Rev/Ph  Page 4

Internet pages     One    Two    Three    Four    Five

Chapter 8


Motion is displacement of a material object. There is no super natural fluid or spirit, or charge in it. And motion is also power, but by itself it is not power, for the object is power only when it is in motion, because the motion is what makes it of power, yet we simply state that motion is power.

Motion is also energy, because energy is to have for any work we wish done. To build up energy is to get enough substantial reserve to make motions that make for all things arranging and rearranging. While this is very simple to understand in all the large things here because a two by four can be held in the hand, and nails and sheets of material also, yet a pile of material two feet high and a thousand feet square can be rearranged to a pile or structure that is 20 ft high and three thousand square feet, and it can be made to all sorts of forms.

So also is nature in its forthcoming. What shall we say is the power of nature, that which performs and provides and builds up for all manner of things?  Motion of course, therefore motion exists. But energy as energy is a myth, while energy as motion is very real, what we use for figure of speech matters little, but to hold figures of speech for realities is wrong.

We had a little challenge to reason as to how a motion may proceed along a straight line in a medium filled with motions in all directions out of which straight forward projecting lines are a bit out of order to conceive. 

If therefore we are to consider that a straight line is not a straight line, we can conceive that something once in motion in any certain direction will continue to follow in that direction along a straight line since anything to the contrary must be forced upon it by powers greater than its own.  And while such a something is accelerated amidst a multitude of small motions at balance with one another with no great power or inclination to drive anyone into any direction but such as will be the same to them as any other direction would have been.

The motion which we called something, be it a concentration of motion or particle, or a particle riding upon the motion  which is a combined velocity by the host of them, this motion will drive a straight line by its very movement of direction.  For anything  or any concentration will become a potential when it is set into a forward velocity as compared to a balanced state. Therefore there is no cause nor reason to go any other way. We could view Figure 54 to get a graphical idea.

To put this whole thing in a short sentence, the force of velocity makes for a straight line.  Imagine for example when we form a concentration of many motions individually to a single circular powerful line that sends powerful impulses upon a point in a medium, then this impulse not only becomes but is at that instant already a potential within that medium and as such is carried forward.


But how exactly they attain to such high velocities is a question besides the fact that they travel in straight directions, or that they travel forward at all. For the particles of the atom do not travel at that high speed themselves, nor do molecules move about with such velocities, or even anywhere near it, yet the end result of their motions provides a forward velocity unto a line of motion that is more or less a relation of position unto them at some 300 kilometers per second of time.

When Johnny raises his hand here, and all the Johns in between this one and Hendrick at the sun begin to raise their hands in consequence it will not be until 8 minutes later that Hendrick raises his hand at the sun. just like Johnny did here only not so strongly.  John is still here and Hendrick is still at the sun, while the raising of his hand was the energy we wished to have transposed, and it was indeed transposed seeing that Hendrick duplicated the movement of J0ohn.

But how did Hendrick know what John did?  It was by all the Johns in between. Not all actions are thus transposed or performed however but radio waves and light waves by which we see, and also the power of a generator is thus signaled to millions of lights everywhere to become illuminated for our sake.

The other means by which actions are performed is actual displacement of particle matter, Such is the energy usually understood as light from the sun or stars which does not travel independently but is accelerated and guided by the motion of all mediums, some of which also kill their motion, such as our earth or most substantial substances. The lighter the medium the better they can travel and be maintained at maximum velocity.

And then there are really substantial particles that can perform actions at faraway places such as electrons or protons or entire nuclei, with which we are acquainted, atomic radiation and what have you.

And still more there are also particles that when accelerated in motion will abide by a circular path, which must first be given unto them since out of themselves it is not likely to start that way. But when once in that given pattern they can hold it by their own internal motion within limitations which is a subject by itself. Only we no longer speak of a particle of substance by itself, but we now speak of a system of things, or a particle very much so.

I had intended to cover more basic fundamentals here but I realize they would require more detail than justified for a general purpose. Therefore let us speak of comparisons of ideas respecting the nature of nature.

Chapter 9


Reason and logic are not quite one and the same although they are brothers, and while our dictionary has a very poor explanation for the word logic, it defines reason correctly.  For to reason is to relate. as one might say; to connect things, to tell them apart, or to make a difference.  Yet the word reason has a meaning added to it that is not directly represented by its letters.  This is truth, or sound judgment. To reason therefore is to relate in truth, or in sound manner.

The word logic means something like; "naturally true of itself," or to speak of itself, or to explain of itself.  That a thing is logical is correctly given by itself and not attributed unto it by an outside party such as reason which reasons it out to state that which is correct, or logical, while logic is reason in itself and prints unto us, its correctness. To reason is a capacity within ourselves, but logic is in the reason itself, or in the thing or form of things themselves.

To communicate is to associate. But communications can only be true in reason.  How therefore shall we teach one another, or be educated by conversing with one another lest there be reason between us?  For not all debates are profitable.  A fool will not listen to reason because he has none to listen with, or to return a conversation with, and his mouth is all foolishness, while a wise man learns more from one soft spoken word than a fool by many whip-lashes, which are words by king Solomon,

If two persons have different ideas and one contends his understanding of a thing with that of another, and upon hearing a thing it to be so and so, one will answer the other that it is not so, and he persist with the same answer to plainly reject one's explanation by stating, "It is not so." and gives no foundation for his answer, he is a fool and the one we spoke of, His mouth is full of foolishness, and there is no reason in him. He only rejects things without reason to back them up, because he has no reason nor understanding in him to do any reasoning with. But can only state and state again the foolishness of his imagination.

For example, If I state that light is dependent on the medium by which it travels, and another person might not agree with this, for he understands it to be traveling independent thereof, and both of us are honest in our convictions, then neither of us should relinquish these convictions just because the other one that it is so. Only by the conviction of reason that overrules the other is one removed. Or the same might be said that pone bears forth reason which the other lacks. Or one is substantiated by the logic of the things, while the other has no logic, or that one is substantiated by the proof of the nature in which we exist, which we understand by reason again.

Suppose therefore one state that light travels independently, and I state, "No it is not but the contrary," and he states, "No it is not but your contrary." then neither of us get anywhere, and we are both fools. But when one questions the other to give reason unto it we can get someplace. For if both of us agree that light is a vibration, a movement into our eyes, and the man questions me as to how, I reason that light is dependent and I would answer him, because it is, then I am the fool. 

And if I question him; "How is it that light is independent?"  And he answers; "Because light is a vibrational movement of the radiation emitted from excited atoms."  And I could not top that, then he shall be correct for so it may be, even though he may be wrong in everything and I may be right in but one thing, at least he has some reason for it, and I had none at all, but stupidity alone to even make the statement, not being able to back it up.

If however I answered that light is dependent because a vibration must be a vibration of something substantial to move again upon a substantial being, and that it is illogic to say that a vibration can not even be thought of to exist lest it be of something substantial, and I go on to explain how such may be set forth upon a substantial medium and all things in nature, and the experiments such as he may have made bear me witness thereto, then I stand very strong indeed and he must top this with better reason to hold out against it.

Let us suppose that the radiation which he spoke of he interprets to be a line of motion set up by a multitude of smaller ones. Then both of us are speaking of the same thing, and we had no disagreement to begin with. except the question of dependence or independence.  If however he interprets these4 radiations to be particles rather than the consequence of motions one upon the other, then we did first of all not agree that light is vibrations, except if he meant the vibration of the particle itself while I meant the vibration of a line rather, and such differences do not come out unless we accurately define ourselves. But his defense to the independence of the light carries logic when we esteem them as particles rather than the lines.

In any discussion we must stop and look at the two parties for a moment to see whether both of them reason in fair judgment. If so, one need not be ashamed before anyone if he should lose the debate.  Only poor losers do that.

If therefore we continue in the same fairness, a net result to the benefit of both will be achieved, even though one must win over the other or both come out with a stalemate. For reason and debate should be played like a game of chess, by the rules, and without hard feelings. And I might win a game in physics against one, and lose a game of chess against the same, for all things are to each his own, according to the gifts of our Heavenly Father.

Continuing my questioning, I now ask him to substantiate how, if light reaches our eyes by pure particles, moving independent of our medium, that light will slow down as it enters a medium such as our atmosphere from a medium such as space, and even more when it travels through water, or glass, etc., his answer is that they act as a resistance unto these particles, just as an airplane is resisted by the air it must move out of its way, then we are ready to accept this because of his logic.

But when I continue to reason the fact that the air moves out of the way of the airplane because it physi­cally pushes it aside, and thus resistance is by physical contact of the two entities, and comparing this with the particle of light as it moves through our air, we must first of all consider what the particle is and what the air is, and then compare.

The particle we consider to be not any larger than an electron. In fact, our research has indicated by the relation of things, that this particle it must be even smaller, and although no one has ever seen such a particle, or tracked it, yet we did establish it by good reason, in experimental proofs as they may be established in the relations of things.

Then our air we know to be nothing other but chiefly empty space and yet filled with particles, not much different than our own solar system. Therefore to consider a particle of light traveling through air may be like conceiving a small comet passing through our solar system

Supposing the particle of light happily flies past all those particles until boom, it hits upon an electron in its path, and that would be the end of him most likely, or if he were only deflected into another direction, he would continue in that direction. But we can conceive many of them completing their hazardous journey until they reach our surface and seeing it so greatly packed, they give up or are again deflected. But now comes the reasoning—to relate this probability, with the facts as we see and know them in nature.

First of all if we direct a beam of electrons traveling at the speed of light at a target such as tin foil, we observe a display of many particles being scattered all over, and moreover we can change the molecular and atomic structures of matter in that manner. If then we suppose a beam of smaller particles also traveling at the speed of light, those which are light, and direct them at the tin foil, we burn right through it or if not so concentrated, the foil deflects the light straight back. But if we decrease the beam of electrons to only a few, they will still change molecular or atomic structure, only not so extensively.

Should then a beam of light not so concentrated also still burn the foil somewhat rather than cause a mere deflection? A 20-pound ball projected at a ring of still more 20-pound balls will in effect cause the same results as a 2-pound ball at a ring of other 2-pound balls. The capacity of the forces may not be the same, but the effects of both should be identical. Therefore two beams of electrons aimed at each other head on should have the same effect as two beams of light aimed at each other, considering light as particles, of course.

We could continue to debate 2-pound balls against 20-pound balls, that is to say, light against protons and electrons, but whatever we may conclude in there, the former postulate should show agreement also. Yet rather let us consider the straight line of sight that we have. If a particle hits an electron and is deflected, it could, for one, come away at right angles.

When the sun delivers this particle of light, and we look straight up and it hits our eyes, we see the sun at its place in that straight line because it came to us from that direction. But when we look sideways, and all the particles of the sun that are deflected at right angles unto us hit our eyes, do we then see the sun again? No, we do not. Yet we should, because they came from the sun, and have not changed a bit, only their direction unto us. So how do we explain that then?

Or if a mirror will cause us to see the sun from different angles, shall then a mirror be the only substance that deflects a particle wholly? In all of the effects of projecting a stream of objects or particles at a plane, or any other mass of objects or particles from nuclei to a pool table or whatever, do we observe the same net results as those which we observe when a beam of light hits a glass lens? Or a concave mirror?

Or do we mean to say, that every electron is standing still at the surface of the mirror, at precisely the right place and position to cause each particle of light to deflect so that together they make a perfect cone? Knowing what glass really is, and having played pool, such appears il­logical.

And again knowing how a tin foil can let a multitude of electrons pass right on through as if there were nothing in their path, and there was nothing, for they missed the particles of the tin foil, how do we explain the fact that much smaller particles of light which should by all means pass with greater ease through the tin foil, are all reflected, every last one of them, so no light at all is seen coming through it?

And as for velocity being decreased because of resistance, shall it be logical to assume a tiny particle of light can push an electron out of the way in order to proceed in its straight line? Yet how shall it be resisted like our airplane, lest it made physical contact somewhere? For reason dictates that all such particles which missed collision, should by all means maintain their original velocity, meaning we should find that light does not slow down, or else find a better explanation.

Or if we reason that they only grazed the particles and slowed down in that manner, and we wish to maintain their straight-line motion, it is best that we never play pool or our own reason will call that idea illogical to begin with.

To slow down by a resistance, that in effect is a col­lision with a grazing of the particle substances of the medium, would severely question our straight line of sight theory, to say the least.

Moreover, a particle of light that left a star 100 years ago, and which has been lucky enough to get through who knows how many interstellar gas clouds, and grazing planets and stars, and here and there an electron of hydrogen in deep empty space, only one per day, missing a billion each day, still means it grazed 100 times 365 hydrogen elec­trons in its journey, which was but the least part of its resistance, and finally earth comes in sight.

Now I would say it will probably be chooing along at about 1 mile per hour, wouldn't you think?  My opponent on the other side of the game board now must reason to overcome and explain all these things, to maintain the independent particle theory of light in which the vibrations are only the back and-forth movement of the particle itself as presumably it hits our eyes.

I am debating a very tricky subject however, because in all the reasoning I bring forth to show how considering light as particles disagrees with the experiences of nature, I also quite agree with the theory of light as particles, and as vibration, but the how-to varies somewhat, and agrees with logic and the experiences of nature much more than the former.

While the nature of light is written elsewhere, let us concern ourselves chiefly with reason for the moment, and consider an answer I would receive from someone who, when asked to explain-unto me what then light is, answers, "Light is a frequency radiance." Now, the word frequency means "how often," or "the rate of," or just "rate," and radiance is some­thing like brilliance, or to move outward. Now we must figure out whether he said that light is "how often brilliant," or "rate of moving out" and I suppose this requires no further comment.

There is more to reason than reason alone, which I must not leave unmentioned lest someone say that if one need not relinquish his conviction here, one must not accept anything except it can be so established, or that therefore all things are that way, for this is not true. For shall one doubt the word of his Maker?

Is it not true that a child accepts the word of his father although he does not understand it, because it is his father or his teacher, and of respect and the fact that he realizes his father or teacher to be perfect, he accepts by faith. Knowing how we therefore respect our parents, how much more not our Maker?

This also is reason and logic, and while we might sometimes make it out that logic comes only from education, yet logic is as it conveys, to be of itself, as if it grows with us, like our shadow. And wretched is he that casts no shadow, and poor is he who has not learned the meaning of the word reason.