POSTINGS

Some of the dialog I posted on the forums for physics.

CHAPTER 57    Date 2007                 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES

1. It looks like the experts in their online calculations have yet to figure out how to compute gravity and/or centrifugal force.  Let us take a 3000 lb rocket at 200 miles up traveling 18.000 mph.    Example 1: 3000-lb x 26,400-ft/sec2 : 22,176,000-ft/r = 94,286-lb/cg

2. Then that same rocket at the equator.       Example 2: 3000-lb x 1521-ft/sec2 : 20,929,920-ft/r = 331.6 lb/cg.     The online calcs. specify 2930.4 lb for example 1, and 10.3 lb for example 2.

3. On the ground we specify G/force at 3000 + 331.6 to 3331.6 lb , and 200 miles up at 18.000 mph at 94,286 lb .  If then we simply lift that rocket straight up to 200 miles above earth to travel with the same speed as the earth’s rotation ( 1000 mph ) what would be its weight in G force?

4. In order to be correct we must determine what the figure of G is 4200 miles from earth’s center. Assuming the rocket is balanced in orbit, and assuming g at about 90% down from 32.14 to 31.43, the 94286 : 31.43 = 3000 lb. The new weight of the rocket 200 ft up therefore is 2933.7 lb .

5. Then: 2933.7 lb x 1521 ft/sq : 22176000 ft/r = 306 lb centrifugal force, this added to its basic weight, G/force comes to 3239.7 lb of G/force on the rocket with only 306 lb of centrifugal holding it up, which by law of equal action to reaction cannot possibly stay up there.

6. The scientists with their online calc's. are however telling us that it will stay up there by no more than 2930.4 lb of G/force, as g and c (for centrifugal) must be equal. But how can they possibly come up with a c and g of less than its own weight at a velocity 18 times faster than sitting still on earth and/or 200 miles up?

7. Why accelerate it to 18000 mph? Whatever happen to the square of the force in linear motion? Is 18000 mph so minute in force, while at a mere 60 mph a car into a brick wall will be smashed?

8. These fellows rewrote the law as follows:  "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 once again inversely to its inertial gravity."

9. For that is how they came to their erroneous figures.  The link to the calc is (on line) (calc. tool)  The above weight, speed, and radius are for example, actual velocity of space shuttle 17,532 mph

(2007)

1. On several occasions I was reprimanded how I was not allowed to make a statement, which in effect was an introductory statement in one of my WebPages,

2. Quote: "While it may seem acceptable to us that objects are attracted unto one another proportional to their masses, the evidence in both law and experiment are stacked against it."

3.  The reason for it was that I am to abide by whatever is or can be substantiated by viable scientific evidence.

4. Now in making an introductory statement one usually follows up with evidence as indeed was the case. The persons with the reprimand however merely glimpsed at the site, and never at all bothered to check into the evidence, he simply judged the whole invalid by no more than an introductory statement.

5. If then I am to reply to this sentiment; why the coy disguises, why not simply tell me, that you are not interested in anything new, nor anything that in any way might upset our applecart however shaky, or however much our apples may be oranges

6. My sentiment that mass as such does not enter into the calculation of gravity, may be contrary to Newton's law of gravity, but I provided all the required evidence, scientifically as well as experimentally and mathematically in such manner that “not I”, but “the same” showed itself indisputable and unassailable, since moreover I utilized mans own accepted laws of Isaac Newton by which to fasten it concretely.

7. One must however take the effort to at least read, and that with a mind to gather that which for all the centuries may have remained illusive.

8. If then one is so educated to have his mind blocked to all but what has been drilled into them, there is no hope. But if one has an open mind, that out of their heart they can say: He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. A. E. There is not only hope, but the opportunity of a lifetime of which to avail himself or herself.

9. If I start a new thread on the motion of the moon how there is no axis of rotation upon it, and I do so with scent evidence that by itself is more than sufficient to prove the case as one would say being scientifically viable, and experimentally correct, would I be reprimanded again?

10. I am accused of being too meek and much too generous, but too many reprimands will cause me to back out and go on the offense. I am saddled with an treasure which after 50 years, out of generosity, I am willing to share. But too much ridicule will cause me to become after my name.

11.  Nor am I about to list anything under speculation, since I deal only with facts, as all my words are evidence thereof.  I was educated by the Greatest of all teachers, whereby I have no need of speculation.

(2007)

1. Philip is correct, Michelson and Morley proved light riding dependent on the media, Therefore light from a star coming from behind the direction of Earth's movement travels with the velocity of the speed of light plus the velocity of the Earth, relevant to space as a fixed reference.
Its very simple light moving at c as it entered upon our solar system, became dependant on it and its movement wherefore Michelson and Morly read the two opposing velocities the same.

2. The experiment proved conclusively that; Relevant to space lights velocity can be greater as well as less to the constant of the velocity of light. Does not this make good sense?

3. In reply to Janus and Qfwfq: here is some reasoning in plain terms to consider.

4. We know that the light of stars refracted by our atmosphere places the star at a slightly different location from where it really is. This is for stars that appear close to the horizon, while those appearing directly above us at midnight for example their light passes in by the normal with no refraction.   If therefore this is true for all stars by any atmosphere why not so by the Sun?

5. The best time to view the light of a star grazing the Sun would be at midday when it would come to by the normal into our atmosphere, any other time of the day would make that star appear somewhat out of location by its angle into our own atmosphere - - to as we might say; - add to the dislocation.

6. Then for the aberration of the light, we must take in account the high temperature of the media surrounding the Sun in which refraction is minimized.  And the great distance, which for the smallest of arc’s causes to enlarge the appear ant relocation of the star.  Adding this together our own possible dislocation – why should we not behold pretty well most of the visible wavelengths?

7. When we consider the red sky in the evening here on Earth to view mostly the longer lengths, we must consider how we from our view point are in the middle and at the bottom of the refractive index.

8. And so I deem it fair to consider these and more such phenomena before in this case we scrap light’s refraction grazing the Sun as of no relevance.

9. The cause for the apparent location of a star verses that of its actual location is due to the refraction of its light as the same grazes the sun through its atmosphere. (Illustration)  The same is true for the Sun appearing above the horizon when in fact it is below the horizon.

10. To date no evidence has been furnished that light for its movement is in any way susceptible to gravitational forces. Gravity has shown to act upon all atomic substance, but no evidence to act upon wave formations. The theory of light not escaping from a so called black hole is speculation and cannot be construed as evidence, while the refraction of light as illustrated is abundantly evident.

11. As far as a delay in the reduction of the velocity of light grazing the sun, however difficult such is to measure, is due to the density of the plasma (atmosphere surrounding the sun) verses the density of space.  Opting “newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html” likewise shows relavistic errors

12. The irony of it is – Einstein’s prediction that light would bend in passing near the Sun, is hardly a prediction, but a known fact as it does so by any sphere or prism. One need not predict known common occurrences, but to replace the known factual refraction of light into an assumption of gravitational deflection is cheating, or at best misappropriation.

13. A quotation from the listed website Quote:  So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members [Eddington] was close to being declared a "conscientious objector".

(2007)

1. I have heard enough, the error and illogic of man is held as viable while truth and reality are considered strange. I therefore am quitting the forum. This however I am sure of; that current foundations of science will be replaced by a new foundation, one that inhibits truth with reality.

2. I will mention a new law of gravity which does not require reference, it being indisputable in itself. "The gravitational force upon a mass in uniform circular motion is; its weight times the value of g at the radius thereof."

Newton's error of gravity    (November 6 2010 )  (On; About.com)

1. Newton 's law of gravitation is in error. The evidence thereof is right under our feet. When you take a person 165 lb in weight upon the scale and place him at the equator, he is 4000 miles removed from the axis of the earth affecting a force into the centrifugal upon him to the tune of 18.24 lb (165-lb x 1521-ft/sec2 : 20,929,920-ft/r = 18.24-lb)

2. The sum of the gravitational force on him therefore must be 165 plus 18.24 to a total of 183.24 lb . If not he would not come to weigh out at 165 lb . Placing him at either point of the axis of the earth, the g/force on him would be that which the scale shows, since there is no centrifugal impact upon him there.  And placing him in space 200 miles above the earth, at a velocity of 18.000 mph , the centrifugal upon him by the universally accepted law of motion comes to more than 5000 lb , which is equally offset by the g/force. (165-lb x 26400-ft/sec2 : 22,176,000-ft/r = 5,186-lb)  Obviously the facts clearly show how gravitational force is directly affected by and augmented to by the centrifugal implementation upon any and all substance. As then centrifugal is the effect of inertia in the measure thereof, angular as well as linear, and inertia is the product of movement, Gravity in the cause to it is by and in movement.

3. The correct law of gravitation therefore is that g/force upon a mass in uniform circular motion is; its (earth) weight times the value of g at the radius thereof."  The value of g, at some 200 miles above the earth then comes to a factor of 31.43 as the calc's show it: x 31.43 = 5186 lb/g  (gravity - force of)

4. Revealing one of the secrets to gravity is how the 32.174 (in lb) at sea level is the "FACTOR" of gravity of this our earth, and not necessarily of any other star or planet. Therefore also when in free fall the acceleration is by that factor.  From 200 miles up one would begin to fall at 31.43 ft/p/sec/p/sec increasing to 32.174 at sea level.  This factor of gravity is however properly a factor of inertia, wherefore also when taking a turn in the horizontal, not affecting gravity, the same computation is used.

5. In order to free oneself in the force of gravity he needs to outrun his own inertia in the factor of g/ at the altitude in which it applies. If the person at 200 miles up increases his velocity so that his centrifugal inertia comes to the sum of 5250 lb , divided by the factor at that altitude at 31.43 would show him a weight of 167 lb , which is 2 lb over his true weight, wherefore he could not be considered what we call weightless, either he must slow down, or take on a bit higher altitude.

6. Gravitational force thus is directly affected to and proportional to the movement of any and all bodies in the sum of their inertia. And since there are two types of inertia, angular as well as linear, it is to the sum of both, with this understanding. That the angular, is the sum of all his atoms in their movement acting as gyro's, which for this earth is found to be a FACTOR to the tune of 32.174 (sea level). While for the linear there is essentially no limit, as there is provisionally no limit to velocity.

7. To escape from mother earth is in effect to built up sufficient inertia to outrun the earth's  factor of gravitational inertia, which is in and by the ANGULAR inertia of all substance, established unto it by mother earth in its forces, its nomenclature, and its movements.

8. This is but step one, a small step into comprehending the nature and cause of gravity, if then any one is interested to learn the whole procedure how we are drawn to the earth and by what, to learn the truth of this science, contact me.

Light's Velocity, (My toy-box.)   Date: Nov-11 2010

1. Every thing in nature, common logic, experiment, as well as mathematics show that there are two velocities of light, that there is a velocity of constant, which for lack of factual reading we have mathematically set at 300.000 km/sec. The second velocity of light is that velocity at which light travels in distance per unit of time.

2. And to name this velocity, it will be called the relative velocity of light since it is relative to distance in time.  This simple fact however seems to be unknown to the world of physics, since these are still calling the speed of light in space as the constant of it, while never at all is it possible to factually measure the true constant of the speed of light, which can only be obtained mathematically from the various relative velocities.

3. Per example, in order to find the RELATIVE velocity of light in space we need to know both the length of the wave as well as its amplitude. Assuming a wave-length of 7000 angstroms, to have a full width diameter of 1.5415 angstroms, we multiply that by 3.14 to obtain the circumference to be 4.84 angstroms.  This added to the length of 7000 produces a wavelet that for its angular format, (or wave formation) must travel 7004.84 angstroms in order to travel the full nominal 7000 angstroms length in distance and time.

4. Since then all light always travels through all media at that one single constant of 300.000 km/sec, its relative velocity (distance in time) is reduced according to its angular moment.  when therefore we divide the constant of 300.000 by this full length of 7004.84, (the factual length) we arrive at a number of wavelets to the tune of 42,827.5 (utilizing meter lengths for angstroms). This therefore multiplied by the nominal length of 7000 brings us to a relative velocity of light at 299.972 km/sec.

5. As then the light enters upon our atmosphere, which is more dense than space, (the atoms being packed more closely together) the wavelet in its crest to crest measure is reduced (blue shifted) or compressed as it might be said; since for the closer spacing of the atoms, it literally begins to travel a shorter distance in time, just as a coiled spring when compressed, the moment of the velocity along its coils must travel the factual length of 7004.84 at a greater angular moment - resulting into a nominal length that is less than the original 7000.

6. As therefore the index of air is 1.0003, the computation shows 42,814.6556 wavelets that then times the 7000 produces a relative velocity of light at 299.702 km/sec.  The difference in the factual length of the wave by the angular component in order to pass the full 7000 angstroms in length in space was 7004.84, while in our atmosphere this came to 7006.94, a difference of 2.1 angstroms.

7. Now there are three options: No-1; Did the wave increase in diameter creating a larger circumference by which the wavelet due to the 2.1 angstroms came short of completing the full 7000 nominal length as it did when it was at 7004.84? Or:

8.  No-2; Did it maintain its diameter, and consequent circumference, yet for its compression (blue shift) in the denser media it was nonetheless forced to take on a greater angular moment - (relevant to the 2.1 angstroms) - that for its crest to crest measure obviously must also come to a nominal length less than 7000? Or:

9. N0-3: Does the light act by a combination of both the above?

10. The answer in my judgment is no-3, that it does both relevant to the composition of the media. The foremost factor in understanding the nature of light, is to first of all accept the multitude of evidence that light rides DEPENDENT on the media, and that it is altered in length as well as amplitude by the media in the relevant density thereof. One example is on a warm day that apparent water appearing on the road, the light taking a slight turn because the atoms along which it is to pass - serving as a track for its forward momentum - are spaced slightly further apart, (a red shift as it is also called).

11. The second thing we must get away from is, that light is NEVER at all transverse.  A transverse wave can only exist when it is tied off on both ends, and it is prohibited by Newton's law of motion, that for every up movement there must be an equal force to push it down again, and a stop and go scenario is no way to attain to the speed of light.  Sound indeed travels by a stop and go movement, a lateral stop and go, the vibration between atoms, but its velocity likewise is greatly reduced, to less than 1/300.000 that of light.

12. Thirdly, this leaves but one alternative, that light is a coordinate (wave-form) that travels as an independent agent that for its movement in velocity rides fully dependent over and upon all media, at all times passing along the perimeter of the atoms by which the constancy of its speed is at all times held and maintained at that single constant currently at 300.000 km/sec.  And that for the density of the media in the angular moment of the wave, or coordinate, a relevant velocity of light is established promoting its velocity for distance in units of time.

13. Like unto a high speed drill-bit being driven forth by the angular momentum of all atoms, it passes all atoms along their perimeters when such atoms do not serve to arrest the same, such as those atoms will that serve for the green color in a leaf, arresting all but the lengths corresponding to its green color which it re-creates rather than pass on.

14. The reason that the air, which is just as opaque as anything else, appears transparent to us, is because the light finds no terminal in the atoms of the air, or glass or water,  yet when the water is turned into steam there is a terminal wherefore we are able to observe it, as we observe everything else where the light is terminated, and newly specific lengths are reiterated to delight us with the color in everything.

15. I now have written many pages on the subject of light in every phase thereof, and this short version shall hardly do it justice, yet it should give us a step in the right direction, to at least make us think, and question our old foolish notions that our scientists for their ignorance in fundamentals have dreamed up.

16. I am not one to promote theories, He who taught me, the Almighty Lord, taught me rightly,  but I wonder if man is sufficiently competent to apprehend the beauty of the knowledge shown to him.  For I suspect - man will look, and not having heard anything of the likes before, and not being able to gainsay it, they will muse saying; "I can't tell if he be right, seeing such has never been heard before."

I remain: Leonard

Light's Refraction & Velocity    (November 13 2010)

1. Common theory has it that light - when it enters into a denser media - refracts (bends) by the different velocities at which it travels through said media's. This is absolutely incorrect, and a simple matter to prove differently. Light, for its velocity of constant - is in fact that - "a constant." an unwavering velocity to the tune of 300.000 km/sec through any and all media's no matter how dense those media's may be.

2. If per example, utilizing common sense, you take a copper conductor and lay it out in a straight line from Los Angeles to New York, having a full length of 3000 miles , and energize it, the current will pass that distance in let us for the example say one minute. If then we take that conductor and place windings in it so that its full length will reach only half way across the country, the flow of current would reach only half the distance from Los Angeles to New York in that one minute.

3. Therefore just because we compressed the line (the copper conductor), the speed at which the current passed through it did not slow down, it simply took more time in distance, that is to say, it passed the real distance of 3000 miles in the nominal distance that stretched only 1500 miles . Consequently if we continued the line with its windings all the way to New York, the current now taking two minutes to reach across, are we going to say that electricity travels slower when its lines are compressed?

4. The same is true for light since it likewise travels upon a track, and if anyone wishes to contest that notion let him explain how the light bends just inches from a hot roadbed on a hot summer day. Or, how a train comes to take a turn when its tracks are altered from a straight line.  No I am not one to promote theories, but rather to simply specify facts, every day common sense facts.

5. When we look at the rainbow of colors - what is the degree of separation, the dispersion of these wave-lengths from its longest to its shortest? Have you ever wondered in what degree that is? With simply a pencil and a piece of paper you can determine just how must that should be, and in fact will be.  Lay out a scale of 7000/a  and of 4000/a in any scale that you wish and measure the corresponding dispersion of the two, and you will know how much the red (7000) should vary from the blue (4000), and that in fact it agrees with the factual dispersion of the two.

6. By illustration herewith; (Figure 49-3) is a greatly enlarged beam of light entering upon a surface plane by some angle out of the normal.  The line from point P to point Z is the half wave (angular) of the red wavelet, and from point X to point Z is the blue wavelet. The red wavelet then being 7000/a in length, the blue at 4000/a is only about 60% as long wherefore the angle at which it arrives at the surface plane is greater to that of the red wavelet.

7. When therefore the blue strikes the surface and is compressed it bends according to its own angle of incidence (its waveform incidence), and as the red wavelet does precisely the same, the blue is seen to take a shorter turn to the red simply because the incidence at which it strikes the surface is shorter, more acute, a greater angle.

8. The speed at which the light travels may be shown in the illustration, its velocity of constant in that of the red wavelet is from point P, to point Z, for that is the wave and how and in what way it travels. Yet when we measure the distance from point P, to the surface (plane A), it is less for the angular moment of the wave by which we come to measure its velocity relative to distance in time. The same then is true for the blue wave, but since its angular moment is greater to that of the red, it by consequence must travel a greater distance around the circumference, which in relevance to the red will have a lower relative velocity.

9. The shorter waves therefore, even while the velocity of constant is the same for all waves, - will always travel at a slower "relative" velocity to that of the longer waves. And that means through all media, for like our electricity by a straight line or by windings from Los Angeles to New York , there is no change in its true velocity of constant, yet relative to distance in time by the compression in its windings it appeared to take twice as long  to cross the country.

10. There is also a mathematical way to prove that refraction is not by the different speeds (relative) that light may be found to travel through any media, and I will post that which I wrote some time ago, under the heading of: "Light's Mathematics."

11. It is imperative that we come to realize how light travels by natural laws, that it is not some impossible transverse phenomena that must be tied off on both end violating all laws of physics.  But that it - being an electro-magnetic coordinate (wave) on the move - it like all magnetic phenomena - is duly related and subject to all media, that it is set forth (moved by) the angular movement of all atoms that propel it linearly along its perimeters.

12. I then said; "moved by" rather than accelerated, since there is never any acceleration in the movement of light or any electro-magnetic wave, its velocity being at all times instant.  This no doubt may require more definition at some other time and place.

Leonard

Light's Mathematics       (November 13 2010)

1. By illustration, "Figure PR 1" to mathematically prove how light does not refract nor disperse according to varied velocities, if the dispersion of the light were by velocity, the light should pass through the prism as shown by "B". It will refract but not disperse the different lengths, no rainbow to be seen.  And why may that be so?  It is because the index of retardation in the velocity is all the same for every different length.

2. And to prove the same we may do so mathematically. A 7000a wave given an angular moment of 9a comes to 7009a which by the constant of lights velocity comes to a relative velocity of 299.614 km/sec. Then to input the index of retardation for glass at 1.5 slows the relative velocity down to 199.743 km/sec.  The reduction thus is 99.871 km/sec, which divided by its original velocity comes to 3% for the 7000a wavelength.

3. When therefore we do the same thing for the shorter 4000a wavelength, as the figures show, it also comes to the same 3% in reduction.  What difference therefore is there in the varied velocities whereby the individual waves should disperse from one another?

4. There is none, since the index being the same for both likewise their retardation is the same.  And though we may not as yet be convinced this ought to be conclusive that lights dispersion is "not" by velocity.

5. Let us consider that example of the rows of men walking obliquely into a bed of sand.  If the men walked with a normal pace they would bunch up on the first contact and so turn. If then the same men walked very briskly they would again bunch up in the same way taking a turn into the same direction.  But what is the difference between the two, for in the latter the ones with first contact, slowed down by the same degree as the former.  While the ones on the far end for their greater speed also came more rapidly to reach the sand as compared to the first.

6. Consequently both of them will, as they must come to an equal turn in the one same retardation. But this is not so when we correlate this one and the same retardation to the separate wavelengths for their different lengths, (Illustration PR-1, "A").  It is not as such in the length of each wave (4000 to 7000a) nor in their angular moment, but in the "incidence" that the length together with its angular moment present.

7. The greater length presents a lesser angle of incidence compared to the shorter length.  When these therefore encounter the bed of sand or in this case the prism there is a distinct difference between the face of the prism verses the angle of incidence of each separate wave.

8. The turn therefore will be directly proportional to that incidence, the wave-incidence. And to verify that this is correct, it is a simple matter to on paper scale the angle of a 4000 mm line with one of 7000 mm , by which to find the degree of dispersion between the two.

9. And when doing so we will find something on the order of about 14 degree separation by which red to blue must and will disperse.  If now we find a 25 degree, or a 5 degree separation between those of 7000a to 4000 a , that then would not correspond to their wavelengths.  This therefore is very simple to verify as I did and found it to be correct, even as the same makes perfect sense.

10. In order to familiarize ourselves with how a wavelet of light appears, (figure PR3)  if we take eleven atoms spaced apart by roughly 90a (something perhaps on the order of "so called" empty space). That whole length at 1000/a is but a quarter of the length of a blue wave known for 4000/a. Accordingly, the line of light starting out on the left at the bottom can only graduate up by one/fourth to the diameter of the atoms.

11. It takes that many atoms and more four times over to "power" and "complete" a single wavelet, one of the shortest to our beholding.  If then we will put on our thinking cap, to come to some reality, how can such a single entity be produced or upheld by mere (so called) electrons?

12. It takes the power, the energy, the momentum, the speed, the resources of all these many atoms in their whole to by their angular inertia, or moment if you will, to bring that coordinate of light to its fantastic velocity as well as to its yet greater fantastic angular momentum.

Leonard

TIDES, the cause to the waters rise.

1. The cause to the waters rise, known as the "Tides" has for mankind remained a secret even to this day.  His main theory is that they occur contrary to common sense, which by consequence interprets into this - that man has been without common sense to realize the simplicity to the true cause of the tides.

2. It again has been said - that it is by gravity, yet in looking around it always appears that gravity works downwards, and never upwards, how then does the water rise in direct violation to that undeniable fact of nature?  But then we argue; "O but it's the moon's gravity pulling on us."

3. Anyone however - that even remotely entertains that idea never witnessed a tug of war - how the stronger team always wins.  The very idea of the moon with its gravitational force at only one/sixth that to of the earth winning out against the gravitational downwards force of the earth - six times over - certainly lacks common sense.

4. Yet how then do the waters rise when for gravity the rise of the waters upon the earth are "restrained" rather than lifted? It is very simple - by an example that anyone can do for himself. Take a flexible hoola-hoop and put a rather heavy ball on one end, to simulate the moon, and holding it by the other end, swing it around yourself.  You will notice how the circular form of the ring becomes elongated by the strain that your ball in its circular movement places upon it.  That my dear friends is how the tides occur, and in no other way.

5. But we must do this once again with the real earth and the real moon, for which we require an illustration herewith attached called "Tide 1."  As you should know, or must realize before hand - is, that the magnetic force of the earth, as the male of the force is duly married with its lady of force named gravity.

6. These are a team, the lady turns into the arms of her man, after which the male draws her along with all that in which she is inhibited down to its center of being.  It is therefore that all things are drawn directly to the very center of center of the earth, the force of magnetic operating along a figure of eight, its very design being a figure of eight, and not, and I repeat, not two circles.

7. So let us cause a tide to occur by the illustration herewith, "Tides 1".  The moon is off to one side of the earth, and held in its orbit around mother earth by the combined efforts of the male and female of force, the magnetic lines of movement in conjunction with lady gravity.

8. If then by presumption that moon were standing still in space, the magnetic lines having no strain upon them would become as much circular as the same may be imposed upon them, noted in the illustration the lines entering and exiting the surface of the earth at points A.

9. But like unto our ball upon our hoola hoop, when that moon is set in motion, it wants to depart from us in preferably a straight line, as the laws of motion will dictate. Only it can not depart by virtue of the forces of the male and female of the earth.

10. That movement therefore of that whole mass of the moon attempting to move into direction X,  places a strain upon those magnetic lines of force together with lady gravity holding on to it.  The result of that action thus comes to elongate these lines, as per illustration these are now entering and exiting the surface of the earth at points B.

11. This is done on a continual basis, wherever the moon happens to be there the lines become elongated, and with the moon passing them they revert back to their more circular fashion.  And here is where the rise of the waters come in.  Formerly the waters rested between points A, but with the elongation the waters are driven up to rest into a smaller area, to rest between points B.

12. The event is just the same as when you take a sheet, and placing a liquid in the middle, when you raise the ends of the sheet, the liquid is driven to a smaller area.

13. And why are there two equal tides upon the earth on direct opposite sides?  Because magnetic force is and operates in a design that resembles a figure of eight.  When therefore the one end under the moon is elongated, the very same thing occurs on the direct opposite end. Just we when we close the handles of a pair of scissors, the cutting edges also close, so there are always two equal tides on both sides of the earth.

14. One can confirm this to himself by taking a magnet with steel filings around it, and taking a second magnet for the moon, to rapidly pull it away from one end of that first magnet.  Even without a high speed camera you will be able to notice how the filings move not only near that moon magnet, but equally so on the far side.

15. And for an second experiment to prove the elongation of the field lines of the earth, set up a sensitively magnetically tuned vertical rod, that points directly to earth's center. When therefore the moon comes looking in at us - the rod will be slightly moved.  I have no means to make that experiment, but I guarantee its outcome.

Yours Leonard

Electricity and reality

1. That electricity is a flow of electrons certainly has to be one of the most preposterous lies ever pronounced.  Water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen, if then electricity is applied to it why does not the water instantly turn into air?  The oxygen atom is said to contain 8 electrons, if therefore as much as a single electron is taken from it to serve our lie in the nature of electricity, it becomes Nitrogen, that which the air is made of in about 80%.

2. And so there are many factual examples, to show our theory in the nature of electricity lacking all common sense and logic, so much so that I deem it an outrageous lie of the scientists that formulated it, and brainwashed the population accordingly.

3. Don't we ever get down to basics to consider how it is that electricity is generated, and by what? We construct a magnetic field, and within it we cause copper conductors to rotate to do what?  To have ourselves an atomic bomb? Iran would be tickled pink if electricity were indeed a flow of electrons, to rob the elements of their components so that it might instantly disintegrate.

4. Israel may be glad that our scientists are all wet behind the ears, for indeed to split the atom, robbing it of its required components is the very cause and nature towards an atomic disruption and/or explosion.

5. We utilize magnetic force, the flux lines of it, in order to obtain a derivative of that very same magnetic flux. The field force of magnetic is a linear format, just as a roadbed is a linear format. When therefore we pass conductors through it by an angular format the resultant is a derivative of it, an angular magnetic force.

6. For just like wheels upon a roadbed when forced to turn it brings movement to the vehicle, so the ever twisting and rotating magnetic force now contained upon and inhibited within the copper conductors is a movement of magnetic that is rotational, the voltage of it, as it is called.

7. By illustration herewith, to make it simpler for us to realize, figure "Generator",  the outer field, the linear one passing from F. to F., may be likened to a ring gear, with the copper conductors as smaller gears being driven in a circle direction noted G.  These linear field lines now also pass through the copper conductors, since they are of copper and not of wood or the likes, and thus able to collect upon those lines of magnetic motion.  In essence then, the magnetic lines are twisted into a frenzy of turns, the higher the rpm the greater the voltage.

8. This twisting of the magnetic lines is no different then when taking a rubber band - and as you twist it - you cause the formerly straight lines to become like unto figures of eight - end on end - as illustrated in the center of the illustration.  In other words, the force of magnetic retains its principle design, which is a figure of eight to begin with, wherefore also upon the earth we are always drawn to that very center of its figure of eight.

9. As then the direction of the rotational magnetic movement upon the copper conductors, is one and the same for both sides (F), the rotational movement in the entire length of the wire is of one single direction.  Yet when we take that single wire and lay it into a U shape, then looking at the ends of the wire, the movement of the two are in opposing directions, wherefore when we bring the two ends together and touching they will rip each other apart, just as two grinding wheels will when turning opposite from one another are touched together.

10. And how then do we compensate for that rotational magnetic movement turning opposite from one another?  It is just like the gears, or the transmissions in our vehicles, by placing intermediate wheels or rotations in between. One example is our light-bulb, the atoms of the tungsten wire compensating, acting as the intermediate.

11. If we take a thousand feet long wire and couple it in a straight line between the plus and minus of a current, it will instantly break the wire.  But if we take that same wire in the same length and place sufficient turns into it, like a coil of wire, then the two opposing movements of the current may safely dissipate themselves, because; "turns of movement - compensates - for turns of movement."

12. Or in reference to illustration figure 4 herewith attached, when we place a 120 volt current to the first coil at Y, and that current has no connecting whatsoever to the second coil at X,  we may generate a rotational magnetic force upon that second coil, simply by alternating the magnetic flux induced by the first coil.

13. In our previous illustration of a generator we moved the conductors through a stationary field, in this second case we are causing the stationary flux to rotate over the conductors, the mechanics of which is no different than the cylinder of a steam locomotive turning the wheels of the locomotive.

14. A generator thus is a generator in either fashion, and note how in the second coil the voltage (rotational velocity) is twice as great as that of the first, since there are twice as many turns (windings) all this because; "turns of motion adds turns of motion, or compensates."

15. Make no mistake about it my fellow human beings, electricity is nothing more complicated than an rotational magnetic force, or movement.  And until we come to gather this for an absolute fact we will remain babes still believing that it was the stork to deliver our brothers and sisters.

I remain  Leonard.

LIGHT'S BEHOLDING (Nov 19-2010)

1. The electro-magnetic coordinate, which we call the waves of light, are a marvel of engineering, far too marvelous for mankind to apprehend for its nature and being.  Yet in some small way God has given us, or at least me, to apprehend its many diversions, fundamentally yes, but only to an overall view, while the inner workings, into how these coordinates pass through and are recreated within and upon all substances remains illusive.

2. By illustration; "Figure 0," the light of the incidence wave when passed upon a mirror appears to go no further than the very surface thereof, and reflects into an angle equal to its incidence.  This sounds very simple, and yet it is anything but simple when we are asked to define it in its every micro aspect.

3. The same goes for the diffraction of light to delight us in the colors of its different lengths.  We of course have it all down pad, and no longer question as to how and why this occurs, nor shall we go into that, but rather to give us something else to think about.

4. How is it that the air, made up chiefly of nitrogen gas, seems so transparent to us, yet when the same light makes contact upon a plant, it is no longer transparent, nor does it emit to us any of the wavelengths it received excepting those corresponding to what we interpret as green.

5. My judgment is that there is no terminal in the atoms and molecules of Nitrogen, but pass on through - and that it is therefore that the molecules of nitrogen can not be seen, since again we only observe the things upon which light had its last point of contact. And when light reflects from a mirror it is not for a smooth surface that it turns, but for a specific coordinate that does not allow its passing.

6. When sunlight passes upon the molecules of a green plant, it in fact passes through that molecule and around the atoms thereof, which in their specific molecular coordinate - are tuned to such formations to allow only certain wavelengths to pass, or recreate for a passing, wherefore it is that by the many different molecular coordinates we behold the many colors.

7. This for the green plant may be said to act as a terminal for the light, while no such terminal is found in the air, and for that very reason we cannot see the air, giving us the illusion as were it transparent.

8. Then let us by illustration; "Figure 1," see how light reacts upon a change in density, which in essence is nothing more than a greater or lesser spacing of the atoms and molecules.  This fact then must become natural unto us, that there is no such thing as a transverse phenomena in the nature of light, it being utterly impossible, and in violation of all natural law.

9. But that light travels by way of coordinates having an amplitude in the circumference as well as a length, the resemblance of which is like unto a coiled spring.  And that in every way these waves act just like a coiled spring when entering upon a change in density, for its normal as well as out of the normal.

10. The amplitude then is the angular movement of the wave as it drives itself, or is driven by the angular moment of the atoms around their perimeters, while at the same time moving forward at the velocity the speed of light.  Obviously, their high angular rotation as well as high forward velocity places upon them that well known rigidity to stay in place, or in a straight line.

11. And since it takes the effort and the power of hundreds of atoms to transpose but a single wavelet, the graduation of the angle of its amplitude is but slightly from one atom to the next.  When it takes 200 atoms by which the angular movement passes only half the circumference of an atom, it from atom to atom is only 1/400 of the full circumference.

12. Here a note for our scientists promoting nothing more than lone electrons, incapable to anything outside of the atom to which they belong, to drive a single wavelet which in all reality of nature requires the power and the momentum of many full atoms, and the aggregate of the molecules in their number to promote that particular coordinate by which these wavelets of light may either pass or be arrested.

13. Nature in itself demonstrates that it is by the relative spacing of the atoms whereby the "relative velocity" of light is set forth, how then shall it not be fully susceptible to it?

14. For our illustration (figure 1) this is greatly enlarged as the coordinate of light passes from atom 1 to atom 4.  First of all we shall look at a wavelength passing straight on in the normal, the boundaries of which are marked N, to N1 and M to M1, in which the spacing of the first three atoms is that relevant to air.

15. Secondly we shall look at the same wave at some angle of incidence out of the normal, which is overlaid by the heavy broken lines.  As therefore the wave passes from a greater density into a lesser density (heated air) the boundary for which is marked S to SS.

16. The wave of light then starts out at F, heading for F1,  and as it does - it passes atom 1, at point 1, and atom 2 at point 2, and atom 3 at point 3. Then as it heads for atom 4, which for the purpose of illustration is twice as far away, it contacts upon point 5, rather than upon point 4, as it would have if the spacing between atoms 1 through 4 had been equal, as shown by 4a, (the atom in a broken line.)

17. What therefore is the line of light to do when its track, or tracking is upon point 4 of atom 4 which for a straight-on trajectory is not possible?   It, as we know, in entering upon a less dense media comes to red shift, meaning it expands, as in fact it must do so - since its track to follow - is - upon point 4, and not point 5 of atom 4.

18. The result of this expansion now accomplishes two things, No-1: It is lengthened, graphically given by distance H. And No-2: Its angular moment around the circumference is stretched as well to become less angular, given by distance E.  From here on the wave continues straight-on direction noted K, the line of the wavelet now becoming F to G.

19. Conclusively, it seems obvious that irrelevant of the greater spacing (change in density) the light continues to follow its track set for it - to in all respects make contact upon atom 4, at its predetermined point (4), rearranging itself by way of compression and expansion as the media dictates upon it.

20. It appears viable therefore that light for its forward momentum as well as in its angular momentum always remains upon its track.  If the track is laid in a curve it will follow that curve, and should the track be expanded, it expands likewise, always maintaining its track.

21. Now let us overlay this to come at the lesser density from an angle noted Y to Y1, and X to X1 where again the line of the wave comes to contact upon point 4 of atom 4. But this time atom 4 - in the solid line - is not in the straight trajectory as it was when it came from the normal, wherefore to place it properly the illustration shows it by broken lines moved up in line with its new trajectory.

22. We must remember that anything traveling at over one trillion kilometer per hour while at the same time rotating like unto a high speed drill-bit, never at all concerns itself with any sign-post but those directly in its path. Like unto a train - it is going to follow its track, and only that which impairs its track it will react upon.

23. We now know that when light in an angle out of the normal enters a less dense area it will deflect itself away from its angle of incidence, and entering a more dense area it will deflect into its angle of incidence.  Any demonstration with a standard coiled spring confirms this perfectly.

24. Yet when we look at the previous shift from the normal it turned downwards from F1 to G, while for the out of normal shown - it should be the other way.  The relevance of this comes to a sight deception in that there is no deflection in the normal, but only an expansion for which it is absolutely correct.

25. Point number 4 of atom 4 from its original location (solid line) is now 4b in line with the angle of the incidence of the wave. Point 4, and point 4b then are one and the same place upon the new atom that lies within the new trajectory. And still this is not quite correct as shown in the illustration.

26. That broken line atom 4 noted between boundaries X1, and Y1, should be placed more upwards between boundary lines X2, and Y2.  And the reason for it lies in the incidence by which it comes upon that change in density.  Take a normal coiled spring and compressing it at an angle it will turn into its own angle of incidence, and expanding the same it will turn away from its angle of incidence.  Light then is no different since it is after the very likeness of a coiled spring.

27. As therefore the light by its given incidence enters upon the change - it compounds the change not only in expanding itself, - but deflects, or refracts itself according its primary angle of incidence, meaning to turn away from its un-coming incidence.  If therefore we move atom 4 of the broken line in the illustration up somewhat it comes directly in line with the trajectory of the wave for its incidence as well as its expansion.

28. And point 4 upon that atom, remains point 4 upon which the line of light will continue into the direction noted P, which is its now the new heading away from its primary angle of incidence.  The line of light thus never leaves its track regardless of any expansion or compression that may be placed upon it, and regardless of any change in incidence.

29. This of course is most logical since its expansion and contraction is implemented upon it by the media, by the atoms serving for a track unto it, and causing the same.  And in relevance to that media there is not only the incidence of the wave, as such called, the primary incidence, but more profoundly its own internal incidence, the incidence of its own waveform, called the waveform incidence.

30. But now there is something new to chew on, something which the world of science has as yet to learn.  Light in its out of normal contact upon a change in the media always turns by the sum of two separate distinct incidences. And to number  the two factors by which light is forced into a turn:

31. First there is the primary incidence by which all wavelengths strike a surface,  and depending upon the change in media, (the index of retardation as it is also called,) it will deflect accordingly.  Secondly, each individual wave of a different length will arrive with a different angular moment, or as we would say, with a different angle of incidence.

32. The wave corresponding to the blue for example has a greater angular moment than that of the red length, wherefore the incidence of its waveform is greater, and accordingly in a compression must take a shorter turn as compared to the red with its lesser angular incidence.

33. It is by these incidences, the waveform incidences, that we behold the colors of the rainbow, the dispersion of the individual waves.  The angle of a 7000a wave is about 40% less to that of the angle of a wave 4000a in length, wherefore in arriving at a prism, the red will turn by its longer incidence, and the blue by its shorter incidence, regardless of what the angle of the primary incidence may be.

34. The dispersion of light into its colors from the 7000 to the 4000 can thus never be more nor less than what is relevant to the 3000a difference between the two.

Perhaps it takes a bit of pain and study to come to realize all this, but it is well worth the effort if one wishes to be properly informed in the sciences.

I remain:  Leonard

Next page