NATURE OF NATURE
Leonard Van Zanten (1987)
Link to the index
This essay shows that which no man has discovered, to wit; The nature of nature. By me a revelation yes, for I also did not discover what no other person was able to discover.
Nature. Electricity. Magnetic. Motion.
it past-time to ask - what electricity is? We seem to have it well established
as a flow of electrons. But is this
correct? For how is a vehicle to
move down the road with its wheels removed? A
riddle perhaps - to liken our cherished theorem to a vehicle without wheels, but
the whole of science is a riddle as long as the pieces of the puzzle are not in
their proper places to display the grand harmony of its design. A
forest - of course - cannot be seen for its trees, and thus what are we to do?
Remove the trees? But where
then shall the forest be? On the
contrary, the forest is known for its trees and,
by its trees for such as suit themselves to behold the nature of things.
And so we ask, what is the true nature of electricity? Any takers? And while we are at it let us also ask what the nature of magnetism might be, or that of light, or of warmth. For if we are going to oversee the forest - all these factors should come into view, since quite correctly the whole of nature is rested upon a single foundation.
But now let us be careful, for in viewing the whole of the forest we might just come to know and understand the very “foundations of the earth”, the very pillars on which it is suspended in space, and how they came about. And this is no small matter, nor to be taken lightly.
For what is man to wrestle the secrets of his Creator out from under Him? According to the Scriptures (Jeremiah 31:37), he who discovers the foundations of the earth shall be the death of all of us. And thus I came to say; "What no man has discovered."
But perhaps this is a taboo subject, physics I mean, much too difficult to comprehend? Or, may we be questioning that for which there are no fundamental answers? My answer is neither, for a thing is only difficult when it is not understood. And when understood - after its factual nature - a good artist should be able to paint the same after what we divinely call - plain common sense.
Tom Siegfried, science editor of the Dallas Morning News, complained: "That for many people understanding science is about as easy as communicating with a cow". His reference was to the journals of science how indecipherable they are written now-days. And he is not the first to remark upon how lousy scientist are upon communicating their findings. Or perhaps they have no idea as to what they are talking about.
now to understand what electricity really is, and how magnetism comes about,
which is to say; to know the nature of them, we must first define the very ‘nature
of nature’. And as we do so - in a portrait of simplicity - we will be setting forth
what many scientist have long sought for, and term: "A unified field
concept," meaning; all science's on a single foundation.
Portrait of nature
is nature? Fundamentally we come to
say, atoms. And what is an atom?
A miniature solar system, so we answer.
But still more fundamental; we come to say; Matter
in Motion, which, being by systems of, can be expressed as
Coordination. Logically, the
atom and/or nature, is - Matter, Motion, and
Coordination, for it is, Matter in
motion by coordination.
Accordingly, the portrait of the whole of nature may be set by a triangle, Figure 1, that traces down to the atom as its most fundamental part, or system of parts. The fundamental prefix of nature then is to say; Three in one, and one in three, or what I termed; "The three point principle." This further means that all things in nature may be known, and are known - by three points of reference, which three are always one.
And to cite another example; draw a line, or take any object, and what do you have? You will have length, width, and depth. For in these three - nature is known and defined. Then there are magnitudes. For the atom as such is a magnitude all its own, which by multiples, as is well established, forms the whole of which the universe is constructed. But material alone does not make for a universe, nor do parts in motion as such. But only by a coordinate, by a systematic behavior is a galaxy a galaxy or the atom its system.
Consequently, the coordinate factor is added as - the third magnitude that passes through the both of them, and is one with them. And to give an example; it is as "depth", which also can never be separated from either "length" or "width". For when there is length, there is also width and depth, or if there be depth, length and width are synonymous with it. Have you ever wondered what it is that gives us the "taste" of things, or by what factor of nature "smell" is known? . We have five senses, and of these five eyesight and hearing are known to be from waves, but what about "warmth" which comes under the heading of "feeling," how does it apply in the nature of things?
these questions can be answered quite satisfactory, and with factual reference,
and not merely in theory. When for
example - you rub your hands together, what are you doing?
You are producing warmth; but how? Answer:
By motion! A magic word to say "motion", for yes, by motion, that is also
to say - by increased velocity warmth is produced.
But now comes the question as to the velocity of what? And for that we must again turn to the nature of nature to behold how all these different phenomena come forth - and are produced from that - single foundation - to which all of nature traces down, namely, the Atom.
The atomic engine
Putting it in some way, the atom are like wheels or as such like an engine, the engines by which forces and wave formations of have their power and being, factories promoting a product known as motion, of and by motion. And by this product - in systematic (coordinate) form - all physical things have their forthcoming.
bold statement to thus apply nature to these fundamentals, but realistically
there are no super-natural fluids, nor fibers, nor ghostly entities whereby
atoms form to molecules, and molecules to greater parts.
But rather coordinate patterns by which parts in motion become the
element so known to us. For what may
Hydrogen be having only a single electron?
And what might Oxygen be having eight electrons?
Or what is so wet in either Hydrogen or Oxygen that by H20 we bathe
ourselves in it?
a grain of wheat, it contains the entire code by which a plant comes forth, like
an automated system, to develop blades at certain intervals and multiple new
grains of wheat each with its own code for the next term when planted. Or a
child, the sperm and egg contains the entire code by which a new human body is
formed. The spirit then is attributed to it by the Almighty One in a way only He
now must reveal this truth, that there are no such things as electrons, nor
protons, nor neutrons, therefore our theories of chemicals by number of parts is
no more than fantasy. Nuclear reaction is one of the least understood phenomena
by man's scientists, the culprit being sight deception, and lack of insight.
after all ought to know that there is no such thing as single sided coins.
Conclusively no electron nor proton exist anywhere.
I did after all start this essay saying: "What no man has
discovered." And I might add to say; "What has not entered the mind of
Coordinate factors now are like language; for what makes an "I" so different from a "T" if not for the added line? And while it takes perhaps only a dozen small dots to denote an "I", more are required for the "T". So also in the world of atoms, a specific coordinate that is paired with a specific number of so called parts in motion, makes for the element. And composing elements such as to form the skin of our body, or the linen fabric of our clothing is no different than composing letters into words.
For again, note how that linen fabric - as nothing more than molecules arranged into a thread - became the shirt on your back. And was it not a pattern, a coordinate wherein the same was woven to become something much greater than just the ball of thread?
And so now that we beheld the substance of nature to come forth by coordinates, which was of nothing more than minute parts in motion, will we have doubts regarding the powers (the forces) of nature to also have their seating in these very same movements and coordinates? Take for example two values of one, and one value of eight, namely; two Hydrogen atoms, and one of Oxygen, and drive a stake into them (a spark), and you will see the roar of these little parts to lift the Space Shuttle into orbit. And what do we do with the product of that apparent combustion? We drink it (H20-water).
Or just to add 1 and 1 to 2, (Hydrogen into Helium) and Bikini Island was desolated (Nuclear test-site Hydrogen bomb). But now you will argue - that this was because of the "energy" residing in the atom. And O yes, energy where have I seen that before? We're not really going to suggest - along with Einstein - that matter turned into pure motion - now are we?
Consider the nomenclature of the atom, - what does it read? Does it not read; sub-atomic parts moving around a core of still further sub-atomic parts, in essence the likes of a solar system, like unto our own system of planets around the sun, a huge wheel in motion? Wrong then as we are about the atom, where then is that all-time elusive energy?
Or let me put it to you in another way why it is not the Stork that brings babies. What in reality is the power, the energy of a bullet in flight? Does it carry a super-natural backpack for energy? No! It is its motion. Its motion is its energy, nothing more and nothing less. And the violent movement of several atoms driven to unite into a compound element, is their love-scene that in humans can even come to a fainting.
Motion is power, and power is never anything but motion. Rupture a countless number of rather large atoms, and the extreme acceleration of so many parts is bound to cause no small commotion among the otherwise stable parts. What for example is the power of the atomic bomb? Assume a high explosive to count from 1 to 10, -- a nuclear reaction then begins that count and squares itself in the same time than it took the high explosive to come to its count.
Realistically, how can that which is material - and
in motion - disintegrate to become nothing more than motion?
For should it not be obvious that -
is never motion unless something is in motion? For
that - something - is what we were pleased to define as matter.
And yes I am being elementary for our sake, to wit there is also a motion
that in all respects is an entity in itself, that I coined. "Fundamental
movement." It being a power as well, only that knowledge is yet too far for
man in his swaddling cloths.
Remove motion - and you have removed energy, apply energy - and you have motion. Take away matter, and you have taken away the very entity on which energy is to be energy.
Wisdom, accept understanding, let knowledge guide you, for without these you are
as nothing, you will be as Einstein - as one without knowledge, living in a
world of fantasy, and due for shame and regret.
Motion to inertia
thus understand nature, we begin with the "key", the atom.
And let us by Figure 2 draw a twin triangle over it, which in effect is a
figure eight, the wave formation of nature's number one force - magnetism.
Then as we expound the atom, we can list the derivatives on that unique
We know what motion is, but what is "inertia?" Do we, as with energy, define it also as something associated with motion but having a nature of its own? If we do (and we have), we are on the wrong track to finding the secret of nature, for motion is inertia, and inertia is motion.
Why does a gyro appear to defy gravity? It is for the same reason that a stone cast in the air defies gravity. For as long as the sum of its inertia (motion) is equal to - or exceeds the pull of gravity - it will remain in flight, just as the gyro will remain suspended by its sum of motion. In the one it is an angular movement - while the other traces a linear movement. But linear, or angular, both are motion the like. And these are the only two types of motion, for other than going in a circle - or traveling straight - what direction of movement is there in distinctions of the two named?
The atom then as - a coordinate system of parts in motion - in itself traces only the angular form of movement, wherefore also it can be called "a wheel or a ball". And for that, and other reasons, I illustrated our unique atom as a gyro.
But we do not as yet comprehend inertia quite sufficiently, for what really is motion that it should become inertia, or be the same as inertia? For an answer, we must visualize how an object - when it lies still - can easily be moved to any one side, but when cast - in motion - it requires power to re-direct it, the movement (as the motion) itself being its stability.
is it that keeps a bicycle or motorcycle so upright when in motion?
And when we set the movement of an atom at an idle, these as well as the
whole atom can then be moved with no real effort.
But once set in motion it takes on stability,
for motion is the power and the inertia. Accordingly,
we come to say. By movement (as in parts in motion by coordination) the whole
physical realm is formed, both in its powers as well as to its forms.
place groves in the barrel of a gun since rotation with speed increases
stability. And so it is with light, not only that it travels at great speed but
rotates as well. Example: 300,000 kilometers in one second at the wavelength of 7000a,
comes to; - 10 billion a in 1 meter times 300.000.000 is a 3 with 18 zeros
divided by 7000 is about 428 trillion revolutions per second.
Then to come to the realization that while its linear movement rates at near 300 thousand kilometer each second, its rotational velocity computes to a mere 241 kilometers each second. All because its diameter for size is so minute.
The wheels of nature
Movement then produces again movement. From the angular movement of the wheels of our cars - a linear velocity is produced upon the road. So also with the wheels of nature, - the angular movement of the atoms produce a linear flow we call "waves" or "lines" of force. (Not altogether correct, but it will do)
of course do not come to specific designs - except by a coordinate - placed upon
them, similar to the atom itself. Or
shall this be too advanced - to realize how that may be?
Consider how atoms as nothing more than parts in motion interact and
interlock with one another. There is
nothing super-natural here, nor anything hidden, except perhaps to define what
is called, "action at a distance", a subject only for gods. Not
that this is the full truth of it, but from childhood on we must advance from
two plus two on upwards, the factual version being for the graduates.
first unique movement fed by the wheels of nature in a coordinate of the overall
order of nature is a circle twisted by one half of a turn, the significance
of which is far more profound than what it appears. For
this coordinate - resembling the figure of eight, (Figure 3) is the
fundamental coordinate of all of nature for all its power and design.
With this coordinate the very platform is laid on which the rest of nature may
This figure of eight is of course also a circle, the flow of magnetic following in that fashion, passing upwards from X and P. In this fashion the angular momentum produces a very unique linear flow that passes from South to North, which we discovered as - the power of magnets.
This movement, as it is called "magnetism" - proceeds at the speed equal to that of light. For light does not have its unique velocity on its own, but rather - (and so I will put it to you) it is driven to it by what is properly called "Fundamental movement," that is everywhere, which, for its lines of is comprised on the rims, the perimeters of the wheels of nature.
The electric wave
Who now will declare what electricity really is? Shall it be some mystic entity that passes ten times faster than the flow of so called electrons which electricity is said to be? Let us be realistic; when Oxygen with its 8 electrons is called upon to conduct a current, and it is to loose but a single electron to the flow, would not then that element instantly turn into that which is called Nitrogen? Be realistic; water does not disintegrate the instant we place a current through it - now does it?
Electricity, or the current thereof is nothing more than an extension of magnetic force, in design a multiple of the first. The essence of what we promote in generating electricity is - to twist lines of magnetic force into a frenzy of multiple figure eight's of force - in reality no different than twisting a rubber band.
It is also for that reason that when the two strands of a generator are brought face to face - that they will tear each other to shreds. For like unto two grinding wheels moving in contrast – these upon contact turn to destroy each other – that is unless we insert turns of motion, that is to say, intermediate wheels. In this way electricity is movement, and provides again movement.
In Reference to Figure 4, for evidence hold a regular magnet next to single string of electricity. the wire will then vibrate back and forth to any pole of that magnet. It does so because that electricity is nothing more than a rotating magnetic field of force, consisting of figures of eight end on end. Or as may be likened to magnets end on end, each at their sides having a north and south polarity. Try it, you will be the wiser to all scientists.
Contrary to what we have been taught, that waves travel on a two-dimensional level (a theorem violating the laws of nature), all light waves are transposed on a three dimensional level - the essence of which can be visualized by a coiled spring.
Question: Along what part of the wheel of a vehicle does the road pass? -- The answer will of course be, along its outer circumference. If then we know this so well, - how then do we not realize this for a natural law?
Nature is far more profound than what to date we have realized. Sound travels on a two dimensional trajectory since it is transposed over and upon the cores of the atom, wherefore sound travels so slow in comparison to the speed at which light is known to move. A stop-and-go movement is no way to attain to any great speed. The movements that brings us to our ultimate beholding - is nothing so crude as a two dimensional wave-form. In order to attain to what we call, "the speed of light", it cannot begin to make a single stop or turn in its momentum.
for an eye opener, light is not accelerated to that speed, but receives the same
instantly at its initiation, in other words, it starts out at the very
speed of light. And how may this be? If it
were not so there would not be any waves. We however cannot here go into all the
details, but in my website all is manifested.
It is a foregone conclusion that the gravitational attraction is greater at the equator than at the polar regions. But what am I saying? Don't we all know that? As we erroneously imagine - we conclude gravity to have the same pull all around the earth. But this shall hardly be correct. For is centrifugal force not an undeniable factor to draw us away from the earth? Accordingly, two and two adds together in that - we are pulled with a greater centrifugal force at the Equator than at one of the polar regions.
Therefore - quite naturally - the gravitational pull must be proportionally greater in order for us the come out with the same weight. That is to say we must add our gravitational weight by our centrifugal movement to the earth weight that shows up on the scale. Obviously centrifugal weight cannot show on a scale since it is equally offset by gravity, like men in space apparently weightless.
example by computation, a person that weighs out on the scale at 165/lb has an
additional g/force of about 18/lb. total g/force of 173/lb, at equator. That is
adding his centrifugal impact to the normal pull of the earth, that varies only
by one half of a pound at the equator.
Moon's gravity could not begin to lift a single drop of our ocean waters, since
quite correctly - its force is only 1/6 that of ours, and how shall a tug of war
be won by the weaker? The earth's magnetic
force on the other hand - in its figure eight, and in conjunction with the
inclination of gravity - is perfectly suited thereto, for which reason also
there are - two simultaneous tides upon the earth.
and deceleration are directly effected by the inertia (movement) of all parts in
motion. And whether we travel at 1
mph or at the speed of light, as long as our movement is constant - we are not
aware that we move. But the instant a
change in velocity or in direction is made, we sense the movement.
The sense of our feeling thus is tuned to the change of
And likewise with our sense of feeling either warm or cold - are from movement, specifically velocity, fundamental velocity. A change in temperature - to feel heat coming on - is to feel a variant movement of fundamental parts in motion. For again, it is a change in movement by which warmth is produced.
is not to convey that warmth is merely in a change of movement, for when the air
is constant the warmth remains, and yet there is a change of movement in the
fundamental realm whereby warmth remains as warmth. Thus again heat is by a
change in movement as well. (explained elsewhere)
A coordinate is not a physical entity, but like language, or like mathematics it is like a scheme of things by which order is procured. Or one might say, like an order imposed upon it to abide by a set procedure.
And how then may our sense of smell and taste be interwoven with our physical nature? In coordinates, yes, and to give an example: Coordinates may be given in mathematical values. When you have 634, let it be the numerical designation for a specific coordinate as in - a value of design. If then you are handed 623, you have a value different from the first, which means, a different coordinate, a different design or formation of things.
so while freshly cut grass radiates one specific formation into the atoms and
molecules nearby, a liquid such as perfume - will introduce a different
formation according to its own molecular structure. As
then our eyes are tuned to certain high-speed re-occurring movements, our sense
of smell and taste are tuned to distinguish between coordinates.
How perfect do we wish a unified field concept to be? Shall it be too simple to rest it on the atom from which every part and phenomena in nature comes to its formation? Should we perhaps look for something that has no nature of being, and to which nothing applies?
in fact I put all the pieces of the puzzle together to form a perfect picture -
that cannot be denied by the very beholding thereof, is not that in it-self
already worthwhile evidence?
remain with the gift of wisdom of the Almighty One,
Leonard Van Zanten