CHAPTER 54 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
"We now regard lines of force merely as directions along which magnetic
force acts, but no longer consider them as endowed with physical
When we step in our car to drive to a nearby town, neither the car nor we ourselves can be considered to have passed upon it. And how then did we get there?
According to Faraday, we are not real, nor our cars, and the road merely a direction. Yet I seem to remember getting there, and with my car upon a road, all of which seemed very real to me, the only item that seems to me unreal - is Faraday.
Having written six pages on the in and outs of "Gravity", my definitions were written in a way for persons that had a fairly good knowledge of science or physics. What I wish to do here and now, is to make that intimate relation of force and substance or media as simple and as elementary as I can, so that - in my perspective - a novice as well may apprehend.
I will begin with an overall view, so bear with me as I state that; "there is but one fundamental force which goes under the term of "Magnetic", with the media simply known as mass, matter, or substance made up of atoms which in turn group together as molecules, that again in turn group together to all that our eyes behold.
You may call the wind a force, but it is secondary, not a fundamental force. You may pronounce the atom in its movement to be - or to have a force, but these come more under the heading of movement or inertia, and/or as a entity of the fundamental force it still traces itself back thereto.
The fact that the entity of magnetic has a indelible relation with matter is seen from simple magnets (Figure 1) And that these material parts are moved by that force of magnetic. We would however do better to say that these are moved by the "motion of magnetic" which as such becomes force.
It is as with the air; - when it is calm we do not call it a wind, but when it moves - it becomes a wind, and as wind it becomes a force.
Remember thus this axiom - that "movement" becomes force. This is important to plant into our mind to use proper terms at proper times, even though quite often we utilize figures of speech. If for example you have a single magnet in your hand - do you call its magnetic being a force, - or simply that it is magnetic?
If then you hold a nail to it, - it is seen as a force - since it moved things, which therefore is a terminology much the same as we do with the air in becoming a wind or a storm.
What therefore I am saying is that we need a set of rules, a pattern, a common terminology by which to communicate with each other, so that we may know just what it is we are talking about.
This is imperative in order for anyone of us physicist, student, or novice to come to a true and correct understanding of nature, and of gravity in -- "how it comes about" since the "how to" in gravity is not as simple as the wind, or like the realization of an atom with its speeding electrons in effect operating like a gyro.
So let's get to the heart of the matter after which we will enhance the same with other phenomena which will serve as evidence to the above introductory statement. And while to many I may be spending a lot of words on what may be deemed "most elementary", it is necessary if indeed one wishes to comprehend gravity and the nature thereof.
Figure 2 atom-gyro
By figure 2 we start out with the atom that for its internal movements is the likes of a gyro. And as such it is something that "stays in place". This internal movement as a whole is properly called "Angular movement". And besides "angular" there is a movement called "Linear". The first is motion in a circle, while linear is straight on.
It then is the "staying in place" on which we wish to emphasize. If we throw a stone some distance it goes by a straight trajectory because - motion or movement by its very being as such wishes to stay "in place" or "follow a track". The angular wants to stay "in place", by the linear upon it to maintain its forward movement.
It is not so difficult in our mind to realize how the atom becomes like an angular force or momentum, since that movement keeps coming back to the same spot going around and around, wherefore we come to speak of it as "staying in place".
But the same thing does not apply to "linear" movement in why that stone we threw some distance stayed on a straight trajectory.
Why, so we may ask, does it stay so rigid in its track that the only way to divert it from linear path is by an force to the contrary? Which is Newton's law of motion, for anything in linear movement to so continue lest acted upon otherwise.
The answer to this quest is -- that the linear bears upon the angular, - to say - that the stone was full of atoms, full of gyro's, full of angular momentum that wishes to remain in place. So we see how one bears upon the other.
If the stone were without angular momentum - it would not by law of nature pass necessarily in a straight line, nor would it have the power or force to break a window.
But then of course we know that without its atoms the stone would not exist in the first place. My emphasis therefore is - how one movement, or power of motion, becomes real in and by the movement, and/or power of another - when such are paired or acting relative to one another.
That sentiment is important to realize if we wish to comprehend the nature of Gravity in how it comes about.
STEP NUMBER TWO.
And so we go to step number two where we are going to adapt a new term for that atomic gyro in its angular apprehension for "staying in place", that term is "Inertia".
Inertia now (by the dictionary) can mean ignorance, or lack of skill, but more so it depicts the tendency of something to stay fixed, or resist change.
This ideal, of having the ability to remain fixed, denotes a power, or a potential of and towards power - or force as we might say. So it is that we come to call the atom singularly, or in any number of - as having inertia, - or for convenience being inertia.
Then let us behold a few examples of "inertia" how it affects us and the things around us. In reference to figure 3, you are in your pickup and there is no stop sign at the intersection while you are in a hurry making a left turn.
You now do not want to apply a force to the contrary upon yourself and your vehicle "too fast" from A, to B, or you will continue into direction C, your normal direction by the "compounded degree of inertia" that is upon you.
Since not only are all these atoms of your vehicle and of yourself in their angular potential keeping you in place, but your speed as "linear inertia" is added to it.
Since then the linear is compounded to the angular you cannot just add your speed to that of the angular potential which you would have when standing still. On the contrary, you must square the force, it becomes not double but four fold as powerful.
And so here we go, you are bending your body into the turn in order to stay upright, and the tires are squealing on the pavement attempting to counteract that inertia of yours, which now by means of vocabulary has become not just inertia but a "Force" of inertia.
This "Force of inertia" now must also have a name, for as long as we go straight-on we can call it speed, velocity, or simply our power of inertia. But the instant when we took the turn, changing direction of movement, the inertia resisting the same -- it became what is called a force by "Centrifugal".
You would say; "O it was the centrifugal force that is acting on me", and correct as this may be, it is only so by a figure of speech, -- realizing that this is no more than a vocabulary expressed for your inertia to stay in place or on track.
Therefore also "centrifugal in all reality is "not a force" but rather "an impact" or resistance if we so wish to term it. "Force" in its term is better related to something that is of power, something moving, or the ability to move, none of which applies to "centrifugal".
STEP NUMBER TWO AND ONE HALF.
We are not yet to step number three because we must relate a few more factors of the phenomena we just spoke of, all this because our main object is to come to "Gravity" in its "how so". If not so, we could leave off right here since all this is rather elementary in our current science.
When you were in your pickup taking the turn with all its due - were you effecting gravity? No, not hardly, you were both moving and resisted by a direction that is "not" in line with the movement and/or direction of gravity but at right angles thereto. Gravity by figure 3, is into the page, while you are moving left.
Yet when we start computing the amount of force and/or strain under which you were in the turn, we utilize the computation that is both properly and essentially used for gravity. This now is very important to keep in mind in order to later-on realize the how and why.
This of course is logical since the impact to centrifugal, is not for a direction. It is not an outward going force (as often depicted), but a staying in place, or, in direction of movement. And centrifugal as such is merely a single term for "force of inertia".
If therefore we say; "centrifugal force" it is no more than a figure of speech, the reality being "inertial force or potential".
And this is important to grasp wherefore I go at length in these things. And perhaps too much in here will appear complicated, even though I am attempting to be dead simple. For me all this appears child's-play, but I am told much too often that my play-full means exceeds the apprehension of most.
Let us get back to our gyro in figure 2 that remained perfectly upright, with no precession in its movement. This, however realistic, is never the case with anything around us, the gyro must be fixed in place with no linear movement upon it.
Since therefore in real nature no fundamental part is ever without linear movement upon it, there is always some degree of precession as illustrated by figure 4.
But "why" should it precess? When with our toy gyro's we give it a nudge into the linear, - it instantly shows us - "that seemingly off balance of its angular axis." The "why" is in the relative positioning of one another. While the linear impacting the happy go lucky angular, it is like a force acting upon it, (upon its movement that is), to the contrary.
But since the contrary is to "an angular" - that always returns to come back following a circle, - the "angular" in its re-directive to the one side, - the other begins to take on the movement as were it of both.
It gives in to the linear but also maintains its angular momentum (or inertia) the combination of which becomes a wobbling or better termed a "precession" of its angular momentum.
This "precession" is a "key" into what ultimately becomes gravitational force, or better said gravitational movement, since gravity as such is not a force in itself. Note therefore, - how it is "imperative" that a "linear" momentum be affixed to the angular in order for it to become a "key" in the nature of, or process towards gravitational movement.
Therefore if the earth did not spin around its axis, and did not move around the sun, and the whole solar system were idle in space -- there would be "no" gravity. Linear movement thus is absolutely essential for gravity to be had.
Just as without a key you cannot start the car to get it moving, so the precessional inclination of nature's media, cannot be called upon "nor locked upon" to get it moving. And do not our toy gyro's also indicate that "it is movement" by which it defies gravity, or better said by which gravity relates to the same?
Here then is a mouth-full going a step forward to say "precessional inclination", and to underline the words "nor locked upon". For sooner or later I must get us off that single atom, or single gyro, to begin to behold and realize the same in multiple factors. But it is as yet too soon for that. First we must establish yet another "key' into the "how to" of gravity.
Thus far we have established two key's, one is the precession so mentioned, with the second the linear impact or movement thereto. And these can be summed up in one by saying - the "torque" upon the (imaginary) axis of the gyro, or angular potential.
STEP NUMBER THREE.
Now we must define the power that draws us to our home, the one and only true fundamental force that has come to be known as "magnetic".
You may have heard of strong force, weak force, atom force, or John Henry force, or whatever suited the imagination of those not versed in the fundamentals of nature, but for a fact there is but one real fundamental force which has come to be known as magnetism.
Figure 5 Click for larger view
A magnetic entity now is a movement by a specific formation and/or coordinate of, which as such, intertwined with the media becomes a power of, or, as we are wont to say, a "force". This is foremost seen in all magnets and planets as well as stars. Figure 5, shows the earth with that specific coordinate we call magnetic.
It is an "angular" movement, one that fully completes a circle, (X.Y.). Only that circle in the embrace of the earth is twisted over to act as - and resembles a figure of eight. And as any eight - it has a single center at which all of its movement and/or force proceeds to and from.
Magnetic force now in all essence is a movement that proceeds at a velocity at or near 300.000 km per second. Light for example is a very part of that movement, a very derivative of magnetic, wherefore also it is listed in the magnetic spectrum, and it was by light that the velocity of it was measured.
That movement now called magnetic may be seen as lines of - that pass along the perimeter of atoms and of molecules, never at all invading the interior of the atom, wherefore also these so called lines are very susceptible to the atoms in their relation to them.
If you count the number of lines of magnetic within a steel bar to exist within a single inch, their number is as great as in our air and more.
As therefore the movement of magnetic is so closely related with all media, passing along the perimeters of all the atoms wherever they may be, we ought to realize their relation, each one being susceptible to the other. If an atom by its twisting movement locks itself upon the magnetic movement it will be taken along with it.
But now I must reveal this, that while the magnetic movement everywhere is always in two directions in as well as out, still - upon a body the primary direction of movement is always ingoing at the south while outgoing at the north, it being the overall movement as we detect it.
It is into one direction as you may recall from its basic circular illustrated. And so from this grand "angular" a new phenomena is born - it produces a "linear" - a straight on movement south to north.
And this my dear reader also produces multiplication and a host of other factors, for now secondary movement is born in the relative being of angular to linear and visa versa. It formerly going in a circle all by itself, - now is not only able to move things, but to lock itself "into" and "with" the media so as to move it, to displace it.
Displacement then is real to our minds with regular magnets, which by figure 6, I drew again for sake of illustration. There is of course no such thing in these magnetic bars as domains, molecules or atoms all aligning themselves to one or the other direction, just as we have learned that the earth also is no longer flat but a sphere.
The gyro's (atoms) in the bar have angular momentum and if directed anywhere they will continue to return upon their circle, how then are these as such in themselves to promote a linear by which secondary movement may be brought forth to physically move the bars?
We made these bars magnetic by subjected them to a figure eight of force, which was to instill upon them a figure eight of force, that in certain compositions may be locked so as to retain the induced figure eight of force.
The nail for example in figure 1, when brought near to the magnet is of a composition that will not only conduct that coordinate but lock itself onto it whereby then it is moved - always drawing towards the center thereof.
Yet that same nail in its structural composition is such that it is unable to retain that coordinate on its own, or sometimes only a small degree of it when the coordinate, the magnet is removed.
The composition of copper or wood, or plastic for example will easily conduct the magnetic coordinate, but not lay any hold onto it. The "hold" then, -- to provide us with some means to rationalize how in principle that proceeds within these bars is illustrated by figure 7.
Take a piece of cardboard paper and glue some posts onto it, then wrap a string around these posts as shown but do not tie a knot. As then you pull on the string at point X you will move the entire sheet since the string by its design or coordinate upon the sheet forms a bond therewith.
This as I said is so in principle, I showed a more advanced illustration on another page of this website.
My aim here is to show how movement or force in the fundamental sense relates itself with all the media in which we abide, so that we will not come to say; "Yes I understand magnetic force in space alright, and I understand inertia and all, but how does one grab a hold of the other to move it by a certain direction thereof, and/or by a certain degree of force?"
We are however not as yet familiar enough with magnetic force to know it for its true nature, and until we do so our realization into the "how to" of gravity will remain elusive.
I claimed only a single fundamental force to exist, and we must back this up with more of the evidence thereto. And so what in fact are we doing when we generate that electrical flow of motion?
Are we not using magnetic force in its lines thereof to pass in and through the copper conductors as wave-guides for a new derivative of magnetic to be born?
Indeed we are. We are taking these long (so called) stationary lines of magnetic flux, and twisting them in a frenzy of turns upon the copper conductors that serve as excellent wave-guides wherein these turns may be confined to our use. (the full explanation is found in my other pages).
If thus we were able to physically see these formations within the copper they would appear as illustrated by figure 9, nothing but figures of eights of magnetic force end to end turning and/or twisting as it appears to us, no different as when one takes a rubber band and twist it into a frenzy of turns.
Electricity therefore is nothing more and nothing less than a "magnetic force" as also it proves itself to be so with any regular magnet placed near it in the illustration.
Apply the "angular magnetic force" and the copper wire will vibrate back and forth, while under normal conditions, without the electricity residing in the copper, the power of that bar magnet would not budge that wire one way or the other.
And just as electricity is simply a derivative -- or angular version of the one most fundamental force, so the light into our eyes by which we see is magnetic as well, to say a derivative of magnetic motion. This should already be firmly established in our laws of science since we do list it as a segment of the magnetic spectrum.
As then by figure 10, we ask, how in principle - to produce such a wave in a length comparable to that of light, we simply go and find ourselves one of those long lines of the magnetic force of the earth, or anywhere in space, and we snip it, (Y) and also isolate it - so as to retrieve a tiny part of it.
Which then by the very movement of the fundamental force speeds off into a straight line, no longer following the figure of eight design (coordinate).
Figure 10 Click for larger view
But how did this little thing that we acquired (the wavelength of light as we call it) come to go by a straight line not following that figure of eight (its mother) and yet sped on forward by it?
It is because our snipping is a bit more than just cutting, or denting, or isolating, - we in effect impacted it with an "angular", or more correctly - we caused it to proceed from "angular's" the very foremost angular's of nature.
That wave therefore not only presents linear movement but foremost of all -- is an "angular" momentum. It moves by a fashion resembling a coiled spring, or like a drill-bit turning at high rpm, (Figure 10-wavelengths light).
No wonder therefore that this wavelet of light is so well able to travel by a straight trajectory, - it has inertia, an angular momentum to give it rigidity.
The stone which we threw some distance earlier has the angular momentum of its atoms for rigidity, while there are no atoms in that wave-length of the light nor in any line or wave of any length, and yet there is inertia to be had. For we should recall even in the atom, how its inertia is not the material as such, but the movement, its internal motion is the energy or power of all.
But then again we must not be deceived in thinking that this spinning line of magnetic force known as light is able to travel on its own. No quite the contrary, it remains by what gave it birth, it spirals around all the perimeters of the atoms in its linear path (as demonstrated by figure 10). Never once therefore will it enter into the interior of any atom, lest it be grounded to a halt.
And also the atoms in their configuration and in their relative spacing will track that fast moving and turning entity by a straight line, and/or divert it from its rectilinear path, and even deflect it to turn back into a direction from which it came.
And how do we know that this light, this derivative and part of magnetic force is so susceptible to these atoms, to the media that is? Without pictures to pronounce a thousand words, we know how they are reflected from a mirror or refracted in water, or in passing through a prism, or by any change in the density of the media.
Spacing the atoms further apart or closer together causes the trajectory of light, (when out of the normal) to redirect. In the normal, your automobile by figure 1, going straight on, had no beef with the centrifugal, but acted upon otherwise (turning) it did. The same goes for light.
And just how susceptible is that light to the atoms of the media? Consider that apparent water that on a summer day appears on the road, which is nothing more than a deflection of the light just inches from the roadbed. Because there the air is a bit warmer resulting into a greater spacing of the atoms.
And why would anything that is not bound to these atoms - as were they the very track upon which to move, - make such a precise turn considering how its linear momentum alone is to the tune of nearly 300.000 km each and every second of time? No particle of any mass could begin to perform such a feat.
And so my dear reader we could go on and on with micro waves, radio waves, and any other wave of the spectrum, each and every one of them being a part of or derivative of magnetic, of the one true fundamental force.
If we care to call heat or temperature a power or force, we may do so - but as by figure of speech, since in reality any movement on account thereof will trace itself back to the fundamental one, the force of magnetic.
But you were wondering when at long last I am going to get to the subject of gravity in its "how to" for so you are musing you waited long enough. Very well then we will have to leave the nomenclature of these and such many other things, for a time and place proper thereto, and fix our eyes upon Gravitational descend.
STEP NUMBER FOUR.
We are going to make it work this time, now that we have discussed the key as well as the power to gravitational movement to see how any atom, or object made of atoms, can be brought down to earth.
Assuming therefore we have understood the foregoing, we are going to take that atom (gyro) of figure 2, the one without linear component, and that of figure 4, the one with the torque, and put them out in space above our earth by figure 11.
Then we are going to show the semblance of two magnetic lines of motion by figure 12, and place the same two atom-gyro's there.
Figure 11 Click for larger view
As before we will first assume that there is no linear moment upon atom-gyro B out in space above our earth, nor is there any magnetic lines passing by or inhibited by that atom-gyro.
If then we set atom-gyro B in motion into direction X, it will take off and disappear from sight, even though the instant it was given a push to move towards point X, a torque was implemented upon it to precess in a directive that was towards earth.
This was so because there was nothing laying a hold on it, to somehow keep it in check, similar as when the lines of a magnetic bar cannot put a hold on-to wood, copper, or any such composition. And similar to a stone that we cast on which no string is attached to draw it around us.
Next, we are going to give the earth back its magnetic force in which case there is an intricate relation between those lines and atom-gyro B. We have as such tied strings to the atoms.
But those strings, or that line will not draw atom-gyro B to earth, since it as we might say is in the normal, there is no power-play between the two, just as our vehicle in figure 3, when proceeding straight-on does not experience the centrifugal react to its action in diverting from its linear path.
But in setting atom-gyro B in motion towards point X, then its inertia by a torque upon it becomes atom-gyro D. For then, and to put it that way, it awakens the magnetic lines, by essentially turning into it. Like a women beginning to caress and charm a man - and the man in turn embraces her not to let her go.
These magnetic lines of force now have a firm hold on it, and are not about to let go unless by a greater inertia due to an increase in velocity thereof it exceeds the maximum given hold of the magnetic power in and by the body of the sphere which it inhibits.
In this case it being our earth the value of which by measurements has come to be known as 32.14, or 32.174 lb, and is typical for this particular sphere and not necessarily of any other sphere.
Do not now misjudge this, claiming it as 32.14 ft/sec/sec, since that is so by "acceleration", "not" in resistance - nor in uniform circular motion. We touched upon that earlier how the constant or better said "base" of inertia set at sea level, is a specific value of inertia by which all mass must be rated. Or as I might have said, the "inborn' of inertia, a value relative to earth and its magnetic force.
Only when physically in downward movement comes gravity to 32.174 ft/sec/sec. (that figure only correct at sea level)
By page 28 there is a more complete explanation in the nature of the constant of the angular inertia at +-32ft sec verses that inertia which is of the linear component into a draw of gravity, and it shows the mathematics as clear evidence.
Then comes the "manner" in which this atom-gyro D, is pulled or driven to the earth, which in principle is illustrated by figure 12. If we were to visualize a slanted plane (Q and R) as shown by figure 12, that is inter-grooved with the two posts (lines of magnetic force), and we rotated it - the plane would be driven downwards as by threads, or as I sometimes liken it to a nut turning on a threaded bolt.
Atom-gyro D has torque, its imaginary axis as well as its whole is slanted, it is precessing, and as always "inward" to the turn, or to its vector - whereby it heads downward rather than upwards, the vector being in the center of the earth upon the center of its axis. (center of center)
Here the formula of 32 ft/sec/sec comes in, the speed and acceleration by which the angular component (the nut on the bolt) is driven downward, which is fixed in the magnetic potential together with the torque, wherefore no matter what weight an object has it will be driven down by the same speed and acceleration. This has been proven and needs no further definition.
The above is at least part of the scenario whereby mass comes down to earth, since additionally the force of magnetic has its own ideal in always motivating everything towards its center of being. Evidence to this may be seen by the nail moving to - and clinging to the bar magnet.
The sun-spots figure 8, also show how determined magnetic lines of force are to hold on to anything, even fire. And it is apparent from the sun that its magnetic entity is more than just a singular mode of magnetic, such as we usually illustrate.
Then there are the tides upon the earth, all that water in its many atom-gyro's locked within the magnetic lines of force momentarily moving it upwards when its lines of force between it and the moon are elongated, instigated by the moon and its mass putting a strain upon us. (See other relevant pages)
A figure of eight then is like a pair of scissors when its handles are closed in by elongation so will the cutting edges be closed in, consequently there must be two equal tides on opposite sides of the earth.
Gravity therefore as such does not lift any water, not even a single drop, but rather restrains the waters in their rise of the tide. Nor has the moon anything to do with our gravity however we wish to put it.
Since for the tides - in the moon -- it is no more than its weight in space happily attempting to break away from us, but securely held by the gravitational descend implemented upon all of its many atoms under the duress of a torque due to its orbital velocity.
The one force then is equally offset by the other, for as the inertia increases by more mass or greater speed, so does the quantity of torque, which in turn is reacted upon by the power of the magnetic lines of force inhibiting all media, inclusive empty space.
For even space in our habit to term it empty, as were there no media, that in itself is an elementary ideal in what space really is and/or in what it contains.
We now have seen the "how to" in gravity in principle by a single atom or gyro so to say. And while this may be of force, it is rarely if ever so simple anywhere upon or near a heavenly body. I mentioned a component factor with regular linear magnetic force in one of these pages, and for gravity in its media by the torque upon its inertia there is likewise a greater formation.
For when we drop a stone or a round ball to earth, it does not come to be turning downwards like a nut on a bolt. Therefore also I said, "in principle", and took us down to its most fundamental footing. The following page, under the heading of "Wave Coordinates" provides further information.
Now let us turn to "terminology." From our textbooks speaking of a weight on a string moved in a circle, it states; "The inward force on the weight causes the weight to move in a circle when it would tend, according to the principle of inertia, to travel in a straight line. In other words, the inward force produces an acceleration towards the center of a change in the speed."
What may be wrong here? Foremost it is the word "acceleration", since that applies only when the velocity of an object is increased. Anyone to state differently is blind, for even in the same textbook it reads:
"Uniformly accelerated motion is defined as motion in which an object changes ( gains or loses) speed by the same amount each successive unit of time. The acceleration of an object is defined as the rate of change in its speed or velocity."
(The word "loses" (for acceleration) does not of course belong in this sentence) And for another, the words; "the inward force of the weight causes the weight to move", also is in error.
Since it should read; "the inward force "ON" the weight causes the weight to move", rather than the "of".
The law of "once in motion stays in motion" applies to most heavenly bodies, since we have yet to see an engine on them to propel them. If then we say that the rope serves us by our strength to place a circular velocity on the weight, fine and dandy, but the rope is "not as such a force" but simply a bond.
Nor is it an "inward force", since again; "force" is defined as strength, vigor, or power, or the ability to perform work, or to displace. For either we are causing that weight to move by our bodily force, or there is an engine on it.
But to insert the word "acceleration" into it, is very wrong, unless of course we, or the engine is constantly increasing its velocity to go faster and faster --- And where will it end? For if we do not specify an end to such a statement there is no meat in it, no value.
And to say that; "speed by the "same" amount etc" is wrong in that the term acceleration defines all variations in speed, the same as well as greater or smaller.
Or change the word "Uniformly,' to say "Constant." The ignorance of the entire sentence is that these are speaking of "Uniform circular motion" in which there is no acceleration. The entire sentence lacks common sense.
Or to say: Since the direction of motion is constantly changing for a object that moves in a circular path - the object has an acceleration - named centripetal acceleration.
For that is dumb, seeing how it is no more than a constant change of direction, properly termed; "uniform circular motion". There is no acceleration, and the proper name for that inward force -- is "gravity", nor is it accelerating when it stays within its radius around its vector.
Or again, why does anything moving in the angular have to be a changing in direction of? It may just as well be said to keep a constant direction in the angular.
For to travel in a circle is not necessarily a changing direction. Yet we normally view anything other than a straight direction as having a change in its direction, since it is so dictated upon by the inertia that pervades all matter.
Therefore in and by all material substances anything other than a straight on is a change in direction, but when speaking of anything immaterial either one linear as well as angular can be termed unchanging in their direction of.
Since then there is a need to distinguish linear from angular, and since linear makes for a change in location, it is held as (the) direction of, in comparison to angular which always returns to its place of origin.
I know why men are so hip on that term of acceleration; since whenever they speak of gravity to set a figure thereof, the one thing to their mind is when things fall down.
This is the only thing they seem to have discovered of gravity - that objects accelerate when they fall, and by what rate of acceleration.
They have not surmised that this specific figure of acceleration in feet per second, is in fact the very "factor" of gravity, its inborn factor by which it draws upon all substance. Therefore is that term used in such erroneous ways.
Nor have we realized that with such ill conceived statements and wording we are losing track of ourselves in understanding the very fundamentals of nature, nor am I alone in this.
MATHEMATICS and TERMS
Our calculations then are off at times, for when not long ago I compared my calculations on page 28, with the online calculators on the web, they came up with different figures. So I dug into it to see where either I or they had made an error.
Example # 1. 165-lb x 1521-ft/sec2 : 20,929,920-ft/r = 18.24-lb (8.27kg)
By Example # 1, there is a person of 165 lb in weight on the earth at the equator, showing him to have an centrifugal impact upon him of 18.24 lb. as therefore his 165 lb is a measure of gravity on the scale, and he at the same time is pushed away from the earth by 18.24 lb, -- the factual force of gravity on him is 183.24 lb.
If then we say; "but is this 18.24 lb not already in his 165 lb of g/weight? The conclusion is no. If he were to weight less at the polar caps, then yes, but such is not the case.
He is pulled and pushed, and the force pulling on him is the full measure of 183.24 according to the standard US pound. The scale however will show him to have a g/force (weight) of 165 lb, because the scales are set to standards.
And even then, the scale would still not show that 18.24 lb, since Henry 9 (To call him so) is fixed between two forces, one driving him away, the other pulling him against the earth, 183.24 in one direction and 18.24 in the other direction, the net measure of 165 lb.
Weight therefore (as such) is not necessarily a true measure of gravity, only upon either pole (axis) of the earth are weight and g/force the same.
The science experts so hip on their terms as if they knew what they are doing, like weight or mass, etc, failing to note that most things in nature are two-fold.
"Weigh" for example in their contention is a "force" term with some fancy gingerbread added - in an effort to make themselves look wise, while they are anything but wise. Reason being: weight and weight as g/force varies.
There is a spring weight, as that on the scale, and a gravitational weight. as that weight in true terms of force. We ought therefore accept weight in its two-fold fore-coming, to call the 165 lb weight of Henry as "spring/weight," and Henry's true g/force as weight/g.
Weight however has a meaning of its own other than acclaiming it force, it is something of resting upon, or hanging on. And for that and other reasons weight like so many other terms is a lose term.
For it is again so that when Henry is the Astronaut, his weight in g/force has increased to over 5000 lb. And so we are juggling words, since that, as said, - can also be said as "his g/weight, it in all respects being his weight in gravity.
And it can be said as the g/force upon him, or his g/force. Back on earth however the term "weight" is more prominent, but never as fixed as current science has it. And to call everything by weight/s, and weight/g, is also bothersome, whereby the singular term (weight) becomes preferred.
So then I say; as I automatically did elsewhere, when being specific about a weight to a certain factor, add the letter s, or g to it, or specify "spring weight" when it as such is different and separate from being a measure of g/force that for its reference is not correct.
What this amounts to is, that science must first learn that "weight" is a lose term. Secondly, in a distinction with reference to the scale we ought to emphasize it as such namely; "spring/weight." (or balance weight)
At any other time the normal is used, for here again at often times the sentence itself bears out the reference. And if this does not suit the world of science who like to have everything fixed and rigid, let them adapt both s and g, to mar their vocabulary.
While we that are better in these things will continue with the normal human terms in English. We are not the ones to tie down or lock a scale so it can't be read - if you know what I mean.
No doubt I am in hot water with many for finding two different velocities of light as well as two types of inertia, but my lips speak what is factual. Man has made quite a mess of light for its nature as well as in its velocity since he is without understanding of it.
That of course is to say until I spoke of it, and given the chance they will assuredly crucify me for it, and if you doubt my word just wait a little and see.
If now we ask the (so called) experts how much force into the centrifugal this person of 165 lb is under, they come up with 0.566851 lb, just barely over half a pound. Wherefore Henry so they acclaim has a true weight of 165.5666851 lb, "if" these will admit to that much.
There may be something sneaky here, for we know that weight as g/force on the scale is all the same on earth. And since the earth is bulged at the equator, whereby one is further from center, one half of a pound is claimed less there verses the polar area.
But "conveniently" the centrifugal is given a half pound at the top of the bulge. So then everything equals does it not? ??
O what web we weave in order to deceive.
But how did they arrive at this? They did in fact come up with a figure nearly as I did, since mathematics is mathematics the same for all. But they took it and divided it by the acceleration of gravity, by 32.174 (ft/sec/sec). But why are they committing this error? And who is the wiser? I acclaimed; these have yet to come to reality and learn a law of gravity, since:
A computation into the centrifugal impact of resistance in fleeing from the earth does not involve the figure of gravitational acceleration.
Nor even when we compute the inward fleeing force is that figure used in the computation thereof -- since, -- and this seems new to everyone, -- it is inbred in the inertia of all substance relative to mother earth by and in her force of magnetic.
So then Henry is not falling towards earth, he is simply standing still on earth going along for the ride, and with all the inertia in his body at the relative speed at which he is traveling, the lady of earth is placing her inbred torque in the figure of 32.14 (or 32.174 sea level) upon him.
Whereby her man of magnetic draws on him towards his center of pull. Henry therefore is drawn by his 165 lb of inertia, and no more if he stood at the axis of the earth on either pole.
But placing him at the warmth of the equatorial sun, he is now 4000 miles removed from that axis to which his centrifugal impact will apply. And since there is equal action to the reaction or visa versa, that amount of resistance to the force of gravity upon him must be added.
Conclusively there is always more g/force on everything towards the equator verses that which resides on the poles. And we cannot nullify that amount of resistance in the one to one reaction of the g/force by throwing away that part of his inertia which is the very basis of the g/force to begin with.
If we swing an airplane's propeller blade and calculate its force in order to construct the hub strong enough, will we divide it first, or again by the 32.14 of gravity? Of course not, it would be an erroneous figure, and our propeller might fly to pieces. But why then do we do so with Henry who is basically and essentially flying around in the same manner for configuration?
And now for the record, that online calculator I beefed about is not necessarily wrong, it is just that they are providing the outcome in other than pounds, in lbf, a silly thing really. since in fact at my request for factual force, they are telling me; "It is so much by another formula"
But I don't remember asking for another formula, but rather for a straight forward answer, which to this day I have yet to receive from any scientist on just about anything and everything.
Not long ago I had someone who reading but a few sentences of my words immediately went forth to crucify me, for his master by whom he is led does not want my words to be heard by the sons of men.
I mentioned that there was about a ten percent difference in the gravitational pull from equator to pole. His raving was that it was only 0.5 lb.
I came to my figure simply by dividing the true g of Henry at 183.24, by the max of the centrifugal at 18.24, which amounts to 10.164 in percentage.
The one who labeled himself the "physic expert" bound on getting rid of me, never at all understood a word of my plain English making his reference to the oblation of the earth wherein there is about a half a pound less at the equator verses the poles since the radius is greater at the equator verses that of the poles.
So thus these admit that there is a difference to be accounted for from equator to pole!. Example # 8. 3000-lb x 26,400-ft/sec2 : 22,176,000-ft/r = 94,286-lb/cg. Then, 94,286-lb/cg : 31.34-ft/sec = 3008-lb, or: by 31.43-ft/sec = 3000-lb
And now by another example from page 28. A 3000 lb rocket up in space by its 18.000 mph velocity in uniform circular motion the gravitational pull together with the centrifugal inertia comes to better than 94.000 lb. And how will we know if this is correct, or if in fact that rocket is in uniform motion or perhaps on its way back or away from us?
Here is where we enter that number of 32.14 of gravity, for as we said, or I "intentionally" said; "centrifugal inertia", with the emphasis on the second term.
That rocket is constructed of atom-gyro's, the inertia of which relevant to mother earth, found a specific fundamental rate by which it might be known and/or calculated. Or to reword this; it became induced with that specific rate by and of its host.
Accordingly, we take that total draw or resistance and divide it by its fundamental of inertia. But since this fundamental varies somewhat from sea level to any greater distance from its vector, we must first know what that is so far up in space.
And not knowing it, when we divide it by that figure at sea level it seems the rocket is still moving away from us being 8 lb over.
If on the other hand it for all purposes appears weightless happily moving along, we simply divide the force upon it by its - earth-weight, properly said s/weight, which then gives us the correct figure of gravitational descend at 31.43, (lb). Or, ft/sec/sec., for those that wish to have their cake and eat it too.
If we check with the online calculator utilizing the above velocity, radius and weight, they came to 2930.5 lb, a figure that is less than its weight, spring or gravitational. For here again they divided the force by the formula of gravity, (by the wrong formula of gravity)
Are they therefore attempting to tell us that at the speed of 18.000 miles per hour that contraption makes due with less gravitational force than its own weight upon earth, while by undisputed law its centrifugal impact came to a fourfold measure for its velocity?
And yes these are using lbf instead of standard lb, but the same relates an erroneous conception towards the nature of gravity, that is the real error. What in the world even is lbf? Who was dumb enough to invent it?
If it means pounds of force, (lb-f) why do they not simply say so? Shall I answer it? If indeed it meant pounds in force all their calculations are in error, like a child teaching mathematics.
Moreover, the online calc invalidates our law of motion as it reads: "The gravitational acceleration of a mass in uniform circular motion is proportional to the square of its speed and inversely to the radius of its path".
Then statements like these, quote: "weight varies with the force of gravity - and mass does not. For example, an astronaut would be almost weightless in outer space, but his or her mass would be unchanged from that on Earth." A statement made out of ignorance.
Yet; they do know what ought to be correct, like when the figure of g force is multiplied four times over by velocity, how can anything be weightless as having no gravity? Have they never witnessed a car plowing into a brick wall how its velocity squares its force?
Is it not a fact that gravity must pull on all of the 3000 lb, "plus" with the linear inertia in the square thereof? I am not the one who invented the standards for weights and measures, nor did I invent these laws of motion. But I am utilizing them in the hope of furnishing more evidence to the nature of Gravity, or nature of nature.
Every action must equal reaction, -- so "man's" law, or "motion's" law? I tend to agree with it, while man's scientists disagree, nor even realize that they are so doing.
There is this error in the wording of the above law that these use the term "acceleration" instead of force on a mass that is "NOT" accelerating, that is "not" gaining speed. These are in fact contradicting themselves to use that term and proceed to say "uniform motion, circular or otherwise.
Let us do this once again with the same rocket resting upon the equator. We then come out with a centrifugal force of 334.7 lb., that of course must be added as the factual g/force on it.
Velocity is 8000 miles x 3.14 = 25120 miles : 24 hours = 1046.6 m/hr x 5280 =5526400 ft : 60 = 92106.6 p/m : 60 = 1535.1 ft/sec Radius is 4000 miles x 5280 = 21.120.000 ft/r
Example # 9. 3000 lb x 1535 ft/sq : 21120000 ft/r = 334.7 lb. 3000 lb/ G plus 334.7 lb/cenl = 334.7 lb/G actual G force on it.
I do not recall the law stating: --- "and its own gravity te-boot." as in; "The gravitational acceleration of a mass in uniform circular motion is proportional to the square of its speed and inversely to the radius of its path, and its inertial gravity multiplied or inversely on top of it."
To me these cars a going around the race-track combat a lot of centrifugal, and those fellows on motorcycles lay themselves nearly flat on the pavement in the turn. But then one might argue; "O but the radius, the radius you know, that makes all the difference."
But difference my foot. Our moon is further out than that rocket, and yet it exerts a tremendous force on us to elongate our magnetic lines to the tune of lifting a very great deal of water that is held down to earth by 32.14 lb in inertial force, the figure of which in total pounds would be very large indeed.
Figure 13 click for larger view
On this rocket, or our moon for example, if the centrifugal impact were less than the g/force it would come down, if it were more it would depart, this being the evidence that there is equal to equal action.
The calculation then that ascribes 2930.5 lb of force on that 3000 lb rocket in space, is no more than the vehicle traveling the same 24 hour speed of the earth, and still wrong at that.
Respectfully therefore I am saying; man is lacking in fundamental comprehension, or omits to provide a straight forward answer. And when is man going to use basic standard weight and measures the same for all?
Man has yet to realize his own spoken words, he babbles on but does not realize what in fact he is babbling about.
WEIGHT VERSES MASS and MASS VERSES MOTION
In the example of Henry at 165 lb spring weight but with 183.24 lb g/force, Henry is considered a mass by weight, and by man's reasoning (or standard) quote:
"Weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object near the surface of the Earth, the acceleration due to gravity is approximately constant; this means that an object's weight is roughly proportional to its mass. unquote.
This cannot be correct, since Henry's g/force (on the equator) is about 1.1106 times its weight.
Here again mass nor weight (in their terms to date) are not necessarily a factually measure of gravity. On the poles of the earth, mass and weight as g/force are the same since there is no centrifugal. At any other time g/force varies with weight and/or mass, as an inertial property.
Perhaps we should coin a law for g/force, like: "The gravitational force on earth is the spring/weight of an object added with its centrifugal impact."
With mass known as the quantity of the substance, and its weight as the pull of gravity, then weight and mass likewise are of course not always in equal proportions, since a mass in motion accumulates weight, which is to say; adds inertia, something we know very well, quote:
"In the physical sciences, mass and weight are different properties. Mass is an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force."
A mass of a 12 inch cube that weighs 50 lb on earth, (not counting its earth's centrifugal) has a gravitational force upon it of 50 lb. Then set forth in space at much higher velocity than what the same was under on earth, will increase its weight by the square of the velocity thereof. When so the quantity of the mass does not change, it remained at 12 inch cube, yet its weight in g/force accumulated.
Conclusively we can not say that two cubes or spheres of mass are held by a force to each other proportional to their substance. Even on earth all objects of mass at every different latitude have a different amount of g/force, even though their spring weight remained the same.
To acclaim that mass increases by velocity upon it, is not only of error, but a statement not of knowledge. There is after all - even in the sciences - a proper term for that known as inertia, while it is rather weight that increases by velocity.
So thus we are "bound" to say; "The attraction between the earth and its moon is not according to their masses, (as volume), but according to their inertial values. And I use the term "values" here since the term "mass" in this case would be erroneous.
Look at this, by man's law (or Newton) the larger the masses the greater the g/force, which decreases by altitude or radius, Yet here a 3000 lb rocket on earth comes to a g/force upon it in excess of 94,000 lb while it is at a greater radius.
Our own rockets, and our own calculations thus are making mince-cake of our (so called) theories of gravity, are they not? In my view they are not even theories, but sheer ignorance.
I at one time said: "Certainly therefore, the mass of the earth has no entry in the computation whereby the moon is held in orbit around the earth." And I was to be crucified for it, since it defied accepted laws and interpretation.
But what is my error, since the g/force by which the moon is held to earth is relevant to the earth's magnetic and consequential gravitational implications, or force if you will. Where then does that mass come in, the quantity of rock and sand that is?
The calculations do not describe mass, nor its quantity as such, but rather "Inertia", which in all essence is the factor of gravity as it has its specific value in relevance not only to the mass of the earth but its composition as well, in and by its magnetic potential. And what more need I say not to be crucified by man?
We could forget about all these tongue breaking terms, and accept something on a more logical nature, like weight for its true meaning, and "g/force" for the force that by science is termed weight. Or mass to use for its meaning of material volume, and not make a federal case out of it as if mass means inertia period, since the term inertia is for inertia. Does it not make sense to simplify vocabulary?
As I look upon man, and his way in educating his young, it is contemptuous. And when will he ever learn to use proper terminology, the simple words, rather than the stupid ones by which he thinks to gather glory to himself as were he wise?
This page now had its specific purpose, but for the full evidence into the nature and means of gravity one should study the whole. In one of these pages I provided mathematics, also proving the cause to gravity by movements rather than in mass.
Since again the calculations for mass one to the other, do not jibe with the indisputable calculations in and by movement.
Then for a better understanding still, in the pages from 58 on higher I came to reveal more of the secrets thereto which the Almighty Lord granted me at my request to Him, or I should rephrase this that it was He to even place the question into my mind.
Am I now in error or are they? Are my words so erroneous, or is man misappropriating his words? There is a whole world of men by the millions with more formula's and equipment than one can throw a stick at.
While I am alone, a lone predator against a whole world that has itself well established, and is not about to re-consider their works, much less accept that which comes of a man who never had any learning in our institutions.
I flunked Agriculture College, because I refused to learn, I was given an F, (failing) for my quick aptitude, which of course made me angry to the point that I refused to continue for an education by them.
And my high-school was more time at home at work on the farm than in school. And a man like that will take the complexities of physics and mathematics, and call us to be in error? Whom does he think he is, especially since he is boasting that his teaching will become the foundation of science to come?
Yes I am a menace, while the world is as sweet as honey. But this was done on purpose, I mean causing the world of men to believe the lie, and sink deep into the mire of their imagination.
But "why" was that so? It was because they elected to scorn Him who made all this beautiful creation, and who formed all these fundamentals so as to work in perfect harmony with one another.
They in fact became most irrational - so as to presume that all this integrate beauty just fell together by accident. And if that is not more stupid than stupidity itself, what can be worse? And yet I have seen worse, most pitiful indeed.
Accordingly I have no use for them, neither do I wish to educate these. But this is a certain fact, that the Almighty Creator awarded me with knowledge so as to put these to shame for their abominable atrocities.
For here again there is a difference in where ones education is from, if it be from man or from his Creator. And yes I will prophesy to you that my name will become a household word more than any man of science.
These many scientists and physicist which attempt to contradict me with double-talk were educated in themselves. While them that are taught of their Creator learn good knowledge.
Those educated in the imagination of men are the foolish to fall headlong upon their own demise. Those educated in truth and what is of reality not only are the wise, but of the right order.
It is not I labeling the fool for its factual being, but his or her own folly judges them. If they did not oppose the sound words of me or of others, they would not be looked upon as fools, wherefore thus they judge themselves. For here again a righteous man is never judged but of his Creator.
It is the Lord their Creator who closed their minds and darkened their eyes. The Lord did it because they said that God did not exist. The Lord God did not close my mind nor darkened my eyes, because I honor Him, and love Him.
But these many others scorned the very hand that feeds them, wherefore the Lord God determined to make fools of them. These many others labored hard attempting to prove God to lie, while they were the liars, therefore again their Creator determined to make them dwell in shame, and at last destroy them.
If then I am hated for my words, so let me be hated. And do they wish to kill me for my words - so much the better. In days past their forefathers murdered my brothers and sisters, burning them at the stake, and threw their ashes upon the waters, with the words: "Now let us see if they will return to come and own us."
This was a bad mistake on their part for in doing so they made a token, a sure proclamation that these would indeed come upon the waters, upon them that is, to own them.
And "why" am I writing this here and now? Because I am not about to present this beautiful knowledge and reasoning without admitting to you and to everyone where it is from, lest one should look at me as if it were in me, which to me, - to so praise me, is disgusting to say the least.
We may question just what it is, that motion and movement of magnetic. Or what definition motion all in itself holds. Or that which the scientists call "action at a distance", the very how and why in the nature thereof. Or that which in other pages I labeled as "inhibition", and more such things which in essence reach beyond the threshold of nature.
But like I once started to put such things on paper under the heading of "Spectacular" I quickly ceased to do so, the same not being in the keeping of man.
The Angel Uriel put it clearly saying; "Those which live on earth may only know what is for the earth, while those in heaven may only know that which is in heaven". But the reason I did not define "spectacular" was for the integrity within me.
It then -- so I will pronounce -- is sufficient for man to know that "motion is movement," and that "there is no energy but motion." And that for the interaction of all media, how for example the three atoms of H2O create and maintain a bond, consider it as inter-phasing of coordinates if you will, or conductive.
And for the atomic bond - you may as well keep man's current theory - except that he should rid it of these so called singular charges, and/or the term charge altogether, since that is childish.
As for me however, I will go no further, nor bring man to have a look beyond the threshold of this his nature. It is for the sons of light to behold light, and for those born in heaven to acquire what in all reality is beyond those born in the earth. Who then expects me to divulge what in wisdom I hold secret?
Sir Isaac Newton, while being correct in his two laws of motion was quite in error regarding his law of gravitation. As also of-course it should be, or must be, otherwise the poor man would be the death of all of us.
The knowledge of gravity as it factually is, -- consequently, and conclusively reveals the very foundations of the earth. And it better not be of any man to have discovered these or we are all dead.
Therefore O you men of the earth in no way at all, not in a thousand years nor in untold millenniums would you have found them out, even though the evidence stared you in the face.
And when we get right down to it, to behold how simple it really is to know gravity and by what it comes about, we now look at it as simple logic and common sense, as easy as a, b, c, and yet why then was it with man and all his computer chips, that he could not see the forest for its trees?
It was because, they can only be given to you. And to whom do you suppose the Creator of all would award such good and delicious knowledge? To you perhaps who scorn Him for its creation? Not likely! Or to a man who is indifferent yet admires the glory of men? The answer is again no!
Or shall it be to a good man whose birth nonetheless was by the will of man? Here it is again a no, for he would become puffed up in the immensity of the treasure awarded him, as were it in him.
It is by a simple, humble, tender one, not born of the will of man, but by the will of God. One created of Him before even the dinosaurs roamed the earth. One in whom he placed His desires.
One not to exalt himself for what is not of his cunning in the first place, wherefore also that one would give the glory to Him to whom it truly belongs.
The knowledge granted me is indeed awesome, as even I came to behold it, but the humility granted me is greater still, for I love Him who taught me with all my heart and soul.
Therefore am I pronouncing these words to you, and not hide them, lest for the grandeur of my understanding you would come to glorify me instead of my Father to whom it is due.
The world of science does not like the way I express myself? Too bad, because I equally don't like the way these scientists express themselves in ridiculing my Lord and my Father, as well as their illogic in fundamentals.