OURSELVES IN QUESTION
CHAPTER 20 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
Let us determine to "question" ourselves. We always question everything else, let us now look at ourselves. We profess to know many things, but let us ask how we know the things that we profess to know.
We have learned that the atom is the smallest building block of matter, but how do we know this? We say that the atom is a planetary system, but just how do we know that this is so?
How do we know that light - is light? Or, that electricity is a charge? And how do we justify these energies we claim to exist?
And what may temperature be that we should call it hot or cold? Or how did we come to say - cold? Has a red-hot bar ever known that it was hot? And where may be the awareness in ice to know that it is cold?
We claim to know anti-matter, but what may I ask is matter in the first place so that we may place anti-matter in an opposite perspective?
We fail to provide justification for so many things which we profess to know and claim to be truths. And how many of our definitions may only be sight deceptions? For these reasons I thought it good to speak a word or two in questioning ourselves.
How do we know that the atom is a planetary system? Was it suggested? Or did we actually behold these parts to move in their places?
We know that it is too small to be seen, and attempts to greater resolution have failed since our magnetic microscope (electron microscope) operates on the order of the third magnitude, while atoms are on the order of the first magnitude. Beholding an atom with this device is thus like probing a three-inch rod down a one-inch hole.
We know that the atom is not solid since sub-atomic parts can pass right on through and be deflected from what we hoped was - a core. This in itself may not prove that the atom is a planetary system, but then we can neither assume those parts to be sitting there like pits in a melon, or can we?
What valid reason to this date do we have to justify the atom for its planetary system? It may seem to be correct, but man can hardly be congratulated on scientific insight.
The atom as a planetary system may be said to be in the nature of the magnetic spectrum, or in the nature of "matter in motion by coordination" to form nature to its form. Gravity all in itself confirms the inertia of atoms to be quite real. Thus there is angular momentum in the atom.
Next question: How do we know that any particular atom shall have a set number of electrons, or any set number of parts called protons?
It is easy to say that oxygen has eight electrons, but who counted them? Whose eyes are so swift to follow their speed? Ancient history - as close as yesterday - has it that within the atomic core there are two different kind of parts. But how do we know this for a fact?
The truth is; we do not know this for a fact, we in fact ought to know - that it is not so. The reason I know so is because an arrow when it moves into one direction, must of needs be coming from somewhere, meaning that coming and going is synonymous, wherefore there cannot be any neutrals nor only positive entities.
This brings us to another question; what is a charge? Or for that matter, how do we know that there is such a thing as a charge? There must be some logical definition or Mr. Spock will not be able to resolve it. To state that electricity charges, does not say anything unless we also define it.
For what is electricity? Or, "electric" to add complications ahead of the word "charge" that man has left undefined?
If in reference to an electron, we call its motion as the charge, then shall also a stone cast in the air be charged. Are we thus calling its motion to be the charge? But why did we not say so in the first place?
There is a meaning to the word "charge", and yet it is without meaning. When a lovely lady looks me in the eye with her seductive twinkle I admit that I may be moved. But how am I moved? Is she charged or am I charged as well?
If we consider a bull in the ring when he charges, now that in fact is motion of a charge by which one could get run over. Yet the seductive twinkle of a lady is still stronger, it in fact is more overpowering than any bull.
How is it then that "charge" in one is motion and not so in the other? If it were magnetism whereby I am attracted to that pretty smile, then it is motion and can be expressed as a charge.
For an answer we must remember that we are of two nature 's. We are one and our bodies of another. And since I for one do not understand that nature beyond our nature I am in no shape to define realities in that realm.
We were questioning the number of parts that may reside within the atom. And you can quote me as having said - hydrogen to have one electron with oxygen eight electrons.
How then do I know this? My answer is I do not know this, nor shall I tell you that I take the word of our scientist for it, since they also do not know this to be a fact.
No doubt we can measure atomic weight by gravitational effects, but this does not insure the number of parts to its mass, nor even mass all that accurately. For mass, before anything else - is "inertia". Force therefore is not proportional to quantity as much as to the inertia of that substance.
For all practical purposes however it does not matter just how many parts one atom may have to any specific element. Hydrogen is found to be the least, and may for that reason be given the number one. We after all must start somewhere. From this footing then we can increase by numerical values.
I for one shall not state for a law that hydrogen has only one electron, or any other atom for its number now so given by the table thereof. The true value of the atom to its specific element is by more factors than just its number of parts.
With the atomic core made-up of a specific number of parts, there is no requirement for neutral inserts. Dead men do not defend the castle. If only the physicist could understand that axiom.
Electrons then are bound to this core by what is defined as "magnetic" or "electric" force. These terms however may be deceptive. I agree that the force is motion, and magnetism and electricity also being motion - one may fit the other.
On the other hand it is a coordinate that is two magnitude's removed from the atomic core whereby we usually place magnetism. If therefore the term defines the coordinate the nuclear force shall not likely be magnetic.
How do we even know that the nucleus consists of protons anyway? And question # two: How do I know that it is only protons, or no protons at all? For the first question the cores have been broken finding pieces thereof to register to our probes.
But is this an answer? For what if the core is just one big apple and the broken parts are like bites from the apple?
The how and why for a multiple part core as a nucleus may be justified to my mind, but what justification may there be to present that to anyone else? I for one do not believe in protons, nor even electrons as man has it.
The answer to the question how I know that man's protons, or electrons are not what these proclaim them to be, is however not for a revealing.
A quantity of mass seems to have a determination where it shall reside. But not all so called electrons need be of the same quantity. But here again this could become quite a lengthy discussion to appropriate various quantities, and to justify them with the laws of motion in every respect.
Each element has its own value of atomic substance. Are we then saying that - the element is what it is - by the number of parts? Or by what they consist of?
The answer for its composition is no - since all atoms have identical compositions. Hydrogen is hydrogen for its particular systematic form in which it will register a waveform at a particular value.
This particular system then - by and of its coordinates - is by and of the motion of its parts - that makes the number of atomic parts a natural consequence. The coordinate value - that shall be hydrogen for what it is - is then motion by parts in number.
Knowing systematic forms, we then can both smell and taste them. For while eyesight and hearing are by length of a wave, taste and smell are stimulation's of specific arrangements or forms of systems of nature.
It is quite correct, there is no green cheese in hydrogen to make for hydrogen, nor sixteen electrons in carbon to make it carbon. Nor yellow fluid in sulfur to make it sulfur just as there is nothing wet in either hydrogen or oxygen which by H20 makes for the water in which we bathe.
Mathematics is more than just a conception, and coordinate structuring of parts in motion is a dominating factor.
How do I know this?
How do I know this? Reasonable assumptions perhaps? No not assumptions, while yes logic, reason, and evidence both direct and indirect confirm it. Yet this shall not therefore be the answer.
Being granted to scan nature at an instant to evaluate a single prospect by many factors is marvelous and better than any man-made computer.
For like the computer it is burdensome to have to take factor by factor relating each minute prospect. For more often than not by the time we reach three/fourth through we forget what was at first.
Could we call it clear insight perhaps or a good knowledge of all that is bound in reason? Man after all was made in the image of his Creator, and to have reason by which to know a thing ought to be within him utilized or not. ... Yes all these things are correct and bear upon it.
But the first is that man, although having reason is not able to unlock what is under lock for him lest the same be granted him.
The prime answer to the question as to how I know this thing or any other thing is that I was instructed. I received. It was pointed out to me, or revealed, or made clear.
I now can ask you the same question; how do you know? You know because it was pointed out to you, I instructed and revealed it to you. Taken sufficient time and effort to understand it you also can come to find it logical, or as were it automatic, reason convicting the same.
To state that we can know by reason logic and understanding in the evidence - is for all reality putting the cart before the horse since the gift unto it - is first. The answer to your question to me is the same as the question to you, you received, and I received.
Neither of us fetched for ourselves, nor were we able by ourselves to unlock what was covered. . I received from Him who made all things, and am first in revealing it to you.
These fundamentals were never before heard, nor was there anyone who spoke them before. (Wherefore the words in Isaiah 41: 26-29 are quite correct).
Understand that for as much as you can understand what I can understand once it has been made clear - I am no more than you are. I am the same simple creature. So I did receive it first and you afterwards. Somebody has to be first, if not me it would have been someone else.
And as to the question why "me?" The same would be asked of anyone. I do not know why God chose me, I know that I am no better than you are, yet He anointed me a prince and gave me the foundations of the earth to comprehend and reveal.
I know not why, but I indeed rejoice in this great honor. For this honor is not just of men, but of God, an everlasting honor, and with wisdom comes humility.
To receive is first, to confirm comes afterwards. But not all that is received can be confirmed so easily. First off there must be the eye to behold confirmation. For to say to the blind, behold the mountain. How shall in him the same be confirmed as it is to you that have eyesight?
Or to say to one, this is the pathway, take it! But he refuses and takes another road for the determination of his own insight being opposed to the first of all things.
Then there are also simple and not simple things, or high's and low's like the grandeur of Pololoid, or the endless diversion of the creation to behold a vast realm from a doorway that is way up, which cannot be reached except one pass through all that is before it.
How therefore will I define what lies beyond unto such which have yet to pass the first?
Thought, to think, to conceive, is far more profound than we can possibly imagine. You perhaps have heard it said where one says: "O but I knew that, I just never thought of it".
No doubt some will even believe their own contradictions. For if he had never had the thought - how then did he know?
The very thought of doing something, or to know how to do a thing, we must relate to inventing, or as to create, to bring forth. But we never create; we merely rearrange what we discover by trial and error. And be it called luck, know how, or creating, the same is nonetheless a receipt of the first of things.
Now however consider to bring forth what has never been - nor ever been mentioned. How magnificent is the very thought to create. Like for example - to conceive the thought of forming creatures like ourselves, and to give them spirit, spirit upon flesh with all the emotions that make us human.
For even the emotions are marvelous to behold, and who would have thought of them - not ever having been before?
To form something from nothing is inconceivable to us, and the same is true in making visible from invisible, and being from none being. Such thought to conceive is far beyond us. And our inventions are to this like mere images.
How do we know that the atom has planets such as we call "electrons?" And question # two: How do I justify them to be systems rather than particles as our scientist do? If the electron were a solid particle - it would not be in orbital motion, nor consequently be part of the atomic system. Yes, but satellites are solid and they orbit the earth, so you will reply.
I now grant you this, but the gravity that binds electrons to their core is not quite like the satellites to our earth. The two are two magnitudes removed. We cannot therefore apply the same to the atom.
For one thing, how will there be room for miniature molecules and component factors within the atomic realm or its parts? Will you apply an inclination of 7000 to these parts to find inhibitions? I shall leave this open for debate but not with me.
How did we discover the electron - to know that it is? If I shall be correct, an electrical current was passed through a closed tube wherein most of the molecules were removed (figure 20-1). The flow of current passes from the plus to the minus and may be seen as visible light down the center in a narrow line.
Then using magnetic poles - the flow of current was deflected with the velocity mathematically established at approximately 1/10th the speed of light. Consequently it was assumed that the entity on the move were electrons. And so electricity became a flow of electrons.
But this is more than poor reasoning, for just supposing they were electrons, meaning negative parts only, how may a negative be drawn by a negative magnetic pole?
Or how shall we justify them going down the middle, since they are supposed to go into one direction only, namely up to the positive pole of the magnet?
Then there is also this velocity which does not coincide with the known velocity at which electricity travels, how is that to be justified?
The electrical current is of course none other than a wave formation that undulates between the two ends with the flow of parts as being nothing more than incidental.
But how can I be so sure of my conviction? ... For one thing, I was given an understanding in fundamentals. But for a second, there is a whole world of evidence that clearly demonstrates that electricity cannot be a flow of particles.
Just consider the fact that the electrons never left the tube, and how may that be possible? What I mean is; did we not say that we made a glass enclosure? We then should consider the effectiveness of that glass enclosure relative to the electrons on the move.
That glass wall is nothing more than molecules set in a grid, which in turn is constructed of atoms. Between the atoms of the molecules there is lots of room, like the spacing between solar system, and within each atom there is more open space than parts like planets in our solar system, so man acclaims.
How then shall a thin glass wall serve as an enclosure for these minute parts? For this is nothing more than the likes of a planet size comet passing through the vast openings within a solar system.
Or it might be compared to using a wire screen to hold out the rain. The wave formation of an angular magnetic force on the other hand is like a whole galaxy, which shall not pass through the openings within any one solar system.
NOT WHAT IT SEEMS.
Consider to be strolling through a mountainous plain after a refreshing rain. The earth is full of colors, the sun glistening on the raindrops left upon the leaves. The smell of freshness is in the air, and the birds sing their delightful tunes, while the bees gather nectar.
Sight sound and smell, all these things delight us and we indeed rejoice in a world made so beautifully unto us. Yet the world itself knows nothing of color, nor does sound have any meaning there.
Every part of this picture perfect view is nothing other than mechanical innovations, mechanical movements, everything by coordinates to come to a form. Just to think of all this beauty that - none of it has color, no black nor white, nor being colorless.
And while the world is silent knowing no sound - nor what the absence of sound is, we perceive the mere compressions of its parts as were they sounds.
Likewise it is with the fragrance which we inhale, for what may be so delicious in a coordinate of a numerical value of 567, or so odious in a value of 686? Yet it is by such coordinates that we are either delighted or offended.
The question then no longer becomes what is this world in all its magnificence? But what is man that such a world becomes unto him?
For this is more fascinating, more astounding than the mechanical nature. ... Nature thus becomes us through our senses. the world is the world because - we - in what we are - abide within it.
But then again, to just know these things is not necessarily the realization thereof. One must descend as were it mind and soul into the depths thereof to gather how profound they are.
Marvelous things may be considered in opportune moments. The physical wonders of the Lord are marvelous to behold, but even more marvelous are those - not physical.
There is for example nothing cold or hot in nature, neither is there such a thing as "fire". Why should a fast moving jet be called hot, or a slow moving biplane be understood as cold, or that which dissolves as fire?
You might remark what a pretty blue sky today. But the sky would answer you; I am not blue nor do I know what blue is.
LIGHT OF THE EYE.
Within a small section of the spectrum of waves, there are lengths of movements of coordinates, which we call visible light from Apr. 4000 to 7000 Angstroms. These are unto us for our beholding as well as for the scheme of color. 4000 then being called blue, is this really so? We might be correct for color, but what about for light itself, is it really so?
It's a game to play. Shall I therefore be cunning, or will you have the cunning to forestall me? Let us question whether we behold by "lengths" or by "frequencies". Which if any shall it be?
By figure 20-2, let a single wave AC come upon us. (We in our sight as the line or plane). This wave arrives both in length as well as by a rate of to say frequency, by which of these are our responses?
Suppose AC were the shortest length of the visible spectrum, and let us travel as fast as we can into direction A, this will create that typical Doppler effect shortening the wave, or does it?
Assuming we maintain a constant velocity to place us upon point B, the original length of 4000 has now become 3000, or has it? If it became 3000 would it then still be visible to us, since we had assumed that 4000 was the shortest visible length?
If we can no longer see it, will we determine that eyesight is by lengths? But how can we be sure that the wave did in fact change, for what if the wave never at all changed but merely passed beyond our point of reception, we at B, while the wave was situated at C, its form still being A-X1-C.
Are we than reading 3000 in the ratio of events irrelevant to length? Which therefore shall it be?
Applying another avenue of approach, might the wavelet be on a passing fancy, or does it collect upon us?
Suppose the instant we received the wavelet it instantly readjusted itself to become AXB, or AXlB1? How then will it account for a 4000 length in a 3000 measure? Shall this prove ratio to be correct? Thus we have a conversation piece.
What is motion? Displacement so we may answer. Yes all right, but how do we know that displacement is in fact displacement? For the same must coincide with room for space.
I mean, you are telling me it went from one place to another. But what is "place?" What is the room or space that may serve to allow such a thing as "displacement"?
You can tell me that displacement is simply going from one place to another, and that room is just the room it goes through, but you shall hardly be giving me an answer to my quest.
I am not asking for appearances, but factual realities, the things beyond our sight, that which is hidden, it is that which draws my curiosity.
And so I start again: What is room, and what is space, or what is if you will tell me - it is empty - is "emptiness" to its hidden fundamentals?
Perhaps you do not care to join me in such questions; they might prove to be more pain than joy. I however cannot forebear, and how am I to satisfy my curiosity when you are like an empty creek? ...
Perhaps we ought to start with something simpler like what is a charge? To which we answer; it's a charge. But that is no answer to my question, and will I receive answers for a quest to magnetism? And will I hear for the quest of time that it is something of age?
Or what about gravity, or distance? O yes here is one. What about "distance?" Tell me "length" and I will ask, what is it? Tell me an ongoing thing, a measure, and I will remain with the question unanswered.
Perhaps you will view me as one off his rocker, that I ask questions no-one can know, questions for which there are no better answers than what they appear at face value. ... That I am digging where no gold is to be found, where the ground is too hard for the pick to survive upon.
So all right, I admit to be curious, to ask a lot of questions. But do we not have answers to some of them? At least to that you must agree.
Not so long ago it was in vain to ask what magnetism was, yet now we have answers. This time I am asking "what is room?" And I will not take anything but fundamentals for an answer. I in fact am still with the same question for "magnetism" what it might be still more fundamental, and "room", is all part thereof.
I am determined yes; How did room come to be? Yes how so - for which all such things as - distance, matter, motion, velocity, and our famous or infamous time notation found a home and being? It is the home and the being that intrigues me more than anything.
Surely now I know very well that God created all this, but may I not ask? Shall I commit a sin, if not in anything at least so in being foolish perhaps to ask such things? But tell me, how may I not feel as I feel? How may I drive away what I know not? And how will I be what I am not? Or not be what I am?
A curious fellow that desires to know what may not be his business to know. But Solomon said; "that it was God's honor to hide a thing, while it was for kings to discover."
Perhaps he should not have said that, for the same seems to have become an invitation unto me. God now having been so gracious with me I seem to hunger for more.
Nevertheless there is a word which I have not forgotten, which reads: "What is meet for me to know." This word indeed puts me in my place, for while I am a man of flesh by reason I know what is meet for me. Not passions therefore, but reason must control the passions.
Still my craving remains and who will share with me in the pursuits of knowledge? ... Our Lord gave us much insight into His works. Will we then always be reaching for the forbidden fruits? The tree gave man knowledge of good and bad, and not for "it" did we come into pain but for disobedience.
It was the "forbidden" fruit. And the pain thereof is continually with me in reaching for ever more understanding, ever more knowledge. For so Eve remarked "It was good to look upon, and to eat". She then in that respect spoke no untruth.
O my, O my, what marvels there are beyond. How absolutely marvelous are the works of God. How illustrious His wisdom and His ways. My praise of Him will never cease as long as I shall have eyes to see, and lips to glorify His name.
How many are the things I wish to know, that I long to see? The common answers do not suffice - its ultimate I search. But if I shall come to know only my Lord knows, for lest it be given me, I certainly cannot reach for that fruit beyond my reach.
And this also is a point in wisdom, to know this and to know it well. But not for myself alone do I this day speak these words, but to serve food for thought.
What is matter, and what is motion? The facts read that something solid moves. There are no fibers nor strings, or other magical things attached whereby the motion of one atom should interact with that of another - at a distance.
These now are magical words, to say "at a distance". We do indeed have ourselves a question here, to which there appears to be no answer, still there must be an answer.
But man has himself in a bind. ... Let us question that "charge" so pronounced. Or that "motion" I pronounced. I did not invent motion, nor did you answer your "charge".
But here is indeed a challenge "action at a distance". How does one part interact at a distance with another part? An ether perhaps? We can summarize what we behold, angular motion, linear motion, momentum, and there is also inertia. But none of these reveal what may be contributing to "action at a distance".
We conceive that the instant a part leaves any part of space, it no longer occupies it in the way so as to leave something for interaction with any other part that may come a few moments later. If we did we would be suggesting fibers, or something of that nature, which is a bit far fetched to realistically consider.
But who am I to know the answers? Why should I be asking such questions? Curiosity, or perhaps just conversation? Or might it be that I do not enjoy dining by myself on a table set for princes? Why not credit others? Why not let others have, as Solomon said, the pain and with it enjoy the fruits of the table?
I do know, but you should not have denied the great Creator, nor should you have rejected me, therefore I sealed my lips.
God created the heavens and the earth. How were they made? It is God's secret which He reveals to whom He chooses. ... I heard those who pretend to know, I clearly heard.
They have no idea how the world was made, nor what wonders are beheld within the universe. Correlation of many factors to a single prospect is not their best side. From visible came invisible, from nothing came being.
Indeed those who reject the word of God for His creation, went out for themselves to make being from none being, and visible from invisible. Thus they "do" after all admit that God's word is true. Armed with a bit of energy and vacuum, they attempted to shoot down what had been secured long before them.
O yes you are wrong. But how shall you be wrong? This is for you to know, you made it, now you correct it. I will know when you are correct and grant it to you.
There are many things to search for in nature. Trace it to its borders. Find not only answers but questions to yourselves. For I give you to wit that within them are such secrets as you seek, and by their nature may be known what you had not dreamed would be.
Will I be accused of withholding information? I shall not lie to you. I do not withhold anything that may be useful to the soul of man whereby he is able to obtain unto life. ... But concerning the knowledge of science I am guilty. I shall commit this sin; I shall question and not answer, so you may answer.
If I shall be allowed to speak as I may, it will be so. But what am I saying? For I know very well that it shall not all be for the asking. "Keep holy what is holy" so it is said.
Who then am I to oppose Him who leads me, or that it shall be in my desire to dress pearls on them that walk on four feet? If the shoe fits one will wear it.
Search for right answers. You may not believe those who were before me, nor me that I should know, but this is your loss. For the correctness by which things are stated here and elsewhere is greater than you think.
You should not have ventured alone where you knew you could not survive alone. Now instead of the answer the question is on you.
Motivation may be an intent, or mean to move. By figure 20-3, the cores are interlocked by forces. The scenario of the lines set the stage, but for all this do they indeed as such perform the actual movement? ... If the lines were rubber bands, and were stretched, movement would proceed the rubber drawing itself, they being the lines.
From here we come to the question if magnetic movement is by lines as such, or not rather by the "inhibition" (to call it that) which always draws or pulls things together?
Lines of motion interlocking by some inhibition that draws. How may the electron be held to its nucleus at such inertia, which it for all apparent reason must have?
We might acclaim that we are back at Newton and his gravity, but as I mentioned before, this is not so. For this kind of gravity, which for the moment we chose to call inhibition, (Figure 20-4) - is not the same.
And thus, gravity of gravity, and motion of motion, like light of light, what shall it mean? ... But since I am not one to remove man's inhibitions, this will be left to question. And yes I am being mean to you in portraying a tasty dish - and removing it from before you.
In conclusion I wish yet to state something in my defense. We remark upon "rationality" to define only what can be done rationally, that which experiment confirms, or what evidence bears out?
For after all who can believe this foolishness of creation in six days? It simply is not logical. And this believe which they call the certainty of things unseen, now what rational mind would accept what cannot be seen?
My answer is, You accept what cannot be seen, nor felt or defined. But you are not - doing it rationally. You have accepted a multitude of undefined things, things without evidence. While as to my faith in what is unseen - there is evidence galore.
It now was not my intent to offend anyone, if therefore at times I have spoken harshly, it is in my zeal for truth, or in my anger for the wickedness in man.
I however shall not discredit where credit is due. There is room for all who desire to build. Let it be in harmony.