This is part two of an article reviewing the mechanics in the force of attraction between objects and celestial bodies. Part one undertook to define the cause towards gravity by the laws of motion.
Part two reveals our misconception in the movements of the earth that, contrary to current thought - our seasons come about by a movement of precession in a 23.5o incline of the earth’s axis to the line of the ecliptic.
And that the moon, contrary to current belief, does not rotate on its axis.
And thirdly, to reveal the cause of the tides in the fundamentals to the force of attraction.
It is generally accepted that all planets are held to their sun by gravitational force. Nor have I contested this, I did however improve upon it to include magnetic force as the first component in the twofold nature of the force of attraction. Yet before we shall embark upon this twofold nature of attraction with a view to celestial bodies, let us determine what movements the earth, and also the moon perform in their orbits.
Current theory demands that we view the earth like unto a dead rock floating in space all by itself, a rock not bound by anything, since it must keep its position exactly as we see it at figure 29-1, position 5. In this position the top of the axis points directly to the sun.
As then it moves over to position 6 by either a straight line or along the curve, how will its position be? If indeed this is by a straight line, the earth is likely to maintain its rigid position (point x remaining to the left of the earth), as it proceeds from position 6 to 7, and 8. We however know that the earth follows a circular path since it is an object under the duress of a gravitational force.
And so comes the question, how we can possibly consider the earth as nothing more than a dead rock making a big circle in space as if not bound to anything, as if there were nothing else around it? If we say, “O but it is bound”! Then how do we also consider it as a rock that floats rigidly as some object would that for its movement has no relation to anything?
If we point to the gravitational strings by which it is bound to the sun, we are then in fact pointing to our own contradiction. And how is that? Simply because; anything that is on a string, gravitational or otherwise, will at all times keep the same face (point x
in our illustration figure 29-1 towards the centripetal direction from which it is held. This fact cannot be denied since it is proven over and over by every satellite we place in orbit.
Accordingly, our lifelong theory went out the window. For again, if our theory of the rigid earth (positions 5 through 8, figure 29-1) were correct, then our space-shuttle must surely travel according to positions 9 through 12, in which case we best install windows on all four sides, and furnish our astronauts with medicine against motion sickness.
I may not know much about satellites, but surely they do not travel like this. A vehicle with some fifty tons of gravitational chains locking it in orbit is not likely to twist around and be going sideways, and backwards half the time.
“Sight deception” as this is called, and not the first time our eyes have deceived us. Assume being in the middle of a lake and a boat is traveling in a circle around you. As you look north the boat travels from right to left, the nose pointing to your left. Then as you make an about face to the south, the boat is still going from right to left, and the nose is still pointing to your left, and so you acclaim: “See, no matter where you look the boat always goes the same direction!”
But of course you are deceived, for when you looked north, the nose of the boat, as also its direction of movement, was in a westerly direction. But when you made an about face looking south, the direction of travel as also the nose of the boat, were in an easterly direction. (See also the Jet Ski, figure 29-2).
Thus we can say that we were turned around in our conception. But then if we realize this we ought also correct our misconception, for just as a ball on a string swung around us always keeps the same face to us, so all objects and celestial bodies under the duress of gravitational force will do the same.
As therefore the shaded area x in positions 1 through 4 remain in the same relative position to the sun - the axis of the earth moves in a clockwise direction making a full turn of precession in the period of 366 rotations or one orbital rotation around the sun,
What makes our earth have a movement of precession? It is for the same reason that the inertial guidance within the space-shuttle shows the vehicle to be traveling in a circular path (direction R), for if the gyro showed nothing the vehicle would be traveling direction L. It stands to reason that with angular momentum, and a change in the direction of linear movement, that a “torque” is applied to the gyro, which, as we know from experience forces the object into a movement of precession.
And in order for a mass-gyro to travel in space holding its position without change, it must move in a straight line. If instead it moves by a circular or elliptical movement, it means something in the way of a gravitational hold is performing the same.
This hold then is always in a full embrace, but a full embrace in magnetic force also means - as if the whole force is located at a center, and on center
means as upon the axis. Accordingly, the grasp of the force, like any other wheel, is upon the axis thereof, and in this case with magnetic force, it is centralized upon the axis.
If then by presumption the earth did not rotate, nor had a movement of precession, the axis of the earth pointing towards the sun as in figure 29-1-5. That same axis would at all times remain pointing towards the sun throughout the entire orbital track (broken line axis positions 6, 7, and 8, of figure 29-1. Evidence to this is as close to home as the moon in its movement, and our satellites also serve as indisputable evidence.
Nor would a movement of rotation change that position of the axis, only a movement of precession can, and will, and does change this to give us our seasons. For again the force in its full embrace is centralized upon the central point of the axis. The axis thus as such merely pivots upon the central part of the force.
Nor shall it be coincidence that the turn of precession of the earth is equal to one turn of its orbit. But rather there is good reason for it in much the same way as the moon for each turn of its orbit appears to be making one turn of rotation - on account of which we never come to see the backside thereof.
Having invited man’s displeasure to give the earth a movement of precession I must surely be in hot water for stopping the moon in its rotation around its axis. But I am like that moon up in the sky, nothing more than a reflecting mirror directing the light of the Sun to the children of man in times when the Sun is hidden from him.
If the moon turned on its axis - we should by all means see all of the moon once during each period of its rotation. But this is not the case with the man in the moon; he never turns away from us. Therefore the moon cannot be rotating, and of course it is the roundness of the moon that is deceiving us.
The evidence is very clear, for unless that boat we spoke of on the lake moves backwards as it is south of us - may we begin to consider this extra-ordinary phenomena. Illustration figure 29-2 demonstrates the example of the lake with a Jet Ski moving around the earth.
To be certain then that our eyes are not going to deceive us again, we have sunk a big hook into the man in the moon, and made our invisible gravitational connection a visible cable. And so starting from position 4, if the moon were to turn as indicated at position 1, at position 2 the cable would snap, and we would see a part of the moon never seen before.
Okay, so we are still not convinced. Then what about the person on the Jet Ski at position 5? Assume that in this quarter section of the orbit from position 5 to position 6, the jet-ski were to make a quarter turn as the arrow indicates. A quarter turn from the position at position 5 would put him exactly as he is shown in position 6, is it not? Well then, here we have it; he does turn around its axis, or does he!
But no, he does not, for without turning on its axis he will automatically come as shown in position 6 by his circular movement unto position 6.
If therefore in addition to his orbital movement he were to turn a quarter turn on its axis, its position at location 6 would be according to 6a, his nose to the earth and his back facing north. And so it is the roundness of the moon that has deceived us, for the Jet Ski having a point and a broad tail cannot deceive us as easily as a sphere.
Thus, what more evidence do we need for the light of the moon to enhance our understanding of the worlds around us? The moon is actually nothing more than a ball on a string being swung around us, in every respect the same as any of our satellites, the exception being that it has magnetic force, which the satellites do not have.
Page 42 herein provides concrete evidence to them that are small of understanding that the moon does not have a period of rotation, experimental evidence if you will.
Objects are drawn together by what is sometimes called “Action at a distance". In reality it is “Action by physical coupling". When we fax something from place to place that is action at a distance, and when a tugboat is pulling an ocean liner out to sea that is action at a distance.
In the case of the tugboat we know that the responding action of the ocean liner is by way of the rope between them. But no less are the two fax machines coupled together by the wire or the wavelengths between them. Or the pictures on our TV tube, or the gravitational connection between us and those satellites that we put up there, each of which is physically connected to us with countless many thin strings. But then so is the rope on the tugboat made up of many fine strings.
When the strings of nature are invisible, we call them waves, and if they are long we call them lines, and seeing they present power, we call them lines of force, and seeing how movement is associated with them, we call them lines of motion. As thus all magnetic waves are moving strings, or strings with movement passing upon them. And the lines of magnetic force being such, there is thus a physical connection between all the celestial bodies, and/or objects everywhere.
We can say; “that there is a gravitational connection between celestial bodies, but not call them waves, since
there is no such thing as a gravitational wave.
In the twofold factor of attraction, it are the countless number of magnetic strings to make the physical connection, with gravity as the inclination of downward movements within the embrace of these many unique lines of movement.
We know from everyday experience that magnetic force can exist without a gravitational incline upon it, while
gravity on the other hand can-not subsist without there first being a magnetic field.
This is so because gravity is fully dependent on the magnetic field for its initiation, and it fully depends on the movement of the lines of magnetic for what we call its downward movement. Gravitation then, as in gravitating, to move down, is of
magnetic. It is therefore that I said
“gravitational incline", so as not to call it a force of its own.
Now that we have established that there is at all times a physical connection between all bodies of substance, and we have seen how a gravitational inclination may come about
by movement into movement. We ought to review how magnets draw to one another, and to certain but not all substances.
The substance of nature is entirely made up of minute solar systems, of matter in motion by coordinates. The extension to this coordination is then seen as the structures of the substance in its many variations. Some are simple such as the molecule of water, others become more complex, such as gold, or diamond or steel and some too big for their own good are unstable, and must shed part of themselves to gain stability.
If then you had nothing more than a string that could pass through any structure and you wished to move this structure with that string, how could that be done?
By illustration figure 29-3-A, we have a string and a structure whose coordinate is rounded. If we pull on the string it would merely slip along the rounded surface, and the structure stays put. If next at B, we could somehow weave the string around a multiple of such components we would stand a better change if only the string could somehow adhere to these rounded surfaces.
in figure 29-3-C, there are three types of structures, none of which will grasp the string. The one of gold by the triangle comes closer than any provided we twist our string into multiple wavelengths, since it is then able to at least set forth, or conduct that string of ours, but neither the wood nor the air will.
There are structures however that will clamp down on our string, this I represented by a triangle whose sides are curved inwards (figure 29-3-D) which I named “3M component". And without going too deeply into this component, it is primarily “curvature” by which the substance will move when we pull on the string.
For the string is a line of magnetic movement, and the triangle in the illustration is typical of ferrous metals, some of which when once aligned are able to maintain the typical triangle (permanent magnets) while others let go of their curvature when the inducement is removed.
In recap therefore how may a substance be moved? The best answer would be to say, “By movement, by motion". Or more accurately, “by movement in coordinate". For the coordinate of the triangle, the 3m component is in reality no more than matter in motion in such a formation to arrest, or lock the line of force onto itself, or within itself. And “it” being a component of the structure, when the line is pulled upon - the structure will move also.
The act of pulling on the line - is the motion, or movement that is of and upon the line of the force of magnetic. Accordingly, a piece of metal held near a magnet becomes subject to the movement of the magnets magnetic lines in that the structural components of the metal are capable to fasten these lines unto themselves.
Any substance therefore with this typical triangle component may be drawn (moved) directly by magnetic power. Other substances, such as copper or gold which do not have this particular component in quite that coordinate, yet are susceptible to it - so as to conduct magnetic lines in multiple wavelength formation (electricity), may be drawn by magnets providing the copper is conducting the wave.
It then is the wavelength itself, which is being drawn
by the magnet, as in magnetic wave to magnetic wave, and the copper moves along because of the magnetic wave inhibiting it.
The structures of every other substance then may be drawn by magnetic force in what may be called an indirect manner. This is what is known as gravity, which is not by components in the structural sense, but by a coordinate of force that in all respects may be given as a figure eight set at ninety degree, and my designation for it is M7000.
Or to put it in other words, by a coordinate of force upon the inertia of the mass to drive, or lock the same in the embrace of the magnetic lines of motion. In thus way we find magnetic force to draw all substances, both directly and indirectly.
In regards to polarities, has one ever seen a person that has only a right side, with no left? Of course not. If there is an up, there must be a down, and when an arrow is going somewhere, it must also be coming from somewhere. And so it is with all movements, there is always a coming from, to a going into.
This coming and going is then of a single something with a single direction. The movement of any force, such as magnetic lines of motion, or the wave formation of electrical current, entering into a body must also exit that body.
Wherever a movement enters into a particular object or body, it is called the south, or the negative side, and wherever the movements exits the object or body, is the north, or the positive side. This holds true for all movements, both kinetic (secondary) and fundamental.
The term positive exist because it is in conjunction with negative, even as without a north, there would neither be a south. Wherefore, if we conceive to have any one of these without the other, we are deceiving ourselves. All things in nature come in pairs, and we must accept these indisputable laws and facts of nature!
Circular movement is not termed positive nor negative, wherefore the electron in having energy - should be referred to as “having angular momentum”, not negative in charge, since again, a charge is never single, or there would also be a person with only a left side.
When we speak of a movement within any part, such as the electron, then we must speak of positive and negative, and never of one without the other. If any person is able to show how movement may only be going somewhere and not coming from somewhere, or visa versa, then I will bow to that person. That person however will not come, for there is no such thing as a monopole, it has never been found, nor will it ever be found.
No electron is ever negative, nor any proton ever positive, since neither of these terms can exist without simultaneous existence of the other. And if the electron is no more than a part, without a movement within it, or a movement of rotation upon it, there can be no positive nor negative.
If there be a movement within or from the electron that charge will have a negative as well as a positive side, a coming and going. And for the spin, the rotation is in directions of.
All force is motion, and energy merely another term for what is fundamentally no different and no other than motion. The terms positive and negative are no more than a reference to directions of movement, and to that reference alone, and to no other reference.
For again it does not apply to the earth unless it is with reference to the force of the earth, the movement - the single
movement - going in and out. Any other time in reference to the body or mass it becomes north and south.
I mention this at length since it is sad to behold man so dearly in the grasp of ignorance. And being on the subject, we should also correct ourselves in the understanding of energy and mass, which is none other than saying “motion and matter."
Motion then is one thing, and substance is another, and the first cannot exist without the other, (at least for the sons of man it must be so), for unless a mass, or any part of substance is in motion, there is no motion, nor therefore force or energy.
It is absurd to say, or even suggest that matter could turn into motion, for motion is an entity without substance, and cannot exist but upon substance. If therefore the substance were converted or changed into motion, then what may I ask is moving?
Do we not realize that when we take away the substance we also take away the movement to leave us with nothing? How does none being - count for being? And so with a few sentences anyone can be made wiser than any number of Einstein’s.
The physical connection which holds the moon in orbit around the earth is first of all in the interaction of the magnetic force between them, coupled with the gravitational inclination upon the inertia of the mass by the movement of the moon at its specific radius from the earth.
And to better understand this, we must compare the factors from a point where the bodies are at rest - to be set in motion.
Assuming both the earth and the moon at rest with their magnetic force reaching out and joining with one another, it is logical that the two bodies would draw towards one another just as two magnets would. The moon would thus come to cling upon either of the two poles of the earth.
This is save to assume even at the distance of 398.000 miles seeing how the magnetic tentacles of the earth reaches well
beyond the moon. And the tentacles of the force of the moon, even if they did not reach the earth, the same would be irrelevant, since the tentacles between two magnetic bodies always join up with one another to make as if they were a single force between them.
This may be illustrated by figure 29-3-Y, when the polarities of both objects are in the same direction. And according to -Z when the polarities are reversed. With the polarities according to Z, the body orbiting the first will usually stay upon the line of the celestial equator.
If the polarities are according to figure 29-3-Y, the orbiting body will tend to move above, and/or below the celestial equator as demonstrated by figure 29-3-K. The reason for this lies in the direction of movement as illustrated. At times therefore when there is a difference in the equilibrium between the north and south end relative to the other body, the orbiting body (moon) is driven above and/or below the line of the celestial equator.
I mentioned this to prove that the magnetic hold on celestial bodies is very real, and that it is not just a gravitational hold whereby celestial bodies move by or are held in orbit. For no gravitational pull would cause our moon to perform that particular movement, it is clearly in the magnetic entity.
Next, from the rest position of the earth-moon relation, and referring to illustration figure 29-4, let us place the moon in motion in which case it will take a direction noted L, and that at this point there is not as yet gravitational pull.
The moon would then continue to proceed into direction L with the magnetic lines between them stretching until eventually at some distant point it would come lose of the earth.
This I said to convey that the combined effort of these magnetic forces is not sufficient to overcome the inertia of the mass in motion, even though they do present a strain upon the moon to draw it into a circular movement. It is this strain as one of two reasons why the moon is not about to depart from us.
For the strain implementing a change in direction of, results into a torque upon the angular
inertia of the mass, which in turn implements a momentum of precession that results into a gravitational pull on the moon equal to the inertia into the centrifugal.
The second reason is in that the magnetic force of the earth by and of its own movements has already an implementation of gravitational incline upon the angular inertia in a quantity the value of +/-32-ft/sec (diminutive in radius). If then there were no magnetic bond there would not be this implementation of +/- 32-ft/sec at any place between the earth and the moon, nor upon the angular inertia of the mass of the moon.
The circular movement of the moon would of course still implement the torque and the precession upon its angular inertia, but there would be nothing for the precession to turn into, or as to say lock into whereby it may be drawn to a center of.
Gravity thus can only be implemented by the presence of a magnetic field and force thereof. And the net outcome of the gravitational pull is directly proportional to its movement in the velocity thereof relative to its mass and the gravitational and/or magnetic constant of the body holding or driving the mass. When therefore we say “movement in the velocity thereof,” it automatically includes radius, since velocity comes by distance in time.
And to find at what distance the moon will find a stable orbit around the earth is simply to multiply the mass by the velocity square of its circular movement divided by the radius. But whether or not this shall be accurate I do not know, since I do not know just how much force of attraction there is from the two magnetic fields one to the other.
It seems reasonable to conclude that there is an augmentation since clearly the lines of force between the two objects are drawn
tighter (more straight) than those lines not directly in between the two objects.
The magnetic lines of any magnet are not two circles, but a single wave in a figure of eight. Outside of the magnet the lines therefore trace a curvaceous path, but when another magnet is brought near the first magnet, the curvaceous lines between the two objects become elongated, or even nearly straight lines depending on how close the magnets are near to one another.
greatly simplified, this is illustrated by figure
29-4, broken lines as normal curvature, solid lines for the elongation thereof.
It is this movement, of the lines moving upwards on the surface of the earth (area’s x) the elongation of the lines that effects the tides upon the earth. We must remember - as I have shown previously - that gravitational force is the twofold factor of magnetic force with the implementation of the gravitational incline.
The substance therefore, earth and water, are at all times within the embrace of this twofold factor, and as these move upwards - so the substance, not rigidly affixed, moves with it.
By figure of speech we can thus say that the waters are raised by gravitational force, but more correctly, the waters rise by the movement of the lines of force along which gravity has its downwards implementation. If anything therefore, gravity keeps the tides down to acceptable levels.
By the illustration figure 29-4 it might appear as if that movement is only, or primarily, at the area’s marked with an x. This of course is for demonstration only since that very movement is everywhere within the area of the tide by the countless many lines that stretch between mother earth and its moon.
It may be more pronounced at the beginning where the force - in the movement of the moon - picks up new lines to elongate them until again they leave off at the hind-end to revert back to their normal curvature.
In the illustration, the movement of the moon is into the paper as its direction of movement R. Or else we take away the axis lines and consider north into the paper and south upwards from the paper, with the moon proceeding direction R.
Tides however must always be dual, like everything else in nature is twofold, dual, or by pairs. For the force of magnetic in its wavelength being a circle with a single half twist therein comes to resemble a figure eight.
As therefore, by cause of the moon the one half of the figure eight near the moon it is elongated, so will the other half of the figure eight on the opposite side of the earth be elongated, evident from magnetic experiment. This is like a pair of scissors, if one side is closed in, so will the other.
There is a simple way to prove my words to them that are short of logic, by simply measuring the shift of the earth magnetic lines of force as the moon comes onward to lift the waters of the earth.
There are thus always two simultaneous and opposite tides on the earth by the single location, movement, and force of the moon. I said, “force” of the moon, to convey that if there were not a magnetic force inhibiting the moon, there would be little or no tides upon the earth.
The waters for their rise depend on
the elongation of the magnetic lines that occurs only between magnets,
or between a magnet and ferrous metal.
The movement of the 3M lines then is continually and without exception always tracing this figure of eight, and join when there are two or more magnetic fields to proceed over both.
This may be demonstrated by figure 29-4-Y. The earth being 93 million miles from the sun, and the line of the earth (for the example) at 1 million miles.
The movement beginning at point A, will proceed by the arrows as indicated 93 million to the sun, 92 million past the sun, and back 92 million, and again 93 million to the earth, and 1 million past the earth, to again return to point A.
Thus the movement at the speed of light in the total distance of 599 km took 1,997 seconds, which is a little more than one half of an hour. This of course is factual for just this one particular string, or line of force, and so there are countless many strings both short and long, and some which do join upon one another and some which do not, evident from observation of any magnetic field.
The number of times that the movement completes a figure eight in a compass needle is about 7.5 million times in one second for a needle some 2 centimeters in length taking a 4-cm wave. And so there is no standard for wavelength in “linear” magnetic force.
The term “Linear” magnetic force sets the normal regular magnetic force apart from “angular” magnetic force which is better known as electrical current.
Science has noted two separate points on the earth, one as magnetic north, and the other as true north. This may be in error since true north and magnetic north may very well be the same.
We have come to this lacking the understanding in the nature and the design of the force upon the needle as well as the force upon the earth.
It is not possible for a magnetic needle that it should point directly to magnetic north or true north, since the needle being a magnet itself, having its own figure of eight, can-not but must align itself with the magnetic lines of the earth.
And since these lines are figures of eight curving away from actual and true magnetic north - so the needle will point accordingly. (figure 29-4, compass needle).
The needle may thus point to either side of magnetic north, which is also true north. And if one cares to experiment, a magnetized needle will not come to rest or point directly to the center of one of our small hand-held magnets. A means to show that a compass is forced away from center.
Many movements in the nature of things proceed by “cycles” of in the coordinate factor of their parts in motion. Unstable atoms proceed by cycling to shed the part that prevents them from equilibrium.
And the sun, as it rotates passing its magnetic lines upon a rotating earth join with these lines in a cycling upon it, one wavelength upon the other. By which the earth is kept at a constant of its rotation, as well as of its precession, and of its circular velocity.
Newton may have said; “once in motion - stays in motion,” and while this is correct, there is also resistance in the space wherein the earth moves, a space which is not as empty as some of us may have concluded.
Accordingly, the sun having an excellent physical connection to the earth, and driving the same therewith - equally maintains the movements of its orbital velocity.
Many celestial bodies do not proceed by perfectly circular orbits but by an elliptical path. In the elliptical path there is both an acceleration and deceleration in the velocity of the orbital body.
And on the basis of “once in motion, stays in motion” a deceleration is justifiable by way of resistance, but for an acceleration a force is required.
If therefore it were not for the power of the sun to maintain our orbital velocity we would gradually slow down to ultimately fall into the sun. (Figure 29-5)
The precession of the earth, as much as it is akin to the rotation of the earth, is cause in relevance to the sun to drive the earth by one orbital rotation around itself. Rotation provides angular inertia; orbital rotation - the right angle linear movement - exacts precession.
It is not by chance or by discovery on my part that I have revealed the force to the foundations of the earth. Nor is this what some may presume a theory, there is sufficient evidence to substantiate what I have said.
My education in these things has not been of man, but of the Creator of all things so that I might not be to the death of man. And as to how man will receive this knowledge shall be his own gain or loss.
As for me, I thought to write this report to speak once more on these matters more explicitly, utilizing man’s laws and formula’s, and the usual logic, and common sense reasoning, which if by this we shall not be enlightened, there is nothing more I can do for man.