HOW TO SHOW MAN THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH!
TO EVIDENCE THE NATURE OF GRAVITY! (July 2009)
CHAPTER 39 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
The third part of this page is the original from some twenty years ago, the first part here (2009) is in my aim to make this science as elementary as I can. I attempted this in some other pages to wit pages 54 and 55, with pages 27 through 29 as the originals.
And as I bring forth the logic that yes the secret to the foundations of the Earth is and has been right before our eyes, and is as simple as A, B, C, why then did we not gather that treasure so much sooner?
If among men there was knowledge and understanding, as we pride ourselves to have, - how did we fail so miserably to number the fingers upon our hand, and to correlate them one from the other?
For just as simple as the correlation of our right hand is from our left -- so simple is the cause and nature of gravity by all the natural facts as they present themselves to us.
As therefore I am about to show man his nose to reside between his eyes, we will come to wonder how dull we were not to have realized these simple facts of nature. It goes against our grains to be told that yes we were without knowledge, and having to accept that yes we did lack understanding.
It is indeed humbling to concede that common sense did not seem to be one of our faculties. And how logic for the correlation of one factor to another was absent from our minds.
When I look at the knowledge of man, and knowing what I know to be factual, it comes to my realization what a marvelous knowledge the Lord has given me in comparison to that of mankind, how awesome indeed the Lord has elevated me over the sons of man.
Does it then really take a genius to simply know the basics of the A, B, C? We thought that the scientists and physicists with all their years of education would at least have known basics. But these for all their learning seem to be more ignorant than any, and mostly so in fundamentals, in the most simple of things.
Nor is there such a thing as genius. And how did all this come about? It came about in the fact that we are created things.
For now again I am stating something most fundamental and realistic - that evades the mind of many, and primarily those of supposedly greater learning. Yes we are created things, which correlates to the fact that there is a Creator, One who made us. And this in a nutshell is the answer.
We are like vessels, and no vessel is made directly with its contents in it. If then one fills himself with his own potion, it may be rotten, or it may be poison. But if one looks to his Creator to be filled he will be filled with the good substance, he will present a clear liquid good for the body and welcome to the taste. And it is our Creator alone who can fill us with the good stuff.
But when there is pride of heart, as if the vessel were made it in self, why should the Creator fill that vessel? And so it is that the learned and everyone that is proud, and refuses to acknowledge that he is a small vessel put together by a Creator, the Creator leaves him to his own folly, so that at end he may come to stand very ashamed of himself, and to factually realize the stupidity of his own making.
GRAVITY THE GYRO.
As then it was the Creator of us all who filled me with clear water, let us together find our nose to reside between our eyes. And the first thing I want you to take in mind and keep in mind is - the gyro.
Since now a picture is worth a thousand words, we are not going to use them so that we may come to rely upon our insight and picture all things within our mind where it should be fixed rather than on paper.
If now we look for something that has some bearing on gravity, or that in some way is relative to it, we come to look at a spinning top, the familiar gyro that in all respects seems to defy gravity. This is not to say that in fact it does defy gravity, since in effect it merely produces a format of gravity.
A half pound spinning top whether it spins or not - is drawn to the Earth by its weight of 1/2 pound. Since therefore its spinning motion does not make it any lighter, it cannot be in defiance to gravity.
But that block of material shaped like a top will stay upright when spun around, and why is that so? What is spinning? It is motion, it is movement, it is an "angular" movement, a motion that goes in a circle constantly coming back to the same point where it left off.
It is a movement of staying in place, and that is why the spinning top stays upright - because - it has a movement of - staying in place, it has -properly said - "inertia". And so you see it has nothing to do with gravity does it?
The answer here is both a yes and no. Its upright momentum is "not" gravity, yet it is a format towards gravity. Remember this last sentence, fix it into your mind. Then we must recruit an unlimited number of gyro's in order that at end we may behold our nose between our eyes, with these we mean the atoms of our bodies and of everything in nature.
Every single atom - as science has it - is a planetary system. If now this be factual or not may be left to question, what is however without question is that every single atom is essentially a spinning top, or spinning ball.
And the RPM of these spinning tops is far greater than the RPM that man procures with his devices. Consequently in speaking of atoms we are speaking of many tiny tops attempting to stay in place, each one having due angular momentum - the inertia thereof.
And to rephrase this more fundamentally - we are speaking of "motion", of "movement". We know that there is matter on those tops, but our concern is for the movement of that matter, since not the matter but the movement of it - is what produces power and force, as well as inertia - just as "not" the "substance" but the movement produced or held that upright position of our toy gyro.
Leave therefore the ignorance of that man named Einstein, as if matter can be turned into energy, into motion. That poor fellow has not contributed a single iota to the sciences, other than sheer stupidity.
With the atom then this is likewise, matter and movement as distinct factors. And since all such movements makes things stay in place or resists change it is called "inertia."
GRAVITY VERSES WEIGHT.
Weight, so it is said, is a measure of gravity. And, weight, so it is also said, is the same all over the earth. These two statements now are contradictory, in error with one another.
And just for the illiterate ones who like to correct me for that 1/2 .lb difference in gravity from pole to equator for the oblation of the earth, I know all about it, but we are going to ignore this minor difference, since we got bigger fish to catch.
Weight is indeed a measure of gravity, but that is so "on the scale", and not any other way. This mind you is a mind breaker, a complete revelation, to state that weight (as a measure of g) is "not" the same all around the Earth.
Or to put it in other words, our nose is not upon our chest, but on our face, and what man will contradict me in that respect?
We are beholding the "evidence" to the nature of gravity. That indeed we are doing right here and now as we plow forward. When you step on the scale and read your weight as 165-lb, you construe that as 165-lb of g-force. And right you are, so then put on a warm coat and move to the North pole to stand right upon the axis of the earth.
Your g-force on the scale still reads 165-lb. Then put on your swimming trunks and move to the equator, where again your weight as g-force on the scale still reads the same 165-lb.
But is there not something very wrong here to have that scale consistently point to the 165 mark while at one point we are merely twirling around upon an axis with no duress of centrifugal force upon us, yet with no more than our bikini upon the equator we are traveling in a circle at better than 1000 miles per hour being 4000 miles away from that same axis upon which previously we were twirling in the cold.
We forgot all about "centrifugal" inertia did we not? We can hardly forget it when we take a high speed turn around the corner, and why then should we forget it when standing at the equator where we are moving even faster than a jet-liner? For a person of 165-lb, the centrifugal (outward force) by the law in the calculation thereof comes to 18.24-lb.
Is therefore our true weight as a true measure of g-force 165 + 18.24 = 183.24-lb? The answer to the question is quite correct, since at a speed of 1000-mph in an circle that is 8000 miles in diameter we are being pushed away from the vector, that is from the axis beneath our feet.
And unless gravity sets in by exactly that same amount, namely 18.24-lb to hold you down, - your weight on the scale would not read 165, but rather 146.76-lb.
And for them saying - that there is no centrifugal, these are correct in a force as such, yet the term is valid for the resistance that any object poses to stay within a straight trajectory.
Conclusively, even though you may be moving at zero velocity or at 1000 mph velocity - on the scale your weight remains the same, because that weight (g-force) as read on the scale is the "fundamental."
Or basic quantity of force that comes about by the "factor" of gravity as it is inlaid within this particular globe (Earth) in and by its forces and movements.
While on the other hand "gravity augments centrifugal" and comes in over and above the fundamental quantity of force or gravity if you will. If this were not so your g-force on the scale at the top of the axis at either pole where you are without the due of the centrifugal duress, would not be read at the 165 mark, .
This of course is a mouth-full on which I have to expand. The 32.174 so familiar with gravity as a force on the surface of the earth is not what science beholds it to be. They take it as were it some measure of force in pounds or in feet per second.
It is however a "factor" of force, basic and fundamental to this Earth in its "inertial implementation". And here again we must expand upon it as well. (Page 58 and 60 herein shows the full definition)
When you are falling down to earth from the sky the g-force in its acceleration is in feet per second/per second in that value that is the factor of force - the inertial force - erroneously called after gravity.
For when with a car you take a rapid turn around the corner the centrifugal duress acting upon you to keep you going into a straight line for its value is found by the very same factor of force, by the 32.174 so well known for gravity at sea level.
And yet there is no gravity involved in your turn with the car since your movement is neither up nor down but horizontal, a direction that is not of gravity.
This now is so because that factor of 32.174 is as I said of the "inertia', the inertial implementation of the many atoms in their angular momentum coupled with the linear movement to resist change, or to stay in place.
And now knowing this if we put on our correlating cap, to utilize a bit of logic and common sense, look and see how gravity is so closely related to that factor of inertial value, to that factor by which all movement on Earth is calculated. And again how well gravity is related to "movement", to the very motion of everything.
When you put on 18.24-lb of centrifugal to get away from gravity, gravity says -ho, ho I am augmenting it by the same 18.24-lb. Gravity in other words responds to movement, and to the degree of movement.
For again if you accelerate yourself to join those in the space shuttle some 200 miles up. And you get out your calculator to see how much centrifugal duress there would be upon you in that shuttle going at a velocity of near 18.000 MPH, it will come to more than 5000-lb. More than 2.5 tons is what you would show upon a scale in the direction away from mother Earth.
And yet, you don't feel anything, in fact you feel yourself free, free of gravity that is. And why is that so? It is so because gravity augmented every ounce of force that you added in your acceleration to come to a velocity of 18.000 miles per hour by which you are attempting to travel a straight line.
For as you stood upon the earth with no more than 18.24-lb of centrifugal and 165 of basic g-force, and you went into space, you went faster and faster squaring the force upon you in the linear.
It is a good thing thus that in the linear the force squares itself - otherwise, if it merely doubled you have a very long way to get yourself free of the pull of gravity.
You in effect have to outrun the basic factor of gravity, that is to say - the factor of "inertia" rather than of gravity, although it appears the same for both. But our aim is not to fool ourselves by appearances but to adapt reality.
To outrun gravity is merely to put on more force in the centrifugal than that to which gravity is able to augment it.
Since again there is a limit to gravity, namely the inertial factor of 32.174 which is correct at Earth's surface - while in the shuttle some 200 miles up, that value has dropped down to 31, or less, not much less but a little anyway, since again 200 miles up is also but minor compared to the 4000 miles that you are distant from Earth's center on the surface thereof.
How and why now does force in the linear square itself? Why not when going from 1000 mph to 2000 mph simply double the force for the double of the velocity?
The answer is in the factor again, in that factor of "inertial" implementation. The atoms (gyro's) in their angular momentum present a certain degree or value of inertial force, a force that wants to stay put, or if once in motion wants to stay in motion.
As then we drive that inertia into a greater value of force by adding linear movement, we are not only doubled the linear, the speed, as in 1000 to 2000, but we are doubling that angular so basic in everything as well. We are doubling it in this that we are fixing it more and more ridged, as in place, or as in motion to stay in motion.
For this reason force in the linear is always squared, doubling both the linear as well as angular motion, or force of motion.
Once a person now of 165-lb scale weight comes to 5.186-lb of centrifugal force at his 18.000 mph velocity, and the value of g-force, that is to say - the factor of inertial force has gone down to 31.34, instead of 32.174, the total of the g-force on him is also 5.186-lb.
But here at that speed and at that altitude he has come to the limit of the inertial value by which gravity in its augmentation is able to retain or restrain him.
This point can be found mathematically, taking the 5.186 and dividing it by the factor of 31.34 at which he resides - that then comes to his weight upon the scale. If instead we drive him faster and faster at the same altitude so that the centrifugal force on him becomes 6000-lb and we divide it by the factor of 31.34 again, it shows a scale weight of 191-lb.
This of course is 26-lb more than his real weight, or 26-lb more than the true total of all his inertia, the sum total of all his atoms in their angular format based on the fundamental earthly factor thereof.
In this case gravity can no longer hold on to him, the limit for his 165.lb scale g-force at his altitude and velocity of 18.000 mph or greater is 5.186-lb and no more. That extra 26-lb in the centrifugal by his greater speed simply is not there in the number of his atoms, -- that is to say - in the inertia of him by which gravity is to augment, to hold on to him.
Consequently, with his greater speed he will be driven away to a greater altitude till at last the inertia of his atoms comes again in line with the draw, or better said - augmentation of gravity.
For as we recede from the earth the square of the force is again divided by the radius from center. The higher the altitude the greater the radius, and the greater the value will be by which the square of the force is to be divided.
Wherefore we can come to feel ourselves weightless, or balanced between two forces - as the proper terminology is - at any altitude provided we temper our velocity accordingly.
All this because there is a certain factor, a certain value by which movement presents itself in the inertia thereof. And it is this "inertia" that not only feeds gravity, but implements gravity.
The fact that it feeds gravity is seen in g-force verses centrifugal, and in basic weight verses the implementation of centrifugal over and above it. While for factually implementing gravity, that we must yet discuss in more detail.
If then this does not make good sense to our minds, where is our understanding? How can you sit on the beach in Miami and say that the g-force on you is 200-lb when the scale showed you at 200-lb? How can you omit the reality that comes with anything thrown around in a circle?
And knowing these - if mathematics is not a burden - how was man so ignorant in his natural laws? If my drift not realized, how much simpler do I have to be?
It now was said by the Creator of us all that "He would put an end to man's wealth by the hand of one who protects the boundaries, one who is god of the sciences and of learning"
I now do not have the love of money, nor does wealth concern me, but I do care for boundaries that the same be kept.
But again as to that wealth of which the Almighty Lord spoke, your wealth that is, it won't be man's for long, since for their pride - even I will see to it that these will come to own nothing, not even the skin upon the tip of their finger, nor a single atom in their bodies.
If on the other hand one reads with understanding, and does not dishonor Him who made him, there is hope for him that I will share my wealth with him.
Don't we know or realize that all these fundamentals which for all these centuries none of the learned of the earth were able to comprehend, are to me nothing more than child's-play? How then should I not teach men in a right manner, and present the facts as they factually are?
What possible reason would I have to lie, or not present things openly and with truth, since I was born of the Truth, and the lie is my sworn enemy that I hate with every fiber in me.
I have no axe to grind like man's scientists and physicists who at all cost attempt to retain their ego and vain glory for the ignorance that has come forth from them.
I have no need of man's glory, but with the truth upon my lips I am turning them into enemies against me, nor does that - so it appears to them - seem to bother me.
The fact that a weight shows itself to be the same at all points on the earth - that all in itself is clear and un-mistakable evidence that gravity is implemented by the movement of things. And how for the strength thereof it relies upon the quantity of the mass in atomic number as also in the velocity thereof.
Such as by increasing you weight in centrifugal to more than 2 tons up in space while gravity keeps pace with you, is likewise clear and un-mistakable evidence of movement being into the cause and nature of gravity.
If this cannot be so understood then where is man with his knowledge?
If I am too deep to be understood in these things, I truly pity man, and where does that put me? - Perhaps as one not at all of this earth - or of the race of man?
INERTIA IMPLEMENTING GRAVITY
Now for the last leg of this elementary thesis into the nature of gravity. We are to recall that first gyro we spoke of, that first inertia which kept the spinning top upright in what appeared to be a defiance of gravity.
That spinning top when it sits perfectly still with no side movement presents angular motion just as all atoms would if these were fixed in space with no side, or linear movement upon them.
But the instant when we nudge that top (gyro) into a linear move, that top begins to spiral, the correct term for it that it begins to "precess". This precession is what is properly known by "a torque" upon its axis, a force to drive it out of equilibrium, a force to forge the precession.
It then is this torque, that force of precession that implements the downward flow of gravity. Note then I did not say gravity, but the flow of it, since there is more than one factor to implement gravity as a whole.
In order then to enumerate these factors, we must learn something about nature in its whole. Like for example how gravity is a gentle lady with magnetic force her strong man. And how there is but "one" fundamental force in all of nature, it being the magnetic force.
Judge for yourselves are not all waves and electricity as well listed in that full spectrum which is of magnetic? Or can you for the life of you name any other fundamental force?
Name the wind - and it is secondary, or a vehicle on the road, or the combustion within a cylinder, all of which are secondary. And do not insult your own intelligence by naming such forces as the scientists have dreamed up, like strong and weak, or Henry potter, or whatever suited them.
Since again the force or power in and of the atom, and or molecules is simply motion, and as such may rank in addition to magnetic both being fundamental.
And yet again that is not quite so, since magnetism, the magnetic wave is motion the like, it is a movement - akin to angular and linear - but in and of a specific order, or formation of.
What therefore is most fundamental of all is "motion" itself. The specific order of the motion of the atom is its angular format, and of the linear (any and all linear movement) it is the straight on motion. While that of magnetic is the format of a figure of eight.
In itself magnetism is movement in the angular, in a big circle, only that circle is twisted one half over, into the spiral if you will - to not only present the figure of eight, but to at all times move by that pattern.
Consequently that which is first and foremost fundamental is "motion", from here we come to patterns, the first of which is the circle, the angular. And while indeed the atoms each in themselves present a force, - that force is best understood by calling it, "the motion of".
From here is where we come to true force whereby secondary movement may be actuated, and that true force is like the first and foremost - an angular by a specific formation of (figure eight) a formation that has come to be known as magnetism. It is in this way that magnetic is the one and only fundamental force.
This magnetic entity now consist of untold many lines of movement going and passing along every single atom and or molecule that it finds, or, that reside anywhere in space, be it suns, planets or what we in our understanding came to call empty space.
As therefore the magnetic pattern of motion passes along all the many gyro's - these atom-gyro's are all susceptible to, or relative to the magnetic lines, even as visa versa. And yes while I liken the magnetic force to lines of, let it be so for the sons of the earth.
Let us thus put ourselves up into space with the shuttle, and to gather how and in what way that well known downward movement of gravity is implemented upon us.
It is, as we already know, by and upon the inertia of the many atoms of which we are constructed. And for simplicity as well as for convenience we will take in mind a single atom, a single gyro
Here we are 200 miles above the earth, and for the moment we will assume ourselves to be standing still, zero velocity. Our gyro (or top) at that point is spinning happily but not precessing, there is not as yet a torque upon it, while the magnetic lines pass along it.
The value of that motion being effectively at 300.000 km/sec and the magnetic motion always traveling by that same value in velocity thereof, we are thus happily admiring each other, not doing much of anything else.
But now that gyro is set in motion to travel by a linear path, and as it does, the torque sets it causing it to precess, to turn about in a spiral fashion, and in doing so - it in essence turns itself into the embrace of the magnetic lines.
And likewise the magnetic lines that merely contacts itself upon the movement of atoms at full rest position - now becomes interwoven with the spiraling effect of those many gyro's - resulting into a downward drive turning into the effect that from all directions passes to one common center of center, the center of the eight of force.
It is not something of an inward green cheese that acts in opposite to the centrifugal action, or the direction of movement would be all along the axis of the earth. Nor is it a wave, some immaterial nothing that the scientists acclaim to push or draws things to a body, if so it would cling to the earth in any direction that is most convenient.
But as is clearly evident the direction of gravity is to a single center of center - and there is only "one" force with such a center, the magnetic figure of eight.
Consequently, gravity for its nature lies imbedded within the magnetism that is dominant, and that dominates all of the universe. And the same is very logical since all materials consists of atoms, and those atoms imbedded within the potential and embrace of that single fundamental force, the substance is brought home by the power of that single force.
This conveys that gravity is not a force in its own right, nor even a force at all, but rather an inclination towards gravitational descend.
For we may liken the magnetic lines as were they threaded bolts, with the multitude of atom-gyro's as the nuts to turn upon them. And so comes about that fixed momentum in the acceleration of gravity to go by +-32 ft/sec/sec.
For whether the nut going down the thread is of a thousand pound lead weight, or of a single ounce of foam, both of them will go downwards by the same speed.
All this because the downward velocity is in the spiral, in the force to precession by a fixed value for all, as mentioned earlier, it being a factor of "inertial" implementation.
And now at end we should have learned how this value of 32.174, or 31.34 some 200 miles up, is one of inertia, of movement, as the implementation of motion to motion.
And that therefore that same value applies to all force in movement, straight forward to accelerate upon a road, or to step on the brakes, or to turn a corner, as well as going up or down along the gravitational direction.
And even when in a constant orbital velocity, do not however take that value to necessarily belong to any other star or planet besides this our Earth.
SECOND PART (April 2010)
There are always ways to enhance what has been said before, and this is one of them. Let us start out with the nature of nature the whole of the universe within the space in which it resides.
There is that matter which according to the best of our ability consists of atoms. And marginally correct as this may be it is not the only factor since these atoms having movement again produce movement.
And not to go deeper into this we come to the potential of velocity that we term c, the speed noted as 300.000 km per second, also known as the 'constant.' This means that anything which traverses on and around these atoms by their so called perimeters will be taken to any direction at that velocity of constant minus its angular moment.
As then all wave coordinates that travel apart or independent of their source may be called single strand entities, the magnetic wave may be likened to a multi strand entity depicted by figure S1.
As therefore a light-wave by example embraces the media, of the magnetic wave - it may be said that it is embraced, as well as itself embraces the media, the love-scene of what is typical for a male and female in their embracing.
Then again as light operates on the atomic level, the longer lengths operate more on the molecular level, And the shorter the wave coordinates become the more the angular component increases, which for the very short waves comes to appear much like a coiled spring.
The magnetic coordinate is however unlike any other wave formation in that it is a fixed coordinate locking and/or embracing itself within a specific structural media. This is what we came to call magnetic, so well known of all magnets.
Figure S2 is to illustrate this somewhat to show how within that structural media, the secret for its locking embrace lies in what I termed "Curvature." This must be seen for the interior of the block or ball of substance, (like all stars and planets).
Once therefore the magnetic wave has established itself by that so called interior, in the component fashion thereof, it is now capable to lock onto any and all other media with the addition of a few other factors in the way of movements, which then becomes - the very essence of gravity.
These other factors together with the multi stranded wave in their final outcome also present themselves as were it by component factors, noted by Figure S2 as the exterior component.
Having thus established the media with its inertia, and the magnetic wave securely fastened upon a celestial body, all that one needs for gravity now is to create a love-scene between that masculine wave and the media.
But the media itself is not feminine, a rib must be taken from the man by which to produce his wo-man, that is to say, a derivative of the man in his own being.
And to interpret this more scientifically, a curvaceous movement must be taken from the male, so that it - in a separate standing - cannot but is bound to embrace itself back into the male.
In essence this means that other movements be made, a linear to compound and augment the existing angular, whereby a whole new curvaceous twirling comes about that in all its essence and in fact is the female of the male.
Yes my dear reader, like all things in nature, the Creator of all made man with his woman in the fashion and the perfection of His grand creation, all things to relate to one another, all things sprouting from a single foundation, a most marvelous work of His hands.
That love scene then, creating the female from the male, here is where "inertia" comes in to the tune of several factors of movement. With the magnetic coordinate and the angular inertia existing all that is needed is an "linear" movement, an inertia in the linear upon the angular by which it - as we might say - is thrown off balance.
It is for the angular media to precess, or as I noted, - to become curvaceous, like unto a woman, to twirl and smoothly glide into the embrace of the male, the magnetic coordinate.
This is what is illustrated by figure S3, the multi stranded wave moving all about the media embracing it, yet not necessarily locking onto it, (no wedding ceremony as yet having taken place).
But with the media set in motion (movement of the planets and stars) a torque is placed upon the angular inertia whereby the precession is instigated, (the wedding vow having been pronounced, and consummated.)
It then is this precession, the twirling of the lady in the arms of her man - what brings her home. And as he brings her home so the media, that which is the very basis upon which her new and curvaceous design is made - comes along with her.
Accordingly, there now is what we came to call "gravity," the male bringing home its female, or better said - it's very own rib.
From A to B therefore in figure S3 is the degree precession and/or the amount of torque, that we came to call the amount of gravitational force.
Then as I noted in other places there is a fixed degree of torque, or g-force (32.174 at sea level) that is inbred with planet earth by its particular composition and movements, with all the additional g-force being born forth of the greater linear movement forged upon it.
And to it - as shown elsewhere - there is a limit, the linear inertia being able to outrun the factor of gravity, wherefore also it is possible to go further and further from any magnetic component.
And it has this ideal, that when the velocity in the linear is at the top end of the gravitational factor, the entity may proceed in an orbital fashion without being driven away or pulled back to its magnetic male.
I have used a number of examples in the proceedings towards gravity, There was the vehicle, a car to put on its way, and here the more realistic example of man and his lovely curvaceous female.
THIRD PART (1990)
What is Gravity?
The answer to this quest must be in a step-by-step procedure to show what is, and what is not, and the how and why. We shall begin by showing that G/force is not the same around the globe, nor proportional to the mass thereof.
When a tugboat pulls an ocean liner out to sea, what may be the strain upon the cable connecting the two? We would answer, the weight of the ocean liner together with the resistance thereto in the water against the power of the tugboat.
If then we ask what is the strain on a person standing on the equator, we must answer it in the same way as the power of the gravitational force against the resistance effected by the centrifugal impact.
May then the strain on the person be the same as his weight? The answer is no, for equally so the weight to move the ocean liner is compounded with the resistance of the water which it has to push aside.
The gravitational pull must not only apply sufficient strain to make the person come out at his spring weight (scale) but overcome the centrifugal impact as well, since it is pulling the person up away from the scale.
This looks quite different from what Newton envisioned as a universal law of gravitation that “Every body in the universe attracts every other body with a force directly proportional to both their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them.”
The law however that Newton formulated - as “a law of motion” describing the inward and outward moving forces, is quite correct. It states:
The centripetal (gravitational) and/or centrifugal force of a particle in uniform circular motion is proportional to the square of its speed and inversely proportional to the radius of its path”.
Let us assume a person with a spring weight of 165 lb located at point “A” (Figure 39-1) upon the axis of the earth where there is no centrifugal force upon him. What shall the G/force be on him? The answer is the 165 lb of his weight, since weight is a measure of G/force.
Next, at point “B” upon the equator, his weight remaining the same. what shall the G/force be? At this point the person is almost 4000 miles away from the axis of the earth, and traveling at a velocity in excess of a thousand miles per hour for which reason there is an centrifugal impact upon him to draw him away from the earth. How much therefore may this centrifugal impact be in terms of force?
The diameter at the equator of the earth = 7.927 miles, multiplied by 3.14 gives us the circumference at 24.891 miles. Miles into feet is to multiply by 5.280 to a total of 131.423.318 ft. Then dividing this in the 24-hour rotation comes to 5.475.972 ft per hour.
This divided by 60 minutes and 60 seconds comes to a velocity of 1,521 ft/sec at which the person is moving in what is called “a uniform circular motion”. This velocity then must be squared and divided by the radius of its path, the radius being one half of the earth’s diameter as 3963.5 miles times 5280 ft per mile = 20.927.280 ft.
165 lb x v/1521 = 250.965 x v/1521 = 381.717.765 : r/20.927.280 = 18.24 lb.
(v = velocity, r = radius, v x v = square of, G/ = gravity, C = centrifugal)
The actual G/force therefore on the person reading his scale or spring weight at 165 lb is in fact 183.24 lb (165 + 18.24), in which there is no mistake nor error.
Considering then how “weight” is said to be a measure of gravitational force, we must make a change in our conceptions to call it “net force”, for as we shall see, there is a great difference between mass, weight, and G/force.
Conclusively, the gravitational force around the earth is not everywhere the same. And we should pay attention as to how and why that is – to note that the difference is found in movement, in the movement of the earth.
Beholding the cause and nature towards gravity thus shows us that greater movement comes to a greater G/force. Though we never realized this in quite that respect, we knew of it with our jets and our shuttle.
How thus are we with our shuttle, our planes, and our automobiles so well versed in G/forces – very well knowing that these are compounded by “movements”- yet when it comes to G/force, as in gravity, we acclaim it to some factor of mass rather than movement? Rather ignorant I would say since G, stands for Gravity.
But let us continue to show the cause in gravity more evident. If for example that person of 165 lb were 200 miles above the earth, and traveling at 18.000 miles per hour, how would that compare?
His velocity in ft/sec would be 18.000 divided by 60/min : 60/sec x 5280 ft/ml = 26.400 ft/sec. His radius would be 3963.5 + 200 = 4163.5 miles x 5280 = 21.983.280 ft.
Accordingly, 165 x 26.400 x 26.400 = 114.998.400.000 : r/21.983.280 = 5231 lb.
This person has now gone from an 18.24 lb centrifugal force on him to a force (or impact) of more than two and one half tons, and yet he is not crushed by it since the gravitational force has likewise increased upon him. And how do we know this, or the fact that he may now feel himself weightless?
This is done by dividing his new weight into the figure of the acceleration of gravity, which at the earth’s surface being 32.14 ft/sec, comes to 162.75. That figure however is not equal to his weight of 165lb, wherefore he cannot be feeling himself weightless, but rather on his way back to earth.
But now for argument sake considering that he really was – as we say weightless, are then our figures in error? Yes, it is the acceleration of gravity at a level 200 miles above our earth.
And to discover what the actual acceleration of gravity is 200 miles above the earth, we simply divide his new weight, or force upon him by his spring weight, which comes to a figure of 31.7 ft/sec in
the acceleration of gravity. And here again there is no mistake or error
As we should be aware - the greater centrifugal impact upon the person is due to his greater velocity around the vector point of the earth, it being almost twelve times over. If then there were no force of equal proportion such as gravity to hold him in a uniform circular path – he would simply fly away into deep space.
Accordingly there are tremendous forces acting upon him from both directions, yet he does not feel either one of these, since the two opposing forces are equal. And also because the forces are directly upon every single individual atom, the inertia thereof, of which he is constructed.
You see how simple all this is! For we must indeed apply our mind to what we have just heard and seen, it being a beginning in the realm of the understanding of gravity. We must apprehend how mass, as a quantity of material, atoms and molecules, is not in any way, shape, or form, the same as, or equal (proportional) to weight as a measure of G/force.
For this reason alone the universal rule for gravitation where objects attract to one another proportional to their masses is far from the truth and from reality.
This fact is very easily proven in the mass of the moon verses that of the earth and the attraction between them, (later topic) but it should be equally obvious here in the mass of the person verses the G/force shown.
Mass is a volume of something, and to find it by the forces acting upon it is to divide the force by the rate of the acceleration thereof. And since no matter what force is used it always comes back to gravity in the acceleration thereof, the force of 165 lb divided by 32.14 ft/sec = 5.13, which in the English term, is called “slugs”.
Then compare how on the polar axis the mass was 5.13, with G/force at 165, while on the equator it was mass 5.13 with G/force at 183.24, and 200 miles up with greater movement the mass remained at 5.13, yet the G/force upon the same mass increased to 5231 lb.
If then the 5231-lb were divided by 31.7 (acceleration of G) he would have to have his weight (165 lb) as his mass, which would make him thirty two times as large as before. Obviously weight and mass are not proportional.
If thus we are able to add two and two together, notice how gravity in the resultant thereof, as also towards the cause thereof - is in movement and not in mass nor the quantity thereof.
The laws of Newton in respect to movement and the forces thereof are indeed quite excellent, and not a soul has, or will be able to contradict them.
But in his law of gravitation he could not possibly have been correct, for why should the good man be the death of us, nor was it for him to reveal foundations. And as to other theories propounded by still others these are too far from reality for us to punctuate upon.
We have as of yet to show just how gravity comes about, and to come to that we must learn more about G/force in general and its particulars as well as the law and terms relevant thereto. The current written law of gravity is:
The only correction here is for the word “acceleration,” which should read force, since the term “uniform” implies a constant, neither accelerating nor decelerating. The same applies to the law of “centrifugal,” which is identical to the first. Moreover the term “centripetal” is a misguided term, it should read gravity.
We might get a better understanding of this by illustration Figure 39-2. The object “A”, if it were free to travel its intended direction, we would not experience any centrifugal impact nor gravitational force upon it. When however the gravitational hold sets in - the object will be drawn in what might be called the gravitational direction, better known as orbit, or circular movement.
The instant this sets in, the inertia of the object to remain in place or move in a straight line, will resist that gravitational power. This resistance is what is called “centrifugal”, and as such we often refer to it as an impact rather than a force. The power on the other end (G/force) is conclusively a force since it pulls on it.
Figure 39-2 “B” indicates “radius”, not to be confused with circumference, but simply the distance from the center of force or object to the path of the orbiting object. At “C” the term “force” is not quite appropriate for either the centripetal or centrifugal direction, but it is in the forward movement of the vehicle.
The forward movement as we know is a force to be reckoned with, while the incline to the centrifugal is merely the inertial resistance to remain in a straight line, even as tires upon a road forcing it into the turn – is also a resistance.
Figures of speech however useful should not be construed as reality. At figure 39-3 “A”, the term is “G/force” rather than centripetal, while at “B” it is resistance or “reactance” rather than centripetal, for the rope is not a force, not anything that present power to draw, it merely holds.
INERTIA TO G/FORCE
G/force is a twofold factor, the fundamentals upon which it draws is “inertia”, which in other terms - is or becomes motion, or movement, which in turn is classified as force or resistance.
The two factors in the inertia then are. a). The angular movement of all parts (the atoms of nature), which in order for them to be drawn into a circular movement, there must be something in the way of a power, and something to latch onto that angular momentum. b).
Then comes the linear movement, anything traveling in a straight line for which a power is required to cause it to deviate from its straight line trajectory. And this one also beside power requires a means of latching on.
Gravity therefore lays hold on the angular inertia of all the parts of nature by a quantity of force that is equal to the value of 32.14 ft/sec/sec. A value that is correct for this earth at sea level, and changes as one recedes from the earth, nor does the same apply to any other sun or planet.
For the value of that force is determined by the magnetic potential of the earth in which mass plays a role, and the relative movement of the earth in its rotation as well as its precession, which in turn are applied unto it by the sun.
Consequently, gravity lays a hold on all linear inertia, since the linear is movement all the same and compounds the angular to a greater value of inertia. It is for that reason that in the computations the quantity of force is squared.
If per example the mass is double, the angular inertia will be double, and as long is there is no linear movement to the mass one requires only a power in the value of 32.14 ft/sec to obtain an equal resistance against it (computed x 1).
But when the angular is set into linear movement, the torque increases proportionally. The linear added to the angular thus becomes force x 4. It is therefore that the force of a moving object is squared by the velocity thereof.
This no doubt comes as something new, but then so does inertia itself as a factor by which gravitational attraction comes to be born. There are three main factors in all whereby gravity becomes real, first the inertia so mentioned, the second being the magnetic entity, with movement as the third factor.
And by taking a closer look at each of these we conclude with each of them being motion the like. Inertia may easily be seen as movement, but no less shall our magnetic entity be movement in its half wave figure of eight at the speed of light passing through and connecting upon all media.
Let us now ask what the G/force would be on a person at the surface of the earth - when for the example the earth were not rotating? The answer would be our weight upon the scale, and if we removed the 15 miles per second by which we move in orbit around the sun, the answer would again be our weight upon the scale. The amount of G/force may change but the net-force, our weight, would remain the same.
If however we removed all linear movement, that of the sun, and of our galaxy as well, to truly be at an idle in space – then our weight would come to zero, since simply said there would be no gravitational incline – the very cause to it having been removed.
As indeed “movement” is the cause to gravity, it is only one of three factors by which we ultimately keep our feet upon the ground. The scenario is quite simple; the atoms of which everything is constructed are in effect tiny gyro’s.
And what happens when a gyro with a torque upon its axis is driven from its equilibrium? It begins to spiral, to precess, which in effect becomes and/or is what I came to call the “inclination towards gravity."
This accounts for “movement” and “inertia” as two of the three factors, leaving us to define magnetic force as the last of these three. If then we look at the magnetic lines of force as long threaded bolts, we may visualize the gyro’s as nuts spiraling, or turning along these threaded rods, which is always into the direction of the vector, the center of the force.
It is now wise to present a graphical (Figure 39-4) presentation to enhance the foregoing. Assuming a gyro (atom) XY to simply rest in space with no movement to any direction, there will be no gravitational incline or force upon it, even though the angular moment (movement) of the gyro is at full potential.
The magnetic lines of force simply pass through and/or alongside of it. Consequently there is a due relation between these lines of movement and the gyro with its angular moment. They are as we might say married, but not interactive to bring forth birth in the form of a gravitational movement, all because there is no “linear movement”.
If then we proceed to the A/B scenario to bring linear movement unto the gyro, it for its own inertia will move into the direction noted “A”. But what does that mean to the intricate relation it has with the magnetic lines?
At the XY scenario the wife was at rest with her man, but now she is trying to get away from him, to which the man will respond with a draw upon her to keep her unto himself.
This draw may be seen as a friction by way of sliding, like a man talking to his wife to keep her unto him short of grasping her by the arm, or embracing her in which case she cannot get away.
This little draw by way of friction, if we wish to visualize it as such, is sufficient to bring the gyro out of its equilibrium, (or as said; place a torque upon it), which then brings forth that notable spiraling effect – that in turn comes to rest within the magnetic arms of force.
Thus it is the woman that turns herself into the arms of the man to be brought home by him, to his home, his center of force. She is the turning into him since she came out of him, while he is not only the power, but the home as well.
The man is first, and without him the woman is not, nor without the interactive relation between the two in movement shall there be a home for the one as well as for the other.
These words hold in a realm of understanding, and I utilized the example of man with his women to more intricately define the relation of gravity in the forthcoming thereof. It takes two to tangle, but there is always that third factor upon which the tangle is based.
There is for example; matter and motion, and no other physical or semi physical factor, and yet without the coordinate factor, the scheme of things, neither one could or would subsist. A planetary system is one such example.
By figure 39-4, the A/B scenario, there is always a linear movement in many ways from the galactic center down over the sun, the earth, up to each individual atom presented after its inertial being, the semblance of a gyro.
Accordingly, we are not likely to escape from an inclination of gravity, but we can overcome it by exceeding its limits, the factor of which is velocity, greater and greater velocity.
As then the base velocity of all magnetic phenomena proceeds at 300.000 km/sec, the downward movement of gravity is reduced by its angular moment within the lines of magnetic.
A show of moist where there is no moist
But we must gather more evidence to that interactive relation between the magnetic phenomena and substance. We seem to separate magnetism from the mass in which it resides, a most unlikely ideal since not only the tides, and the fact that all stars and planets are spheres, but every magnet as well provide ample evidence that the two go hand in hand.
And to grant us a bit of insight towards the nature of light, which is magnetism the like, it being a single octave of magnetic waves, we are going to take a look at the road - to that phenomena that on a warm day causes us to see moisture upon the road - when there is no moisture upon it.
What causes the deflection of the rays of light just inches above a roadbed? We know it is because the air just above the roadbed is warmer than the air further up from it, for which reason the light takes a turn. But why should something that moves at more than a trillion kilometers per hour take such a precise turn in the space of a single inch.
The only difference is that the air just above the roadbed is slightly thinner than the air further up, meaning, the atoms and/or molecules in the warmer area are spaced just a little further apart. This small difference thus causes the whole train of the light to deflect, or redirect itself instantly as may be illustrated by figure 39-5.
And how instant indeed that is considering the enormous velocity at which the light enters upon that expanded air, to take a turn at the mere entrance of it. There being no particle in nature to even flint for anything that minor whereby it should be deflected. Yet light-waves do, and how is that so?
The train of light starting at atom A is at 5 O’clock, from where at atoms B, C, and D, by the angle of its wavelength, it passes over 4 O clock, and 3 O’clock to 2 O clock, from where – if the next atom (E) were at the same distance it should come to pass at 1 O’clock.
Atom E however - because of the increase in temperature, has moved up being at a further distance.
If now a bullet, or an electron for that matter were traveling at more than a trillion kilometers per hour it would never see that fractional distance by which atom E has moved, but pass straight on through into direction X, clocking atom E at 12 O clock, instead of at 1 O’clock. (Direction X is also the direction the light would have gone if the spacing of the atoms had remained the same.
Light however is a magnetic phenomena and not a particle, nor is light able to travel on its own independent of a media. On the contrary, it is very much dependent upon the media for its mode of travel – unto which there is endless evidence.
This may not seem so to the elite in the sciences, but then if a thousand Einstein’s cannot begin to compare to the knowledge imparted within me, the elite shall not come any closer, nor would I allow them to come anywhere near the right of fundamentals. I at least have evidence galore for all of my word – they have none.
The obvious scenario here is that regardless of the spacing - the light does not deviate from its propulsion factor. It was to make contact upon the 1 O’clock mark of atom E, and accordingly it will do so.
This however, as seen by the illustration figure 39-5, results into a deflection or refraction of the direction of the light, illustrated by arrow direction Y.
So comes the realization as to how susceptible the lines and waves of the EM Spectrum are to the media, the light traveling through the media as were it on a track.
As then the lines of the powers of nature (magnetic) cannot subsist without the essence of the media, neither can the media subsist without the essence of magnetic in all of its movements, be they called lines or waves of.
As therefore we saw how these magnetic light waves are so tied to the media how simple for the media to turn into them by a gravitational descend.
A motion of 7000
A simple means to illustrate the procedure by which gravity comes about is with one of our four wheeled toys, the automobile, figure 39-6. It takes a key (as # 1) to start (as # 2) the engine.
Then it takes a regulator (stick shift) (as # 3) - to apply torque (as # 4) upon the drive shaft - to the wheels (as # 5), which then (as # 6) provides the motion to (as # 7) bring us home.
This should clarify that gravity is not understood by a single factor, but by a procedure to lead unto that factor that drives us to the center of a force, a force called magnetic.
must be well granulated within us, that we are not driven or held to the surface of a mass as such, nor such as to a center of things, but to a center of force – and that the very force is the one driving us to its center .
Magnetic (as we call it), the man of force, has all the attributes, it has the tentacles all going to the same center, it has the power to both hold and/or draw given the component factor thereto (see component factor), and it has movement with a velocity slightly greater than the speed of light.
The procedure therefore in the downward movement may be likened to a nut on a treated rod, with either the nut or the bolt turning.
It is also for this very reason that the acceleration of gravity is at a fixed rate, and not anywhere near the speed of light. Otherwise the man of force would draw the substance unto itself by a velocity near to the speed of light.
But like unto a nut ever increasing its rpm into a downward velocity, so it is able to reach great speeds, but equally limited in as to how much it shall be able to accelerate per unit of time.
And so it is that the acceleration of gravity comes to feet per second/per second, a measure not in stationary points but one of movement and into movement, as well as by movement. But no less in a final presentation in the procedure of gravity shall movement be at the head thereof.
Movement, be it orbital, rotational, dynamic, galactic or otherwise comes to effect a centrifugal impact upon the inertia of all substance, which in turn leads to a motion of 7000 (gravity designated as M7000).
And so it is that I called magnetic the man of force with gravity its lady, and it is of course in the union of the two that the spheres come to their design, and by which planets revolve around their star, and the stars in compliance with their galactic centers.
As for some logical thinking – how did we miss the fact that there is a unique limitation to the draw and/movement of gravity – to advance by a fixed ratio – in what that suggests?
My drift is simple – drawing mass to mass would advance velocity by an ever greater speed compounded only by the resistance in the media. Pulling or pushing upon a nut driven down a wormlike screw limits the linear factor by that of the angular – regardless of how much weight or pressure there may be on it.
Consequently, all objects will fall at the same rate.
More on gravity in terms of inertia on “Page 40”