CHAPTER 75    (2014)               INDEX TO OTHER PAGES

  1. Shall we now really presume that with the evidence thus far - man will consider me taught in the sciences?  In the long run they will since the Almighty Creator of all will give them no choice in the matter.

  2. But for the time being, while the Lord will educate some men, many others, especially those among the scientists will oppose it with all the fury they can muster.  And at last - by perhaps by some modifications to their theories hope to salvage some of it.

  3. Not that they will succeed since it is said; "How their fundamentals in the sciences would be destroyed, and that it would be replaced by what the Almighty One had taught me."  And so if this were not correct, than I would be a liar, and the liar of all times.

  4. And so who of us is going to win this war of words? The world against a lone predator?  Or that lone predator against the whole of the world?  It will depend on who is the stronger, the world with all its wise men, or me with the Lord at my side.

  5. As now mankind is slow to change it may warrant me to reach out to him with yet another hand in going over the same issues in different words or perspectives, along with illustrations so as to furnish the mind with  as much of reality that we can muster.

  6. This is done by showing what is correct, and contradicting such things as are in error, and/or contradictory in themselves.     And for a bit of history I wish to quote you the following words:

  7. "While preparing for an evening lecture on 21 April 1820, Hans Christian Orsted, made a surprising observation. As he was setting up his materials, he noticed a compass needle deflected from magnetic north when the electric current from the battery he was using was switched on and off. 

  8. This deflection convinced him that magnetic fields radiate from all sides of a wire carrying an electric current, just as light and heat do, and that it confirmed a direct relationship between electricity and magnetism."

  9. So far so good, is it not? As then soon afterwards he published his findings, proving that an electric current produces a magnetic field as it flows through a wire, it did not dawn on him, how the one is of the same nature as the other.

  10. This is not at all surprising since that phenomena happens more often, when a writing on the wall can not be read, nor a dream understood for its meaning. 

  11. As then Joseph was called upon to interpret a dream, and Daniel to decipher the writing on a wall, it will, as always, have to be of God, to educate man in what is evidently displayed before him.

  12. Then as it is said quote: "Electric charges attract or repel one another with a force inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them: unlike charges attract, like ones repel."

  13. This is not a writing on the wall, nor any dream to be interpreted.  The calculus in square of and distance etc., may indeed be used with magnetic entities, as the same is also used with gravity. 

  14. But it does not as such go with electricity in the atom, since there is no such linear attraction nor repulsion with electricity. The statement here quoted thus is a lie. No such attraction was ever found with electric.

  15. What he is speaking of are magnetic forces, which he interprets as electricity. And so would it not be more than wise for any person to first be educated in the sciences?

  16. What person now will show us the kind of electricity - that like the man said - will repel and attract to one another?  There is none! - Is it?  

  17. It are only magnets that do so, since to move into a linear direction - one must employ a linear push. Does not that make perfect sense? Or must I repeat it to say; "Linear movement into a push."

  18. Electricity, as in the Illustration K, is a rotating field.  And while Hans Christian Orsted was unable to realize the obvious -- that his rotating field in all reality was a cousin of Mr. Magnetic.   The very movement around the wire should have indicated the same to him.

  19. But stupid enough he or at least the persons after him came to say that this rotating magnetic field around the wire, was the magnetism produced by the flow of some none existent particles flowing through the wire.  Well on if then that flow is up or down the wire, why is not your magnetic field going up and down?

  20. If the field is rotating there must be something rotating within that wire, does not not make perfect sense?

  1. Don't blame Mr. Christian Orsted now, for the kings in the old days were not able to interpret their own visions either.  But we ought to know better, since we were enabled to construct generators, causing rotations to be made within a straight field and isolating them upon copper conductors.

  2. And so if you take an automobile wheel and cause it to roll upon a roadbed, you are not going to say that - now that it is rolling it is no longer a wheel -- are you?  

  3. If then this is a poor simulation,  How if you take two wires, and you turn them into a braided wire, will you now say because it has been twisted that it is no longer a wire?

  4. For so are our generators.  With the rotation of the armature we are picking up the magnetic lines and twisting them into a frenzy of turns. As then these turns are turns of the magnetic lines, how shall that outcome be anything other than magnetic?

  5. The fact that at first the magnetic lines were straight, while we twisted them into twisted lines, does not make them any less magnetic. For so that twisted line will continue to rotate as long as you continue to rotate that armature of the generator.

  6. Put a stop to the generator, and your lines in rotation will also be gone, reverting back into their normal linear formation. The illustration clearly indicated how there is a rotational magnetic movement around the wire, all because the movement in and upon the wire is rotational magnetic, and none other.

  7. And so we must keep in mind, how in movement, there are but two kinds of it, the straight and the turning one, or angular and linear. Nor is there any other kind, for whatever we shall name it are but derivatives or combinations of the basic two.

  8. When you view a block of steel as a magnet, you will behold the extension and design of its force all around that block. And so it is with electrical, showing its extension and design all around the wire.  Simple is it not?  Yes because 2 plus 2 does add to 4.

  9.   It now is said: "The electromagnetic force is one of the four known fundamental forces."  This has to be an obvious error - since there is but ONE true fundamental force, and man's scientist know of none because the bird which they named has never been found to exist.

  10. At any time when someone couples the term electro onto the term magnetic, I have to shake my head over him.  As then I spoke of this earlier, enumerating how; unless I were educated in man's schools of physics, I could not come to pronounce that word.

  11. Allow me thus to say, that the term electro-magnet, - as such - is a proper term, while electromagnetic, is a bird that has from ever been extinct. 

  12. A piece of steel that is magnetized by an electrical current - is properly called "electro-magnet," meaning we are to put a dash between the two, and not as one word.

  13. As then by our illustration Figure 74-B, that bird which has been extinct from before even the earth was made, how is that to bind the atoms together?

  14. If on the other hand we took that none existent bird, and cut it in halves, to have electro, as well as magnetic, two live birds for the price of one, we stand a fighting chance. 

  15. Since then the atoms are to move about in the linear so they may be joined to one another, we have to put the electro aside, it being only the magnetic bird that is so able to move. 

  16. Moreover, we need the kind of bird that has an attraction to things as well as repulsion, neither of which the electro one is capable of. That is to say to hold things together.

  17. Therefore we must change the dead and none existent bird for one of the two live ones, taking the one that is called magnetic. And what shall we use the other one for, the one named electro?  

  18. Well since it is handy to have some light on a dark night, and to keep our refrigerators running, that bird of rotation is perfectly suited for these things, since that other bird, the magnetic one, is not suited to rattle the cages of our tungsten wire by which we have light.

  19.   What now is a "strong force"? Is it a husky guy, like superman?  But why just one guy and not a half dozen to make for a still stronger force?  

  20. I think the least that they could have done is to give us a name, or something. To in the least explain what kind of force it might be, other than just saying; it is strong.

  21. We of course know that these will not come with an answer, they - as the Lord Himself said of them, "To be a delusion," the kind that never have an answer, because they are unable to answer. 

  22. As in fact some of them were even angry at me - as well as at the Almighty Teacher of me, for daring to place the truth before them along with the evidence supporting it. 

  23. As therefore they showed themselves incompetent, while boasting in their incompetence, therefore did their Creator label them as no more than a delusion.

  24. If therefore anything is to be answered, we are going to have to answer it ourselves. In the illustration here, none of these forces exist, not a one of them, for even gravity is not in itself a force, with the rest is none existent.

  25. It is absolutely amazing how mankind can come up with such childish fantasies, to simply dream up something that is completely beyond rational thought. And who but those that are irrational can furnish man with such fantasies?


  1. As then force is motion, and motion is force, that which binds man's nucleus is a strong motion. And why then did they not just say so instead of all the coy disguises?  

  2. Or if anyone at all seems to disagree about motion being force, and force motion, let the same show us any motion that does not in one way or another present itself as force.

  3. The wind may blow at ten miles an hour, and we call it a cool breeze, but when it gets to a hundred miles an hour we can hardly hold ourselves upright.   

  4. But there are names to movement -- are there not?  And so what sort of movement is it - that is holding man's nucleus together?  If we ask them, we are liable to receive that at which they seem to be experts at namely; "Virtual compositions of the most illogical dreams they can dream."  

  5. The term "virtual" composes something that exist only in the mind but having no reality, similar to what the politicians practice, to talk for hours, yet not say a single word, while dreams are fully without substance.

  6. If now we desire something to hold the cores of the atoms together, we are not going to put a bunch of dead men in with it, now are we -- as they do with neutrons?  

  7. We should not be that ignorant knowing that - dead men do not defend the castle, - wherefore we in turn will look for something that is alive.

  8. And we have just the bird for it, for when we cut that dead one in halves - we got ourselves a life one named magnetic, a bird perfectly suited to hold our cores together with much more than we even bargained for, to empower it as well.

  9. Since then we have to show ourselves as being more kind and realistic than the ancient, we have to give that strong force a name.  We therefore christen it; "Mr. Magnetic." 

  10. For it is after all a male, and if it wants to bring in its wife as well, she being named gravity, that suits us fine. While for its cousin named "Electro," we will find other uses.

  11.   And what is it with that weak force in nuclear decay?  For here again, no name, no definition, nor any nomenclature is presented with it.

  12. As I see it- it is anything but a weak motion when the part to be driven out has made such a nuisance of itself - that the whole of the cart is turning hot with anger to drive him out, and literally spit him out, telling him; "Go make your own home, there is no longer any room for you here."

  13. Our nuclear power-plants are based on those war-like conditions of those atoms turning them red hot, and we taking our profits from their misfortunes, as so many of mankind do in other ways.

  14. Moreover these so called nuclear power plants do not operate on fission or decay, as much as they operate on Relative Angular Movement. (RAM)  But who is to teach the scientists among man?

  15. Then for the gravitational force to bind the solar system, who can blame a man for not willing to be the death of the whole human race?  There is no man to figure that out for himself since it would be his own suicide as well.

  16. Since then our Creator was so kind to reveal that aspect of His handiwork, it is rather by the man of force, by magnetic, instead of the female of force who merely twirls in his arms to bring her home to him, that the solar system is bound.

  17.   Then for Figure 74-B, a wave can be electric or it can be magnetic, but this much is certain that it cannot be a dead bird being extinct from before the day that God created both the electro and the magnetic.

  18. Nor can it be as illustrated where the line has to pump up and down with nothing to hold on to. My first question is; Are they blind? 

  19. For while we know - that they know how to draw a magnetic line - as well as an electric line, what is with that bobbing line? Can't they do any better?

  20. I even put their own illustrations next to it, although we know that correlating one factor with  another may be next to impossible with them.


  1. The illustration Figure 74-B must be one of the worst concept to come from man, all because the reality is so abundant in nature that in my view there is no excuse.

  2.  And what is with this so called; "Molecular dipole?" Another none existent bird?  A dipole in electricity, when with one sided coins there are no dual poles to begin with?  

  3. There is such a thing as positive and negative with electricity, none of which are real, since in fact they are nothing more than a point of view from a single flow of movement.

  4. Could it perhaps be possible that they have taken their single sided coins and pasted them together so that this new coin will have a plus as well as a minus, something that after all is a fact in nature? 

  5. But then what are we fretting about since this so called dipole is but a "virtual composition," something that is only in the mind and not at all realThey themselves said so.

  6. And so how does one get a spark from something that is virtual, as in none existent?  And that it should furnish us with the power of magnets and electricity?  Does not this seem to be something baked without heat?

  7. For no matter how one looks at it, it is atrocious. Single sided coins mind you, and when you put two of them together they will be as one?  In our book of reality, zero added to zero is still zero. 

  8. But what to me is most atrocious is - how a spark of nothing is to hold our whole earth together, to form that whole force of magnetic.

  9. I have got to get away from this, because it makes me sick to see full grown men in such a dilapidated condition breathing out such folly, while the reality is at all times staring them in the face.

  10.   Then for the next illustrations here below, the first one with the arc between its poles, is said to be electromagnetic energy.  As then energy is the same as motion we will not frown on that. 

  11. But if we are to call it by a name, leave the magnetic off, seeing how there is a discharge of rotating fields, not anything linear, for which cause the term electromagnetic becomes no more than a joke.


  1. The two poles are counter rotating movements.  And they do know it!  Don't they?  We have the evidence that they know better, or ought to know better. Wherefore I for one will not accept their excuse.

  2. These counter rotating fields then will act to empty themselves, to bring their movements to a like direction of - each one of them attempting to convert the other.

  3. But pushing or pulling into the linear? "No way."  For so these polarities will say; "We are not of that type." Yet the ancient among us do not agree with the norm of electricity, they have to convert it - so that they may use it in their ill conceived atomic bonding.

  4. And how do they do so? They are walking a straight line by a circle, or, as they circle around -- they claim to be walking a straight line. 

  5. Do you think that we ought to have them committed for this? We best leave them be, and let their Creator take care of them, since vengeance belongs to Him.

  6. And so what is it with this walking straight in a circle? Simply this as illustrated by Fig 89, they are taking the electrical and turned it into magnetic, the same as saying; to move straight away by a circle.

  7. The lines and arrows of that illustration Fig 89, do not show any electrical, nor does it show magnetic. And so of what use is it? 

  8. It is as useful as them that portrayed it.  For somewhere (next to Figure 74-B) they did illustrate them correctly, both the electrical and the magnetic.

  9. If then we are to inter-phase them, then illustrate an electro-magnet, an object magnetized by electricity, but not that same old dead bird that has been extinct since who knows when.

  10.   Figure 74-N. Centripetal force, another bird that has never seen the light of day.  How do we come up with these things?  Is our imagination really so vain to invent birds that have never existed?


  1. And don't tell me that it is just another word for gravity, for if so, your arrow in velocity is wrong, it should be as I drew it in, by B, particle A, to move by a circular fashion downward like a screw propeller, over C, that has no arrow since it represents the magnetic lines of movement.

  2. Come on people, let us get real, rather than inventing fictitious ideas that will never hold any water. All phenomena shows that anything in linear motion will move outwards, not inwards, except by gravity by which there is no such thing as centripetal.

  3. If at all we are to show ourselves as wise and cunning, then let the none existent birds remain none existent, lest we ourselves become none existent.

  4.   But now I hesitate to comment upon the next illustration Figure 74-C. And I should first quote a few lines, dreadful as they are. 

  5. Quote: "Under the photon theory of light, a photon is a discrete bundle (or quantum) of electromagnetic (or light) energy. Photons are always in motion and, in a vacuum, have a constant speed of light to all observers, at the vacuum speed of light."

  6. So far so good, at least by appearances, for to the trained eye there are a few lies in it. One is; "For light to have a constant speed in the vacuum of space," of which there is abundant evidence to the contrary. And, "all observers," is a lie, since I never observed it, nor has anyone else.

  7. Then for light to have but a discrete bundle, how discrete might that be -- when it takes the sum of thousands of full atoms just to make for a single wavelet?  

  8. And if these photons are always in motion, than how come it is so dark at night? Is not this also a lie?  Or do they go to sleep as we humans do? Unless they are from New York that never sleeps.

  9. Then for the next quotation: "In the 1800s, the wave properties of light (by which I mean electromagnetic radiation in general) became glaringly obvious and scientists had essentially thrown the particle theory of light out the window. 

  10. It wasn't until Albert Einstein explained the photoelectric effect and realized that light energy had to be quantized that the particle theory returned."

  11. Aha, here is the problem is it not?  "Men allowed themselves to be bitten by a poisons snake, to be taught by a man who never in his life got anything correct, who lived but in a dream-world of fantasies, with not a grain of intelligence within him, and I do mean not a grain of intelligence.

  12. And I mind you am not one to pronounce lies, nor make up things, but to present things as they are, man inclusive.  For that man Einstein, truly is one without knowledge, and without understanding of anything, a totally blind one, and such blind ones are held by man as were they something. How stupid therefore man himself is as well.

  13. But let us ask our - so called - experts what a photon is, quote:  "Photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation and the force carrier for the EM force even when static via virtual photons."

  14. We now must pause here, for we did ask them what a photon was, - did we not?  Yes I am sure we did!  And what did we get for an answer? Dead birds - that what we got for an answer.  

  15. And what else did we get? "Virtual" photons mind you. And that -- by their own standards  means -- that they do not exist, other than in the mind of a person.  

  16. How thus do we not sink into the ground, when our earth is powered by nothing more than the fantasies of the mind of man, by virtual nothings?

  17. So you see how correct I am where I once said; that "I never got a straight answer from any scientist." 

  18. Moreover, look to see how he started out saying that it is "a particle," but ended up saying, that it is none existent. And so our reply will be:  "Hey man make up your mind, is it, or isn't it?    For is not that what they said; "Even when static virtual photons?"

  19. But looking at the whole thing, it becomes but hogwash, for if this photon is the very force carrier for the electrical and magnetic force, our question becomes; "How so?" How does a minute quantum of light come to carry such an astronomical force as magnetism?

  20. And yes there are persons that will hold on to this most stupid fantasy for dear life, they did so to me. How utterly pitiful these persons therefore are, the poison has rotted them clear down to the core.

  21. And what turns it into the kind of hogwash that cannot be eaten, is that a none existent thing is to make for our earth, the sun and all the universe.  And so what else is new?


  1. The illustration Figure 74-C, is quite clear, as it reads; "None existent (virtual) entities are emitted, and result into force."   And if we want to have our dead bird (electromagnetic) we must continually add zero to zero, if perhaps after all eternities we might end up with a number one.  But who can wait that long?

  2. Then quote "A photon is a type of elementary particle that forms the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation, which includes radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. 

  3. Photons have no mass, no electric charge, and travel at the speed of light. Unlike some particles, like protons and neutrons, they are not thought to be made up of smaller components."

  4. If now this does not bake our cake, what will?  A particle without mass? For it does read "A particle," and that it is without mass, and without electricity

  5. And how utterly contradictory man is, he tells us that light is photons, and powered by electrical and magnetic fields, and yet have the gall to say that it is without electricity. How stupid therefore these men are not able to correlate even two factors at once.

  6. When hearing these people talk it becomes obvious how these themselves do not have a clue as to what proceeds from them. Their knowledge is that of the unborn, never as yet having seen the light of day.

  7. We now can understand a wave or a coordinate to be without mass since these are as one might say - a way to go.  Like your trip to the market, you know the way, and where to turn - as your way to go, but you definitely had your wheels upon the pavement.   

  8. So how is a particle -- a particle when it has no mass? And how is that to power anything when it is none electric? My other best guess is that someone had too much to drink of the wrong stuff.

  9. If now we are not mistaken - I at least am sure that they have been telling everyone that it is electricity in their atoms to hold them together; - their so called electro-magnetism. Yet here they say that it has neither mass nor electricity.

  10. As then their photon carries forth that force that is not at all electric, having no charge as such, how does it carry forth its babies?   By dumping them down the chimney, and fetched them neatly burned?

  11. Am I making fools of them?  No! It is not me!  They are doing it to themselves.  And why would you frown at me, as if I can't be a foolish as they are?  And right you are, it is not fit for me but to speak but with wisdom, and a fatherly tone, lest somehow I should become like unto them.

  12. To thus sum this all up, the reason now that your table lamp does not work is because you do not have it plugged in.  For how is this photon to light your home - when it is not plugged in? At least that is English - is it not?

  13. Who now writes this kind of nonsense of which I made quotations? I am already sick of it. Nor do I think that these people will be able to accept an education until their hides have been burned off of them, and at the mouth of Hades their bones have been broken.

  14. This is about as far as I want to go, for I am truly sick of man and his fantasies as were they something to bank upon. Man has truly corrupted himself by an inscrutable law. 

  15. I can no longer bear the stench of it.  Would that God take me out of this world, away from all mankind.

  16. If you O young man do not wish to become a vegetable, then stay away from the schools of man's learning, those of the sciences, for he that washes himself with grime will become contaminated with it.

  17. Turn yourself to the Godly wise, for by them knowledge may be found.


  1. In the illustrations below the atoms as such are well able to adhere to one another. For even between atoms A and B (Figure 74-bond) there is a crossing after its own natural being.  

  2. The area of the atom then where light makes its contact is but a single area, while magnetic spans the whole of the area. It thus toy magnets in illustrations Figure 74-mag-1, 2, and 3 can make for a grid, what are we to beef about?


  1. The remaining illustrations are regular magnets adhering to one another.  It serves to demonstrate how well they make for the molecular grid of nature.  These then illustrate the heavier atoms, since the lighter elements are not quite like these type of atoms.

  2. And lastly, the time has come to scrap all such atrocities as depicted by Figure 74-grav. For that is as ignorant as a man can get.



  1. The man-made toys called; "Particle accelerators" must be some of the most useless, and deceptive devices built by man. If they had not squandered so much money it could have been used for the poor, and might be called "Toys for tots."  Whereas now they border on criminal devices.

  2. Useless, and deceptive so I said in that these devices do not produce nor show anything that man interprets from it.  Man's scientists are far too ignorant to play with nature as if they knew anything about the fundamentals thereof.

  3. Like that "Van de Graaf generator in Fig 74-accel, as if there were protons on top with electrons on the bottom, a very erroneous observation when it are nothing more than circular movements. In all essence no different from man's regular generators, other than having the circulars separated by a none conductive media.

  4. In man's view they have what they call an; "Electron gun," as well as a "Proton gun," or accelerator of protons. Since then there are no electrons nor protons for man to play with, what are they playing with if not simple atomic matter in its whole?

  5. We therefore ought to point out to them that you cannot have just protons by themselves, for in order to do so, you would have to strip the atom of one of its main parts, its electrons, that of course would destroy the atom as being any kind of element.

  6. The only time you can have any parts of an atom is when they split, or by natural radiation, all of which are deadly, and destructive.

  7. Does not this mean anything when you count 8 electrons in oxygen but 7 in nitrogen, how for that single electron the element changes from one kind to another? For if you freeze your oxygen with only 7 electrons, it would no longer clings to a magnet like as nitrogen in a liquid state will cling to a magnet.

  8. No doubt they will say that to change oxygen into nitrogen one must remove a proton along with an electron. But why should we go into that since in the first place neither one of them exist.

  9. An atom of any element is what it is for its full volume, by and in which it has its specific coordinate.  Any change therein changes the element. Like with oxygen, when it is one or two or three together, each show a different coordinate a different pattern of.  This is a standard made even by man, how thus man contradicts himself so easily.

  10. We ought to know what happens when you split an atom, how for its disruption it sets off a huge commotion to all the atoms in its neighborhood. And yet in all that commotion no other atoms were disrupted, other than the unstable ones, and then not even all of them.

  11. If thus by an atomic explosion man is unable to strip neither the electrons, nor the protons from any other atom, how does he with his overpriced accelerators think to split atoms by which supposedly he were to obtain only protons?

  12. Let them answer that question if at all there is any competence in them!!!!

  13. These are but dreamers, with no true knowledge of the atom.  They may be accelerating full atoms against full atoms, and have them fly out into all directions, but they are defeating their own purpose by having a magnetic or electric field in their recording devices, since these are bound to arrest them again.

  14.  If then you really want to see how far a wave will pass through a myriad of magnets, look at light passing into water, how by the time its gets 600 ft down all of them will have been arrested.

  15. It is only of man where he fancies himself to be working with only electrons or protons.  For even with his toys man is not so likely to split the normal stable atoms, whereby to have, or record any parts of it.  It is enough that God gave him to succeed with the larger unstable ones, and even that takes some doings.

  16. Allow me then to make a revelation to you, and to all mankind, how man made his atomic and nuclear bombs not to his welfare, but rather to his own demise. And soon enough he will come to know it.


  1. As now all things in nature trace their fundamental movement to magnetism, let us enumerate it.

  2. The earth is a magnet, so are the stars and all planets, and by magnetism the moon is held to the earth, as well as the earth to the sun. 

  3. The earth is 8000 miles in diameter, while gravity for its downward acceleration is only some 2300 miles up from earths surface, that is less than half the diameter of the earth.

  4. It is by the force of magnetism  that our feet are held to the ground.   

  5. Weight as such is measure of magnetic pull because - gravity is - an inclination into magnetic lines.

  6. It is by magnetism that the tides occur, as the pull of the moon elongates the magnetic lines between the earth and the moon.

  7. Magnetism now is the second fundamental movement in nature.

  8. Magnetism also confirms movement, as gun-powder does.

  9. It is by magnetism that the atoms bind and or repel from one another.

  10. It is by magnetism that molecules are formed and held to their grids.

  11. It is by magnetism that all compound elements, as well as cells, and component factor are held together.

  12. It is by magnetic flux that electricity is secured.

  13. It is by magnetic lines that the static form of electricity may be born.

  14. It is in and by earth's magnetic lines that the clouds secure their high charges.

  15. It is by the twisted lines of magnetic that the lightning strikes.

  16. It is by magnetic force to turn our electric motors.

  17. It is by twisted lines of magnetic that magnetize armatures.

  18. It is by twisted lines of magnetic that we have artificial light.

  19. It is in a difference of magnetic movement that light, radio and other waves are secured.

  20. Magnetism is a movement by coordinate, and as such an immaterial entity, yet formed upon that which is material.

  21. There is but one force in a derivative of magnetism, called electricity, this is so since for movement in directions of there are but two, linear and angular.

  22. Magnetic is a male, Gravity a female, electricity a cousin.  As thus male and female are one entity, so gravity is single with magnetic.

  23. It is not by magnetic that light travels, but it is by magnetism that light is susceptible to all media.

  24. As then I spoke of magnetism as the second fundamental force, and elsewhere that there is but one fundamental force in nature, it is but to confuse us with the truth at hand.

  25. Electricity cannot be construed other than in the second and third magnitude of nature, all because it is a derivative of magnetic

  26. As then a magnetic coordinate can be wrapped upon a piece of metal, the coordinate of electrical can likewise be wrapped upon atoms in series.  Lightning is one example thereof.

  27. The movement of magnetic then is never from any material part of nature. Magnetism is not formed of anything in nature, but by magnetism all of nature is formed.


Now let us pose a number of questions to ourselves, for that which we know and understand of the atom is very little, and I do mean "very' little.

Q1. How and why does water, gasoline, etc., expands with a spark or with heat?

Q2. How does higher movement apply for the expansion?

Q3. How does a lower movement cause things to be brittle?

Q4. Why and how is there little or no expansion in metals when heated?

Q5. Why do atoms have spacing, why not core to core like regular magnets?

Q6. How is the atomic magnet different from a regular magnet?

Q7. Or the magnetism in the first magnitude to that of the third magnitude?

Q8. What is the nomenclature of the substance of the universe?

Q9. How does the light from space holds its form over such long distances?

Q10. Why is sunlight more intense than most artificial light?

Q11. What is the coordinate of smell? 

Q12. What is the coordinate of taste?

Q13. What is magnetism that it should be movement?

Q14. Why do we still return to earth when we are out of its g pull?

Q15. Why does our movement with the earth not show up on a scale?

Don't look to me for all the answers, I am the one asking the questions. 

I however prefer honest answers with some logic in it.


On page 74, verse 43, we had a question, the answer to which is: That the copper conductor contains the M, or 3M by which at all times there is a physical connection between X and X1.  As therefore the circuit is completed - the message as such is related to all points at the speed of light, for the rotational 3M (Or 3MR) to have its due with us.

  Next page