appear, like our earth orbiting the sun - as if the seasons come about by orbital movement. Quite wrong - our eyes for lack of insight deceiving us, those seasons being by the precession of the earth.  Or a nutation that for reality is a regression. (Ref-5 and 6)

  4. If by example the heat of the sun upon the earth were conserved for one half of an hour we would all be ashes, burned to a crisp. No my dear people we must train our mind to reality, not blindly accept what our so called masters wish to brainwash us with. When our car comes to a stop without heating its brakes there is no conservation of its motion as energy.

  5. And even the heat of the brakes dissipates without conservation. What I gather is we made that law that is no law because in general we had no idea as to what energy is. How then do we make a law of something we have no understanding of?

  6. When for example we spin a bicycle wheel and with our hand upon it bring it to a stop again - shall we be so cunning to say that the energy of that wheel in motion was conserved as heat upon our hand? Foolish, foolish, for our hand will cool again to have nothing for conservation.

  7.  Or if by cunning we say that the heat of our hand was transferred to the air, that too will cool again with no conservation in the least of it. Or a turbine the energy of the hot air driving the wheel, will we say the energy of the hot air was conserved by the motion of the turbine? 

  8. If so, and that energy can not be destroyed, how long will it take for that turbine to disintegrate? For it most certainly will.

  9. And if energy can never be created how was that turbine put in motion? I never saw no dolls from Venus pushing it, I could not possibly have missed a sight like that.  It was fuel expanding and braking up to heat the air for greater velocity. Our law of conservation for energy is a crock, a painful crock to make us look like children. 

  10. We can transfer movement from one to the other like the engines in our cars to bring us from home to the market, but never conserve it.

  11. Why would we be digging for oil with a law that conserves it? Or why gas stations, for once you drive a hundred miles, with all that energy conserved, use it for the next 100 miles, why pay for more?

  12. By that crock of ours we do not need any fuel, nor for that matter any sleep, nor would we be in need of grocery stores. What a horrible life that would be if man in his fantasies ever came to reality.

  13. The Almighty One made sure there was no conservation lest all of us as fat pigs would never be able to do a days work. He on the contrary made it so in all His universe that nothing would ever be idle. He after all put renewal into everything not by any sort of conservation.


  1. There is that law that says: "Once in motion stays in motion."  And sort of true as that may appear - it can only have its reference to that motion that can never be slowed down nor infringed upon wherefore it stays in motion. That same law however does "not" apply to kinetic motion, meaning with "secondary" motions.

  2. The sun warms the earth, then comes nightfall and everything slows down, and I do mean "slows down" All the higher movement in the warm air simply slowed for no longer being pushed to high movement by the light of the sun. 

  3. It slowed simply because of another law that states: "In order to divert an object a force is needed." And the force to warm the earth being gone, shaded by the earth in its position to the sun things must slow down.

  4. If then we must be cunning, to be most difficult, and serve illogic, we will claim that the cooler air above the warmer came to cool the lower. And so who can win that argument if we keep on going that way? 

  5. I am the one that will win, as I can put a very quick end to it, but I wish to humor us and be gentle in my education.  An automobile will come to a stop once its engine powering its movement is turned off. And how shall that be once in motion stays in motion? It does not follow that law does it?

  6. But then of course one will not let me win, to acclaim that it was by resistance, nor can I claim that to be in error, as in fact it was resistance, but not all of it, and that my dear competition makes for a difference. 

  7. I do agree and do not agree that mother earth once in motion stays in motion for it indeed encounters little resistance. But that resistance as seen by the aurora's - in time - is sufficient to bring mother earth to an eventual stop. 

  8. And time it does have, millions of years in fact. and yet it is still moving at 15-km/s, and how may that be?

  9.  Newton may be right in some things, but we have ways to mis-interpret his law, and/or apply it where it does not belong.  For without the sun driving us, the earth would slow down just as our automobile with no power of its engine will come to a stop. 

  10. By resistance yes, I agree, that indeed having a factor in it, but not all of it - since movement in its kinetic form, (secondary as I call it) without a driving factor will always decrease, always slow down, resistance adding to it.

  11. In other words I am invoking myself upon the law that demands a force for anything to be diverted from its direction as well as velocity of movement. And that law is the only valid one since it does apply to anything everywhere.  

  12. Unlike;  "once in motion stays in motion" that applies to what is primarily a figure of speech. Consequently, of the two there is but one real law. Perhaps to many a disheartening revelation but what is truly law cannot be changed, nor can that which is not truly functional be put into law. More evidence to that effect will come to bear as we proceed further.

  13. Foremost we must come to the reality that there is but one force in nature and one force only, and how none of the forces that man has ill invented exist other than in the imagination of the unwise.  That one force is motion as movement.

  14. And that as we well know comes in several ways, angular, and linear, as well as that which is fundamental, verses what proceeds from it. And that again to what is called kinetic, meaning secondary. 

  15. The first of all termed "fundamental" is an entity, as the one and only entity of movement - that the Lord created by which His physical creation comes to its visible being.

  16. And from that in various ways movement in the secondary came to be - not as any entity. As then the first, being truly an entity cannot be slowed, nor even infringed upon, it is found to have a velocity that we came to rate at 300.000-km/s.

  17. And so it remains unabridged, and I do mean unabridged in all the essence of that term. All the waves of the spectrum are driven by it, and all magnetic coordinates are by it. Other than that there are secondary movements like in walking, driving, to fly, and to spin, all types or versions not being fundamental.

  18. And these none fundamental motions as such do not in themselves maintain whatever speed they may be driven to. These do not go by a law of once in motion stays in motion. A top as it spins maintains itself upright but not its rate of movement that of itself will come to zero.

  19. Resistance as such being a factor, but not the exclusive factor. The two laws as we have them may seem to compliment each other, but appearances can be deceiving. By figure of speech we for the earth to move in orbit coin it as; "once in motion stays in motion."

  20. But that is incorrect, however minor the resistance in space may be, it still invalidates our law. And how then may its constant velocity be maintained?

  21.  That factor is found with the sun in its magnetic hold upon us, and driving us by which any and all resistance is overcome. And so it only appears to be once in motion stays in motion, the reality being somewhat different, a difference that makes for a difference.

  22. Light on the other hand, as all waves, never slow down since these are at all times driven by the power in velocity of that  fundamental movement. With these therefore it can not be said once in motion stays in motion since these are at all times under power being driven.

  23. And for the earth the same is true.  The whole of the earth consisting of angular movements are of course at all times driven by the fundamental movement that gives it rigidity that in itself wishes to stay that way, even to resists being slowed.

  24. Meaning here the once in motion stays in motion may apply if it were not for its linear movement. For that linear movement, pulled into an orbital movement, is not a fundamental movement wherefore it is subject to deceleration as well as acceleration, by whatever relevant factor that may be.

  25. The sun rotates while it has a firm hold on all of its planets that by consequence of it are driven along with that rotation, so maintaining a fixed velocity. Increase the rate at which the sun spins and all planets would conceivably come to an increase in their orbital velocities.

  26. Increase the rate at which the earth spins and our moon would likewise be increased for its orbital velocity. The satellites that orbit the earth also do not follow the rule of "once in motion stay in motion,"  because these too are locked to the earth by its magnetic tentacles into a factor of gravity preventing them from leaving.

  27. And the factor of pull on them being equal to their weight in inertia so their movement remains till at last by resistance these too would slow down.  But there is a  driving force by and in the magnetic coordinate of the earth in league with gravity, with as well as without its rotation.

  28. All orbital movement is kinetic, secondary, as in movement by movement, none fundamental, as is the spin of all objects inclusive that of the atoms.

  29. Nor is there any orbital velocity of any constant., all these vary in velocity to one or another vector, be it its main or secondary vector. And that all in itself comes to invalidate our law of once in motion stays in motion, while it confirms our law where a force is needed, be it to the contrary or driving the same.

  30. Does not the sun orbit within our galaxy? And our moon in order to keep up with mother earth in its orbital path must increase its velocity by 15lm/s to keep up, and decrease in velocity when it moves in opposite to that direction. Here we come to two vectors, the sun along with the earth, and that is omitting our galactic vector.

  31. The fact that certain satellites at times increase and decrease in velocity, traveling in epileptically orbits is clear evidence that there is a driving force upon them. For of themselves these can not accelerate, our law forbids it

  32. And at the same time these invalidate that law of once in motions stays in motion.  This last particular law must keep all object at a single constant speed regardless of any vector, and that never happens, as it can not happen.

  33. A perfectly circular orbit may maintain a constant velocity, but even that is not devoid of an external force upon it. The law of nature itself prohibits that - wherefore our famous notation of once in motion stays in motion is really none existent. 

  34. All things, all motions, other than the fundamental movement, are in need of a force to keep it going. That is a law, a real law, and we have it as law. Newton was right in some things but wrong in others.

  35. And now in wisdom - how or why are all none fundamental movements at all times subject to loose their motion - unless driven by a force to maintain their movement?  Or, why is Newton wrong in his law of - once in motion stays in motion? 

  36. The answer lies deep within the fundamentals of all things, but to make that deep seated thing simple for us: What is movement?  It, is displacement, and displacement must pass from any one point to a next.

  37. Then comes the second question; Where or wherein is that displacement? Our answer would be to say;  In space, or in air.  My answer in contrast to ours would be to say; through a medium. Then we come to the third question as to; What is a medium?

  38. Here to answer that question, I have no problem, but we are somewhat confounded because our masters have brainwashed us with fantasies that still linger within us, like; the vacuum of space. when of course there is no such vacuum.

  39. The very term as it applies to containers in which there is less pressure than the outside, does not apply to space. Space is not such a container. The correct answer to our third question would be to reply that it - is a substance - however thin or dense that may be, and of whatever the nature of that substance may be.

  40. When therefore by illustration figure 2, there is a wheel in motion, for each part of that wheel it means displacement. And since that wheel moves within that which can be displaced and - is displaced, the displacement effects displacement.

  41. And in order for anything to be displaced a factor of force is required. And with that force absent all none fundamental movements will come to a halt.

Figure 2; Wheel in motion.

  1. These are a lot of words just to relate what in my mind comes in less than four words. For also the questions with their answers never otherwise come to mind. And now that all this is said and done we come to the conclusion that for any none driven movement to come to a halt the factor is Resistance - as we knew all along. 

  2. And alright I will grant us that since for all appearance it appears like that, with this option that I will retain the deeper insight, how by no resistance in the way we understand resistance these will still come to zero movement. I may be a pushover but not altogether foolish.

  3. Here by our cunning we no doubt will construct a wheel so smooth that it does not displace anything of the media, and it will confirm Newton in his law of once in motion stays in motion, that then will put me to shame. My reply will be; Have at it, do whatever pleases us - then with truthful data let us speak again. 

  4. Consider this: Does a bullet slow down all by its resistance in the air? I do not believe that with any mathematics we can prove that to be the whole case. No doubt we are forgetting something, for as there is media there is media, and not all visible to our eyes of flesh. 

  5. Here I am giving away something I should not be giving away, but then as both my wives told me so often - I am generous to a fault.


  1. By quotation: "What is the underlying cause of thermal expansion? As is discussed in Kinetic Theory: Atomic and Molecular Explanation of Pressure and Temperature, an increase in temperature implies an increase in the kinetic energy of the individual atoms.

  2. In a solid, unlike in a gas, the atoms or molecules are closely packed together, but their kinetic energy (in the form of small, rapid vibrations) pushes neighboring atoms or molecules apart from each other.

  3. This neighbor-to-neighbor pushing results in a slightly greater distance, on average, between neighbors, and adds up to a larger size for the whole body.

  4. For most substances under ordinary conditions, there is no preferred direction, and an increase in temperature will increase the solidís size by a certain fraction in each dimension."

  5. It is temperature indeed by which things come to expand, since temperature is heat, and heat is movement. And since movement is by speed or velocity high or low - so it comes to rates in movement that as such show up on a thermometer. 

  6. Does that make sense how when we refer to a pig - the terms swine, or four footed animal, come to the same end? Therefore to cut short on all our fancy terms would it not wise to simply say; "Expansion is by movement in a higher rate thereof?" 

  7. But how do these atoms by molecules and locked in grids at a higher rate of movement come to expand?


Figure 3. Atom into expansion.

  1. For that I made an illustration figure 3. At lower rates of movement as the atom is caused to spin - its field of force spinning with it - maintains an average diameter. 

  2. But as it is caused to spin faster and faster its field of force is driven outwards expanding. And as they expand these are magnetically driven further from one another - that to our eyes appears as expansion.

  3. Here we have it in a nutshell, and there is no error whatsoever. But what it does mean, and implies, is that these atoms, as all atoms, must have a field of force, and how that force can only be what we understand by magnetic.

  4. And that this magnetic must exist by an angular movement that produces linear movement as well - or else these would never group into molecules, nor ever come to any grid, nor ever make for any kind of substance.

  5. Does it not make perfect sense for a pig to have four legs, a rump, as well as a head, and nose, and tail - in order for it to be classified or known as a pig?  Is my reader getting the drift? Are you really?

  6. For it destroys all of man's work in respect to the atom, how since we do have substance, bodies and all, man cannot possibly be correct in his assumptions, nor in his teachings of the atom.

  7. Nor is anyone on earth able to find any kind of force nor coordinate of force that is like unto magnetic, that typical and very unique coordinate by which all magnetic is known. It for its unique nature of presenting both factors of motion - Linear in addition to its Angular nature.

  8. Nothing else in nature is like unto it, and nothing else in nature is capable of joining atom to atom, as well as forming grids by which to secure openings between them. Nor is anything else in nature suited to produce expansion, nor is there anything in nature that does produce expansion.

  9. Unless we cast all our theories about the atom into a bottomless pit, never to be heard of again, and accept what I was given to teach - we will never be wise, nor come to any real understanding of nature.

  10. For my word as truth is shown by everything in nature, confirmed by all that we may experiment upon. There are no two ways about this. And to enhance our understanding of that unique force in nature our reference will be to figure 4. 

  11. We all have heard of electricity, but none among knew what it was, even though we work with it every day. And since we have deposited our fantasies into that bottomless pit already, no longer to be heard of, let's get to reality.

  12. When we spin an armature with copper guides through a stationary magnetic field, we in all reality are picking up these lines of magnetic movement and twisting them around one another - to make for braids, braids made of magnetic lines. Braids of magnetic movement. 

  13. And what does a braid look like? It looks like figures of eight end on end. And that is exactly what that - so called - electricity is - a rotating string of magnetic lines of force.


  Figure 4 Rotational magnetic force upon a conductor.

  1. By the illustration at the right I show but two of those twists, and these are not separate circles, but each one is a full circular path by a pattern after the figure of eight. In other words.

  2. It's coordinate is a magnetic coordinate, as it can only be so, since we by the rotation of our armature came to twist magnetic lines over one another. There is therefore no cut off between any of them, but just as a barb wire braids so these braid.

  3. As then we have a look at figure 5, our own illustration of these magnetic lines, they seem to be rotating around the wire, And we being essentially blind to insight we came to assume as if those magnetic lines around the wire were separate from the force inside of the wire.

  4. Blind indeed for we ought to know better from any and all other magnets, how the exterior is the very issue of the interior. And so they are.

  5. As then we show them as eccentric circles that too is mere appearance, not reality. The reality is shown by figure 4, for as the interior is by figure eights of force so is the outside. (Block 1 and 2)

  6. The expansion here is shown from the solid lines to broken lines, one at a given 240 RPS (speed of rotation) with the expanded ones at the speed of 17,000 rotations/second, also called Volts. The volts of any circuit denotes is revolutions per unit in time.

  7. Ampere likewise mis-understood, is not a flow as it is the amount of quell. There is never any flow in electricity, it at all times rotates in place. The only flow to speak of is at the start, the very instant that the circuit is turned on.

  8. At that instant the format, the pattern of that magnetic string goes down the line at near the speed of light. And so it is only for a fraction of an instant that there is any flow. In order for anyone to test my teaching - shame on you for not believing me - you can do so with any magnet held next to any single conductor.

  9. The rate at which that wire will vibrate back and forth to that magnet is the speed of its rotation, commonly known as voltage.


Figures  5 and 6

  1. And why is that so? Look at the illustration each one of these twists, these figures of eight at their center produce linear movement - as any and all magnets do. Wherefore as that field rotates it alternately is pulled and pushed from and to the magnet held next to it.

  2. This of course makes hogwash out of our discovery of the electron, but then we already trashed that in our bottomless pit.

  3.  And for more evidence to the expansion of those magnetic entities as they exist upon a conductor consider as to why the power companies hang their wires so far from the poles (figure 6)  The faster the speed of rotation - so much the greater the expansion will be.

  4. As then this is true for all magnetic fields in rotation - so the atoms come to expand in size - driving themselves from one another. But how or when is an atom able to rotate, and expand since not only that it requires room for it, but it must be free to do so.

  5. In gasses that is easy. In liquids that come to evaporation, like gasoline and water it is also easy. But in steel each atom is firmly held by at least 4 to 6 other atoms of the same with very strong fields that in all reality serve as a brake to their rotation and consequent expansion.

  6. When heat is applied on metals their cages may be rattled, with the atoms slightly moving back and forth in their elastic holds, (as also noted by our previous quotation) but not much more.

  7. If prevented from spinning around the velocity of their fields may increase but that in itself does not come to expansion unless these become free to spin.

  8. The increase in movement upon metals will come high enough to first of all produce the longer wavelengths of light, turning red in color, after which at still higher rate of movement the shorter lengths are produced as well, turning white, and not far from there the integrity of their grid will be compromised, melting as that is commonly called.

  9. The wavelengths of light alone emitted from it - all in itself is evidence that the atoms in steel are moved - minor as that may be nonetheless sufficient to produce these waves. 

  10. Here thus we have acquired a right knowledge into how any substance may or will come to expansion - that can only be of force when nature is constructed of magnetic entities, and no other way.


  1. It is not easy for man to realize how his life's work is put down the drain, that his believes and education turned out to be a realm of fantasies, no more than a illusion. If then some of us came close to reality that can only be of the Almighty One to have given them a better understanding.

  2. If that by implication suggests that the Almighty One withholds understanding from many others, that also cannot be denied.

  3. Here by figure 7, is an illustration by someone other than me, someone who must not agree with the norm of science since these were not intended as atoms, but as electrons.  An imaginary part of nature that does not exist, nor can they exist, especially since they are depicted as single sided coins, to be only negative. 

  4. And so that person had nerve to act contrary to the norm of science to illustrate them for magnets, that as such always have both sides of the coin, and cannot possibly be electric as the norm of science has it for positives to attract to negatives. Something that is disproved by and in all of nature.


 Figure 7. Atoms as magnets

  1. I erased the E to insert Atom, for so indeed atoms are. But I question the validity of that person's understanding, first of all to depict them as electrons, that of course do not exist anywhere. And secondly how will these be only negative in polarity when they contain both polarities?

  2. And thirdly are not electrical polarities at all times rotating? Of course they are, it can not otherwise be electric. What then of the atoms in steel that do not rotate, that by their own fields are prevented from rotating? How is that to be explained? 

  3. And what of that illustration, how come that magnetic is not properly illustrated? Is it to suggest as if the magnetic field exist only on the outside of the atom, with nothing on the inside? In that case I must give him or her a failing grade, to return back to basics.

  4. But then basics to what and where? Not to man's current class rooms I hope where fantasy takes the rule. And so my dear ones direct your sights to where true knowledge may be found.


  1. Anyone ought to know what my conclusion would be, but what of our conclusion? If knowledge is considered an affliction, with fantasy a taste treat - why bother to come to me? I have never dealt in fantasies, nor will I start, it would be an insult to my Creator, and no doubt my death - as it ought to be.

  2. If I in any way should conform to man - put me out of my misery, let Hades be my grave, for life would not be worthy of me.

Next page