CHAPTER  87          Links to other pages

         SAD REALITY

  1. A sad state of affairs as I call it how I have to teach man a whole new science based on factual behavior and observation with logic and common sense, two factors that man's scientists and physicists seems to be in dire need of.

  2. In the matter of waves there is no way to observe the shape or pattern of any wave as it moves through air or space.  But the Almighty One did teach man about electricity, and that electricity that for its form does not move one way or the other, but simply rotates, can therefore be illustrated upon a screen.

  3. As the circulars of the electricity turn it alternately brings its polarities up and down, that then of course is seen as a sine wave on a continues basis.   And so man for sight deception fabricated the magnetic waves of the spectrum after his view of electricity into continues sine-waves as well.

  4. Shall we call it odd that it is not for the sun to move around us every day?  It appears that way, while in reality we are turning in front of a stationary sun. We now know the difference in this sight deception, but we are still hung up on a number of other sight deceptions.

  5. Man has yet to realize how the seasons come about by a precession of the earth, for his eyes are deceiving him in that as well.  And no less how the earth regresses by about 20 minutes each year from a full circular orbit, that the scientists interpret for a nutation.

  6. Then there is our solar system, and man fabricated his atom after it, all because in being blind to insight he is prone to interpret appearances for reality.

  7. Electricity now is not at all as such a sine formation but a rotating entity of magnetic coordinates, the typical figure eight of force, as seen with the earth and any magnet. Nor do the waves of the spectrum as such present a sine formation since these are likewise rotating entities.

  8. A rotation now may appear like a sine in that it moves from side to side of its diameter. Appearances thus can be deceiving, and are and have been deceiving mankind for all of his years.

  9. Are we then always going to interpret appearances for reality?  Is it not about time that we sort out these things, to learn truth from fiction?


  1. Another factor in which man errs is his concept of waves for size, - how he usually illustrates them far too great for their amplitude, and far too short for their length. It is just the other way around by which they should be illustrated. And how can we be so certain of that?

  2. We have accepted the fact that the speed of light in the air stands at 299.702-km/sec, and adding 90-km/sec as the speed of light in space. Since then there is a nominal length as well as a real length to any wave, the nominal being its crest to crest measure with the real length the total length of its sine formation.

  3. If therefore we take the total of its real length that divided into the constant, and multiply it by the nominal length the result should show its relative velocity, its velocity for distance in time.  In order then to discover the real and factual amplitude we must choose a certain length.

  4. For the example let it be the red color wave at 700-nm. and to take an arbitrary diameter let us start with 1.54 Angstroms that into the circumference comes to 4.84-Angstroms.  7000A then plus 4.84A is 7004.84A as the real length of the wave while 7000A is the nominal length.

  5. 300.000 divided by 7004.84, and that multiplied by 7000 then comes to 299.792-km/sec. When therefore we divide 7000 in 4.84 it shows that wave to be 1446 times greater in length verses is diameter, or amplitude if you will. (No wonder therefore it can travel so fast)

  6. Nor can we be wrong in this for it we took a greater diameter like 8A in circumference, the result would come to 299.657-km/sec. and that is not the velocity that we have adapted as the speed of light in space, wherefore the 8A in circumference cannot be correct.

  7. In reality therefore - with the evidence before us - waves show themselves to be nearly straight lines, completely the opposite of how they are usually illustrated. Yet we are bound to illustrate these waves out of proportion to a much larger diameter just to have a view of it.

  8. It then warrants us to make our illustration as close to reality as we can.

  9. And here is something interesting, a light wave with a frequency of 400 trillion, must rotate at these many revolutions per second. How fast therefore is that speed of rotation in real time? It is about 194.000-km/sec, a speed that is less than its linear movement.

  10. And how did I come to that? I came to it by real time, something all of us should be able to compute. 


  1. If you have a carrier wave like Figure 92-1 illustrates - let us say at 1-meter wavelengths. And presuming you are generating these at a constant rate, they will not be anything as illustrated by Figure 92-1. 

  2. At areas "A" these waves have a greater angle and therefore a greater wavelength than at areas "B". These waves as shown are therefore not all 1-meter in length, nor therefore can they be presumed as a carrier base.

  3. The ones at "A" will and must travel at a greater velocity, and rotate slower than those at areas "B", wherefore they cannot possibly be connected to one another, but cause a great deal of interference and cancellation.  This illustration for a carrier wave - to say the least - is atrocious.

  4. If then as man presumes he will super impose another wavelength upon them, like the red line, a wavelength of some 100 meters, as if these 1-meter lengths will carry that 100-meter wavelength, he is merely dreaming with no conception as to the nature of waves.


Figure 92-1 This illustration could be of electricity with the areas of A, a lighter load and B, a greater load.

  1. And how am I to educate him in the facts of life?  If you have a single lane highway with cars spaced by 100-ft, traveling at 60-mph as your moving base by which to send a messenger, and you place a race-car in between to travel at 80-mph, how is that racecar to bypass all these cars on a single lane?

  2. Accordingly man presumes to go on over them, or with them, the line of cars serving as his train of movement. But that is most illicit, since first of all that racecar as your signal does not need a carrier, but rather an open road, for at his speed these carrier cars are simply in his way.

  3. Man conceives as if 1-meter lengths will carry forth a 100-meter length, but that police man moving at 100-mph is passing all these 60-mph cars to catch up with the one who is violating all the rules of the road, if you get my drift.

  4.  Do we not realize how by all the evidence in nature where each different length must travel by a different relative velocity - that we are violating that proven evidence in nature? How will we convince anyone that light does not refract by a prism while to the eyes of everyone it does refract?

  5. How can one possibly send his signal by something that travels faster than what he presume it is carried by?  Is he not with that type of super imposing rather complicating the matter?

  6. And what am I saying, if not - that we know very well how the blue lengths as they refract by a sharper angle also travel by a lower velocity, all because they are shorter lengths whereby they are forced to travel a longer route around the circumference as compared to the longer ones.

  7. We cannot really speak of waves unless first we know how and what they are.  We have the notion as if there are all sorts of factors with the waves of the spectrum, but they are but one thing, and one thing only. Angular moments being driven forth by the force of magnetic, that they are and nothing more.

  8. These then as they vary in the angle by which they are driven - do therefore as such come to different lengths, like a bolt that has either 24, 32, or 64 threads per given length. As then any bolt has a diameter so the waves for their circular path must go by a diameter, that then for their movement comes to the circumference.

  9. And now that we know what a wave is and how it travels, and that these angular moments are at all times driven forth in the circular by a constant rate of velocity, - these same waves by their nominal length - for their distance in time - come to what is called a relative velocity.

  10. If then we take a 1-cm wave, and directly behind it we place a 2-cm wave, that 2-cm wave will travel faster while it rotates at a slower pace than the 1-cm wave. In the length of 300.000-km there are 300 billion centimeters. The 1-cm wave therefore must complete 300 billion rotations in each second of time.

  11. The 2-cm on the other hand will have to make only 150 billion rotations in the same length and span of time. The rate of revolutions thus for the 1-cm length is twice as much as that of the 2-cm. But for speed - as in distance for time - the 1-cm length will be slower since it must make twice as many rotations to that of the 2-cm length within the same time period.

  12. So it is that each different length will and must travel at a different relative velocity, while the 3M maintains its constant upon them for the real length of any wave, namely its length by the full circumference thereof.

  13. A shorter length usually means a higher rate of events, and these are usually more stable in comparison to the longer lengths. When we consider light how it travels by such straight trajectories, its secret lies not only in its high rate of velocity, but even more so in its high rate of rotation, into the trillion per second in time to furnish it with stability.

  14. How then will you superimpose anything upon any of these angular moments?  Will you put a dent into a dent?  You will have to be mighty fast to drive a dent into a dent, since in making the first dent - it is constructed as it moves away from you. And so you will have to deposit a dented dent at one and the same instant in order to accomplish that feat.

  15. If then you are generating 1-meter wavelengths as a carrier, and you figure to superimpose 1-cm wavelengths upon it, you figure wrong since a 1-cm wave must always travels at a different diameter to that of the 1-meter wave as illustrated by figure 92-2.

  16. What therefore do you have? If you can manage to transmit them within the same space, the 1-cm will travel inside of that 1-meter wave. But is that 1-cm wave really inside thereof for as shown below the 1-meters may be spaced from S to R by 1000-km, while the 1-cm waves at a higher rate of events are spaced by 250-km.

  17. The 1-meter wave at S now for distance in time will sooner or later catch-up and bypass these 1-cm waves since it for its greater length will have a greater relative velocity. Presuming the diameter of the 1-meter wave to be 2-cm, and that of the 1-cm wave to be  0.25-cm, the result is as follows'


  1. 1-meter as 100-cm plus 2 x 3.14 = 106.28-cm. Then 300.000 : 106.28 =2822 x 100 =282.273-km/sec.  Then 0.25 x 3.14 =0.785. And 300.000 : 1.785 =168067 X 1 = 168.067-km/sec. The 1-meter wave thus travels faster by 114.206-km/sec. And that is nothing to sneeze at.

  2. It will leave those 1-cm waves far behind if so it must travel a long distance, like to another galaxy. Upon our earth however with the distances being very minute the gain will be equally minute.

  3. And by the same token in reference to Figure 1, where we thought to superimpose a 100-meter length upon 1-meter lengths, that 100-meter wave will, and must, and can only travel by a larger amplitude, in which case it is completely separate from the carrier in every possible way.

  4. But what is the sense in producing 1-meter wavelengths as a carrier with the message by 1-cm waves? Or visa versa - to have a 1-cm carrier then to send your signal by 1-meter lengths? For in all reality - in this case your code will get to its destination before the carrier wave does.

  5. Would it not make more sense to simply modulate your events upon any one of these wavelengths? But now you want to do even better and send out 2 or 4 different carrier lengths simultaneously as were they one, to mix them, into which you compose your code. 

  6. And yes you can do so, and that may or may not be to your advantage for a more accurate and cleaner signal, like as in - it takes two to tangle and with three a stronger bond. This is something the engineers that work with these things ought to know. 

  7. But do not conceive as if you are transmitting anything at the full range of frequencies that any wavelength computes into.  That in any-ones book is never wise since it leaves you but one way to modulate upon, namely downwards.

  8. But let us get realistic for we know that our platform is like unto a belt moving at the enduring constant of 300.000-km/sec. Nor can we in any way impose upon it, for it is just there and everywhere in the whole of the universe, an entity called fundamental movement, an innovation we can do nothing with other than our use of it.

  9. We cannot switch it off so that we can place our code upon it, after which by turning on the switch our code is on its way. Instead we are to place our codes while it is moving past us.  If then with transistors we are able to produce a high rate of switching, how fast will that switching have to be in order to place each and every wave one directly behind the other to form a continues sine formation, or rotational formation?

  10. Here we are at a crossroad, we know how fast the belt moves, and how fast we must act to make our deposits.  And how fast is that - since we have but two real things at our disposal, the electricity at its rate of rotation, and the resonance of the atoms upon which the electricity makes its play, or a combination thereof.

  11. For the electricity alone by Figure 92-3  "X", starting at "A" turning the switch on, and back off when its gets to B, we have a short impulse to a short wavelength.  If our switch remains on until the rotation comes to C, a mere quarter of a turn, the resulting angular moment will be longer, and very long if it comes all the way to D.

  12. If our switching is so slow with the speed at which the electricity deals out its north and south polarities to go the full circle, then there be no wave at all, no impulse. 

  13. The reality of this is like light when it strikes upon vegetation, it by its rotation does not produce waves - but increases, or simply agitates the rate of movement of the atoms and molecules of that vegetation.

  14. All because there are no impulses here but simply a rotation to advance rotation. That light then as it enters these molecules of that vegetation is absorbed or spun out again by its coordinate that is selective to certain particular angles at which that light enters the same.

  15. In the case of resonance, or oscillation as it is also called, our reference comes to Figure 93-3 section "Y". For the example I show three atoms with the line of 3M passing midway. As therefore a magnetic pulse is imposed upon atom 3 driving it upwards into the fields of atoms 1 and 2, it places a dent into that line of 3M.

  16. Since then these atoms always rotate the dent comes to a rotational format around the atoms next to it (not shown). This is typical of light since the circumference is not much larger than the atoms themselves. And here we are to correlate the one movement simultaneously with the other.

  17. As atom 3 was driven upwards at a certain rate of speed, and the 3M has its rate of speed, that so called dent can never be a straight line upwards but into an angular line - in line with the 3M. And that upwards move being by a rotating entity, the resultant becomes a slanted line into and by rotation.

  18. Atom 3 now will be driven back to its original location by the magnetic fields of these 3 atoms so that the process can start all over again. But the conditions must be met whereby atom 3 will again be driven up, since it will not by itself move up nor down, but only by a pulse powerful enough to drive these three magnets into each other.


  1. That then may occur a thousand or a million times each second.  The number of wavelets on such a line may then come to 1-million, and if the lengths were 700-nm, that computes into more than 400 trillion to fit within a single second of that line. 

  2. Nor can that atom move back and forth at the rate of 800 trillion events to produce 400 trillion wavelets on a single line.

  3. But assuming there are 1000 of these sets of atoms, it means that a billion of these light waves can be generated at the same time, but not at the same line, but at 1000 different lines of light. And a single billion is still a long ways from 400 trillion.

  4. When we presume that we are superimposing a signal upon a carrier wave, we are in effect doing nothing other than modulating that carrier wave. For no carrier wave can carry forth anything that as such is attached to it. 

  5. It is either inserting itself in between, or it by its deposit destroyed, or rearranged those waves on which we thought to attach it.

  6. Waves, as those of the spectrum that pass unobstructed through air and space are to my knowledge never  ever on a continues format, while electrical so called waves are always continues. When a data signal is send through a cable its format is electrical and therefore continues.

  7. Data can also be send on the format of light being passed through a tube or transparent substance. In that case the light is thought to serve as the carrier, our data however will not be on a continues basis, but imbedded in between those of the light.

  8. Nor will any kind of light that we contrive to generate be continues, not even with lasers that in essence pump more and more wavelets on one and the same line. The ideal of light by a tube or similar way does not as such serve as a carrier, but rather as a guide for data to be transmitted.


  1. Our vocabulary now can be as raw as our interpretation of appearances. Quote: "In radio and television applications, the amount of times a carrier wave oscillates each second is what determines the frequency of a station or channel." Unquote.

  2. Will man never learn that a transverse wave cannot subsist in a fluid where there is no mechanism for oscillation?  For I gather that this person is linking the propulsion mechanism with the number of events.

  3. But he failed in one of the most important factors, namely - how does he propose to get his wave to travel at the speed of light?  He should not have mentioned oscillations since that means a back and forth movement, and that computes into additional distances, as well as stops and starts.

  4. Since then the wave did arrive at its destination at a speed to that of light, what sort of velocity do these oscillations have to accomplish that feat which is clearly outlawed and frowned upon by virtually everyone?

  5. These oscillations for their speed of movement, and their stop and start must come to twice the speed of light, a velocity no one in his right mind believes upon. But the worst of it all is - that the person writing these words may also acclaim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

  6. How therefore man at times is not aware of his own contradictions. And this my dear people must change if at all we are to come to an education. Transverse movement is but a fallacy of the blind in eyesight, or should that be insight?

  7. Then there is this quote: "In the case of frequency modulation, a data signal is used to modify the frequency of the carrier. When this occurs, the frequency of the carrier increases as the amplitude of the data signal increases." Unquote.

  8. The carrier no doubt was thought to operate at its maximum rate of events, it is therefore not possible to increase that frequency even by a single count.  As then we gather that the data signal messed with the amplitude, it must either be erasing a great deal of those carrier frequencies, or ignore the carrier altogether.

  9. For as that data signal came to invoke itself upon amplitude - it in reality started to produce different wavelength, both greater or smaller, but at least in a series of different lengths, forcing each and everyone of them to travel at a different velocity.

  10. Not very wise, for if we wish to have a clear signal, we ought to receive it as we send it out. With different lengths however the longer ones will gain upon the shorter ones, consequently the pattern at the receiving end will not be quite the same as it was when it was send.

  11. No wonder therefore that we complain about noise, and loss of signal etc, etc. The only comfort here is that for our distances up and around our earth, these are so minute for the speed at which these waves travel that from transmitter to receiver the change is minor.

  12. But if we wish to communicate with someone on Uranus, I would stick with frequency modulation, with what I call a rigid system, and forget about changing amplitudes.  Even light does a better job, it may have thousand of different lengths, but these are all on the same amplitude.

  13. And what more shall I say in that regard? I was anointed to be a teacher but who is willing to be taught?

  14. Start producing a fixed wavelength, and with the data signal modulate the events thereof. This ought to give you a clear signal.


  1. Light refracts, but how does it refract?  By its change in velocity as it enters upon a medium more dense, or by the angle of its waveform?  The answer should be logical that it is in the angle of its waveform.

  2. Different angles to the equally differences in velocity invokes the logic that it can only be by their angular moments.  And this being so, we cannot possibly have a wave the likes of what man has, depicted by Figure 9-4.  

  3. If we start out at section "Y", there is an angle namely C to D by which it comes upon the face of a prism noted g and g. And yes it as such may refract into direction from P to g1.

  4. But it has an opposite angle noted B to C as well, which way therefore is this critter to refract upon a prism? I am stating here and now that I am not the one who invented that wave, something that will refract both ways as these angles approach upon the prism.

  5. But we have never seen man's format for a wave to refract upon a prism, to go both ways, or no way at all. Mr. Huygens thought to have it in the bag, by having all such waves to come flat on, like at X, and never at all from their sides like section Y.


  1. His version of waves are not at all by a sine formation, nor in any angle, but straight on as frontal waves. (Ref- page 79) And for me to give us the benefit of both worlds I drew up this illustration, for waves can arrive in any position, can they not?

  2. And so what if they came broadside like in section "X", would they again refract into the same direction, from Z to h1?  It seems logical does it not? But there is something wrong here in that the angle at section X, is much less to that at Y.

  3. Have we therefore seen a blue wave to refract at different angles?  For what guarantee do we have that all of them will come broadside, or only at their sides?  


  1. And so my dear people when are we going to give up on our errors? By Figure 92-5, I drew up the reality of it, a rotating waveform refracting by its angular moment.  For by rotation that wave has only a single head and single angle, the XYZ coordinate no matter at what position it strikes..

  2. And do you want proof of this in case my word is not good enough?  Well on, there is a simple way to find out. From the air each wave has its particular length to which it will refract, but from a density such as glass or water those angles have been compressed and must therefore refract by a greater degree.  

  3. And now all we have to do is discover that my word is true.


  1. By Figure 92-6 someone at last showed the amplitude of a wave as it ought to be, but he errs in the notation of the velocity as he has it listed at 300.000-km/sec.

  2.  From L to K the velocity is 300.000-km/sec, from M to L, the velocity is something less than 300.000, by the angular design of the wave. If they were 1 meter lengths, with the amplitude for diameter at 2-cm, that would come to 2 x 3.14 is 6.28 + 100 = 106.28-cm.  300.000 : 106.28 = 2822-- x 100 = 282.273 km/sec.

  3. This of course is by example, showing how velocity and relative velocities are to be seen and found.




  1. There are water waves, wind waves, land waves, road waves, sound waves, hearing waves, skin waves, and even thought waves, all kinds of waves.  So we come to light waves and radio waves, as well as electric and magnetic waves, a whole range of waves, and yet most of these mentioned are not waves. 

  2. The wave in a road is simply a turn in the road.  The hills as they go up and down can also be seen as waves, while it are gently sloping hills.  The flutes upon a drill-bit can also be seen as waves, or the arm of the piston of a steam locomotive fastened to a wheel for its up and down also appears as a wave.

  3. With water however there are real waves and not merely a figure of speech, or are they real and not rather rolling motions like when they come upon the shores?  The wind has waves, and  even heat is called a wave, like a heat-wave, and a cold-wave, or is that a cold-snap?

  4. Particles have waves, or is it that they make waves?  But then so do people wherefore the voice can also be a wave. Scientists have it that quote; "Every elementary particle exhibits the properties of not only particles but also waves." Unquote.

  5. Here then it is no longer a figure of speech because we construed waves as a very property of a part be it idle or on the move, and that for logic and common sense must rub us the wrong way. If now these were swimming we could see their wake as waves, but as a property is hardly logical.

  6. A bullet does not have any waves, it kills, and while it moves it may make waves, the kind that we call its wake. But then man and his scientists may be two different species, and who is to tell the two apart?  Atoms as particles are not like any rock or bullet since these do have a property to carry with them.

  7. But then we are wrong since that magnetic movement that they carry forth is not a property as such, but more like how they are the property of that movement by, and of, and in, which they exist and subsist. And so who is to tell as to whom belongs to whom?

  8. But atoms do not usually float around, they are happy just being a part of all these many grids in nature, unless we in our irrational behavior start blowing them up, or shooting them at something, then they can damage things.

  9. But then there are lots of them that do move and float around like the wind, and the waters, and when we rearrange their structures in turbines and our piston engines, or even in our bellies to serve the needs of our bodies.

  10. It seems that everything comes down to movement, and even up to movement as well. And of course that fundamental movement by and in which atoms subsist is motion, and at that a complex motion to not only display that typical pattern of magnetic but to happily spin around as well.

  11. And by it all sorts of things are found, movements into a countless arrays of patterns that are more precise than even our own contraptions. When ten strangers come to them each with a different color shirt, they chap off the head of eight or nine allowing but one or two to leave their happy home.

  12. Waves as waves can be gently rolling hills or liquids while it moves up and down or back and forth. While light for it function must be like unto a drill-bit with a single flute.  Light as such serves no purpose unless it has the power of rotation, like an axle to turn the wheel that move the vehicle.

  13. Those poor plants and flowers sitting in the dark are crying out for help, with no-one to put some zip into them, They have their atomic rotation and molecular coordinates, but sitting in the cold these slow down slower and slower. 

  14. What they are in need of is a rotating shaft with a head on its outer edge, like a single flute to engage with their now slow motion by which their adrenaline may be raised.  The flowers closed themselves up for the night awaiting those rotating heads of the sun, for up to now all that came to them were straight line, none of them rotating.

  15. Like the flaps of an airplane are pulled in or driven out by rotations - so these flower are in need of rotations by which to open up again.  Or like the drive-shaft of a car to once again get its wheels moving, or how else are they to get to the pub or for anyone to admire them?

  16. Since when now did man start calling the rotation of a drill-bit as the wave of it?  He did so from the start since he was unaware of the fact that these devices do turn.  The crankshaft of an 8 cylinder engine also makes waves does it not, yet we do not call it a wave.

  17. Waves are not particles, and while I hinted for the angular moment to consist of some sort of substance. that my dear people is not anything solid nor liquid nor gas.  As then I designated it 3W that is about as far as I will go, with the rest for man to speculate upon.

  18. Waves are easily formed, we smell them and we taste them, but are they waves or simply coordinates?  A coordinate can be any shape of form, a complex set of eights formed within one another, or the turns of a simple string floating by that in turn can also resemble waves.

  19. The difference between  a red and a green color is the angle at which the tip of a single flute comes to enter upon a rotating or otherwise spinning coordinate.  If it does not match it is history, otherwise it is passed on to delight man and beast with his scenery.

  20. Sound is often referred to as waves when it are but vibrations, but while they move onward their intrusion appears as waves.  The wave nature of matter is that first of all that it subsists by movement and is contained by movement as well as displays movement. 

  21. But they are not as such a property of matter, but of their wake while they are in motion. Nor can we say that matter is a property of that most marvelous fundamental movement that the One and only God established whereby all of matter came to have its being.

  22. And yes what marvelous things I am revealing that perhaps I should keep to myself, lest perhaps I speak too much of such things that are not for the ears of them that scorn the Almighty Creator, and Father of all things.

  23. With matter on the move it leaves a wake that can be interpreted as waves, but mostly the interaction of the parts of matter  by confrontation and Relative Angular Movement are prone to produce waves, like those in a light-bulb, or by cutting the electrical coordinate on and off.

  24. Heating for example is simply by conduction, that too is like light shining upon us. When you have a wheel turning at 50 turns per second, and another at 40 turns per second, those by conduction will bring each other to a common rate of rotation.

  25. And that in all essence is no different from the light of the sun as it strikes upon our skin. When we are cold those minute parts of our skin have a rather low internal movement, but with light and the infrared for their rotation impacting upon them it is bound to increase that internal movement making us feel warm.

  26. It is pure logic as to why the linear movement of a wave will have a higher rate of speed than the factor of its rotation, all because that which we are so fond of in calling waves are much longer than the width of them by which to turn.

  27. The kind of waves that travel slowly through the air, to give us the smell of things are more correctly termed coordinates, like strings, the kind we like and such that are odious.  These are not the kind driven forth by natures fundamental movement, but in general with the wind and the general movement between all things.

  28. A coordinate can be just about any shape or size.  For a magnet it is the figure eight, for light and other magnetic waves it is a twisting line with a single flute.  For the atom by themselves and in grids there are figures of eight galore, and these form again into what is referred to as multiplexes, like an eight in an eight, and those at just about any angle. 

  29. Our rotating magnetic line known as electricity couples figures of eight end on end,  Complex molecules and component factors  couple them by triangles and by squares, and then some. And so you see everything is by movement, be it rotation or taking a linear path, that then comes to any combination thereof.

  30. For in movement there are but two fundamental directions, linear and angular, a single entity in two to four and that into an endless realm of combinations. Mr. Broglie may think to have it all summed up, but he lacks insight into the fundamentals of all things.

  31. Or has he, for like it is said; "If a particle of mass moves with a certain velocity it then has an energy that manifests itself in the form of a wave." And he even computes the length of these so called waves. But what was it that we came up with - if not that parts on the move leave a wake?

  32. Who then is the wiser, we with our common sense of logic, or that other specie of man who see things differently? I at this point however am still trying to figure out if that particle is deemed as a wave, or if it be its wake? It's hard to tell with the choice of words such as they are.

  33. Shall we go into the Photoelectric debate, or leave that to that specie of man who are still hung up on single sided coins?  And what are single sided coins? It are such arrows that have only a point and no tail, or a stick with no point upon it. I just like to see how one can bend a bow to shoot an arrow without any stick fastened to its point.

  34. Meaning show me something only negative, or only positive, a line that has a front but no tail, for even a dot has two sides. Come now my dear people, be realistic, the atom is what I care not to reveal, but most certainly it does not consists of single sided coins, that my dear people is contrary to all that is seen in nature.

  35. And with that I will end this essay, for I always seem to speak more than I should.


  1. But who is to stop a fountain from giving forth of itself? And since the words below were written, let it be entered.

  2. The moon stays with us at all times, and why is that?  Gravity!  So you will say?  But how can that be when the power of gravity does not extend out into space even as much as the diameter of the earth?  Magnetic lines of power and movement however extend clear from the sun to beyond Pluto.

  3. What therefore does common sense reveal to us, if not how all things are held magnetically? And how powerful that unseen movement is that we envision in lines of. 

  4. Not as such that they really are lines, and yet again they present themselves as lines, something that I do not wish to enter in more deeply, because man rejected me therefore I elected to hold back on certain things.

  5. But the fact that many tons of water are raised each day up against the force of gravity into what is known as the tides shows that magnetic motion to be quite powerful, more than enough to hold that heavy moon in place against its continual attempt to pull away from us.

  6. Magnetic power may be likened to a nut on a long threaded bolt. Attempt to slide that nut over the rod and it will not budge, but by rotation the nut will move up or down the rod. In the case of gravity which is like a nut - it drives all things downward to the point where the rods originate, right down the center of the center of the earth.

  7. That is why when we fall it will not be at the speed of light, the speed at which the rods have their velocity, but at the speed by which the nut is driven around the rod, and as it goes it accelerates by the factor at which the inclination to gravity forces that nut to turn.

  8. Weight therefore does not enter into it, nor any kind of bulk, since it is the factor of gravity that regulates the speed of that downward movement. 

  9. The waters then are moved upwards into a tide against that force because the lines extending between the earth and the moon are driven upwards by elongation as the moon encircles the earth.

  10. For these lines of magnetic, powerful as they are, are also pliable, when you pull on them they do not stretch as such but come to a less circular pattern, called elongation.  

  11. But the instant when the moon passes the area, and there is no longer any pull on them they revert back to their more circular pattern, their natural behavior.

  12. And why am I saying all this, while I defined these things in great detail at other pages, if not to remind us of what these lines are, and their power, the lines by which all waves are transposed.

  Next page