Reactionless Drive

“Wisdom Begins in Wonder”

- Socrates

First Edition (started 2015, revised 2021)

ISBN: To be determined

Library of Congress Control Number: To be determined

All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright holder may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems – without written permission of the copyright owner.

Graphic Design by David Woodrow John Cover Rendering by David Woodrow John Type Font: Arial

All creative works, drawings, photographs and diagrams (covered under copyright) are by the author. All other works under copyright are the exclusive property of their respective owner.

David Woodrow John PO Box 207 Vermontville, NY 12989

16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Cataloging Data

John, David W. How Everything Works – Occam’s Shaving Kit / David Woodrow John

“Well, from when he was little,

David always had to know

how EVERYTHING worked.” (exasperated sigh)

- Dr. Floyd I. John Describing his youngest son

“A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is,

the more different kinds of things it relates,

and the more extended is its area of applicability.”

- Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes

2021 Update

This update is long overdue.

In August of 2018, my Son and I were involved in a major auto accident in Upstate New York. The 2 Hospital contacted my Daughters who were living in Denver, Colorado at the time and told them they needed to come out right away as they: “Had 2 days to say goodbye to your Dad.”

They said it took 5-6 men about 25 minutes using “The Jaws of Life” to get me out of the car. Apparently I was stabilized at one hospital and then life-flighted to another. For injuries, there were many – starting with 20 rib fractures, 3 pelvis fractures, basically every internal organ punctured, DVT blood clots in my legs, and more. They also thought I sustained serious head injuries, so even IF I survived…

I understand I was kept in a medically induced coma for a number of days (like a portion of a week) and then slowly woken up over several days. My Daughters were there to talk to me and help. That’s how I first knew something big had happened – my oldest Daughter was holding my hand and talking to me, and I knew she lived in Denver. I couldn’t see anything, but I could hear her voice and feel her hand and I knew I was in BIG trouble or a) I would be able to see, and b) I would know why she flew here from Denver. Neither was true, so I knew I was in some kind of something.

After I had finally “come to,” and had been recovering for days, I started to notice the expressions that the staff would have on their faces when they would come by my room and look in the doorway and see me sitting there in bed talking to one of my Daughters. I mean, I knew I had been busted up, but the sheer shock surprised me. Many, many Nurses and Doctors and others actually “dropped their jaw” and I mean that in the most literal sense. Dozens and dozens of them.

In my spare time, I couldn’t quite replicate the faces they would make. Finally one day, I said to my Daughter: “They thought I was actually going to DIE, didn’t they?” I told her I couldn’t make the exact expression unless I mentally prefaced it with the thought that - absolutely, this patient is going to die. Then… it was easy to make that expression, seeing the “living” corpse sitting up and smiling and talking. She said: “Oh YEAH they thought you were going to die.”

People at the hospital called me The Miracle Man because I recovered so fast and well. Almost a month in the ICU and only 8 days in rehab after, then home taking care of myself and my Dad and my 4 cats.

Anyhew, there is more to that story, but I wanted to recount this from the end of my nearly month-long stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU):

When I was getting transferred, one of the regular Nurses came up to me and said: “Son, I’ve been doing this a loooong time and I’ve seen a lot of patients. I can tell you one thing FOR SURE: You were saved by someone or something for a reason. You need to go find that reason and do it.”

I was sitting in a wheelchair and looked up at him and laughed out loud and said, chuckling:

“I know all about it… I’m just waiting for YA’LL to catch up!”

Contents < 3% ...... 5

Prologue...... 7 3 The John Device ...... 10 Introduction ...... 11 Circles ...... 12 Right, but Wrong...... 13 Basic Concepts ...... 18 CVRP ...... 20 Frequency ...... 31 Matter / Mass ...... 38 The Hexagon ...... 51 Anti-Matter ...... 72 Atomic Structure ...... 80 1+1=3 ...... 88 Atomagnetism ...... 96 Force(s) ...... 109 Gravity ...... 112 Light ...... 121 E=mcx ...... 131 ‘ons are Off ...... 133 Hot / Cold...... 135 Black Holes ...... 148 Ready to have your mind blown? ...... 154 Dark Matter ...... 162 Dark Energy...... 168 Neutrinos ...... 172 Galaxy Formation ...... 174 Big Bang / Inflation Theory ...... 178

Time ...... 184 Biology / Life / Cancer ...... 187 Quantum Entanglement and You...... 198 Everything the Same ...... 207

Closing Thoughts ...... 210 4 APPENDIX A - Predictions ...... 215 APPENDIX B - Gravity and Other Anomalies and Oddities ...... 227 APPENDIX C - Relativity ...... 248 APPENDIX D - Gravitational Waves ...... 258 APPENDIX E – Gravity:Emergent Phenomenon...... 263 APPENDIX F - MoND...... 265 APPENDIX G – Reactionless Drive ...... 267 APPENDIX H - Perpetual Motion ...... 269 References ...... 278 One of Einstein’s Best Quotes ...... 292 GIANTS ...... 293

< 3%

5 Before you read this document, consider this:

• Scientists today say they cannot find One Half of the Universe, because they “don’t know where the Anti-Matter” is or went. • Out of the remaining One Half, THEY claim that 94+% is unknown, comprised of what they call unknown “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy.”

Therefore, even if Scientists were 100% correct in their thoughts and assumptions about the Universe (which they know from a large number of research studies that they are not), then THEY claim to know LESS than THREE Percent (<3%) about what they’re talking about. Remember, that’s not me creating those numbers - that’s them. I just typed them.

So, remember, when you see a famous “Physicist” or “Scientist” speaking on TV or writing or speaking on the Internet – the individual could state that they know about less than 3% of anything they are speaking about – and again, that’s only if they were absolutely right, which they know they aren’t. Many times, research and attendant articles by physicists refer to “new physics” they KNOW must exist.

However, you can’t discern that because of the inflated, pompous, looking-down-their-nose attitude – a higher-than-thou feeling often seen in followers of various cults and fanatical religions. True scientists, of course, are wonderful, open-minded people.

There are many of them around, but not so much at the various institutions and organizations that people feel are the true source of scientific knowledge. Remember, people at those organizations are generally more concerned with job security, advancement, publication, tenure, and the like and don’t want to risk potentially losing those things.

“Don’t make waves” is essentially the trademarked phrase of theoretical physicists, which is funny because they’re drowning every day. :^)

LESS than 3 Percent… Incredible. Who would have guessed?

Here’s a graphic to put it in perspective for you:

Speaking of percentages, and to help assuage you that you aren’t wasting your time reading this document, when I was in 10th Grade, I took the U.S. Military ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery), which gave a percentile score result , meaning you can’t get 100. My scores were 99, 99, 99, 98, 96, and 94.

The Sergeant Major thought there must have been an error, because no one else in my group of about 30 people had gotten a single score in the 80s. I didn’t feel there was an error because I had known the answers to almost every question. Regardless, he took several weeks to confirm and when he did he said: “Son… that means you can do anything you want to do in the World, and you’ll be among the best in the World at it.”

So, I decided to focus my life on what I thought were the most important things in the World – free power forever and ending pollution simultaneously, and it led to much more than just that.

Prologue

Prepare for a journey. 7

But, unlike many other “Theories of Everything” (TOE) which try to explain things, or an attempt at a “Grand Unification Theory” (GUT), this requires absolutely NO new things.

No new proposed dimensions or particles or unknown forces or ideas.

For your information - a GUT, or Grand Unification Theory, would be a theory that unifies the existing ideas of Einstein’s Relativity/Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics. Since Relativity is technically a Science Fiction concept not related to reality, and Gravity (as currently imagined) doesn’t even exist, I can assure you that there NEVER will be a GUT.

A TOE, or Theory Of Everything, simply explains everything. By definition, it must account for everything ever observed in any method and in any field of science – as everything incorporates far more than any single discipline. It must account for things from the Galactic/Universal scale, down to the atomic, sub-atomic scale, perhaps further, and everything in between. Since it relates to everything, it can be assumed that a TOE will also have implications in other, perhaps completely un-anticipated areas of science, including areas relating to social sciences, religions, communities, health, disease, unknown phenomena, and on and on. (It does :^)

The main thing you have to do on this journey is to clear your mind and begin with pure nothingness - the emptiness and blackness (and not just black in the visible spectrum) of pure vacuum and nothing.

Then begin to learn.

A key point to consider is that How Everything Works – Occam’s Shaving Kit (HEW) doesn’t argue or disagree with any data collected by Mankind – and never will. No research is invalid if it is obtained through proper scientific (documented, repeatable) methods.

The conclusions that are drawn from the data obtained from said research are another matter.

Many ideas and concepts that we currently use are directly applicable, while others are difficult to adapt directly, often because of the traditional Gravity issues, and sometimes because of 8 terminology that has been accumulated to attempt to explain How Everything Works (HEW).

However, again, key principles, such as the CMBR field, the Higgs particle, and all of the discovered (and undiscovered) particles are all fully compatible with the concepts taught here. It’s important to remember that most normal research is done on the planet Earth, and therefore is deep inside the overall field of the planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a universe – all with their own fields contributing.

Any results from experiments, such as those at the Large Hadron Collider, are fantastic – but the very atoms and sub-atomic particles they are shooting are already acted on by those things, as are the resultant collisions and the directions and angles and spins that the various components take after being shattered apart.

Again – it is great stuff – applicable to any planet of about the size and composition of the Earth with a Sun pretty much about the same as our Sun, in a Galaxy very similar, etc., etc.

The only new principle is that shown by The John Device.

It’s called CVRP – Continuously Variable Rotating Plane technology.

It allows for infinite masses to be rotated with virtually no increase in the force used to rotate it.

Unlike other theories or ideas that propose a new idea/concept/dimension, concepts that directly relate to this one are documented on Youtube already, and more importantly, the experiments can easily be replicated by any individual or organization for about One Hundred dollars ($100US) or even less if they have various parts laying around. That is much different than physicists proposing new particles and dimensions that require machines that cost a few hundred Million or even a few Billion dollars. (all of which, comically, are batting a thousand in

destroying the current models they were built to solidify – oh well, physicists get to learn how life really works – it always comes back around! – No time travel and other dimensions to save you!)

Apologies are extended for the crude examples used in many drawings.

9 For example, the field “lines” are just representations to give the idea of a field, not to imply any particular spacing or harmonics, and the lines through the center of each object is again for visual orientation/reference. There may well be and probably are such harmonics and other areas that naturally contribute to locations, but that is beyond the scope of this simple commentary.

Also, Quantum Mechanics and Theories always claim to describe things that “can’t be explained/described by classical mechanics.”

That’s simply because they forgot that “classical mechanics” includes things that spin (everything) and thereby have a frequency and a field, which “enables” their supposedly non-classical abilities, such as entanglement.

So, as you will see from various highly respected sources, everything can be explained in “classical” or “mechanical” terminology.

Unfortunately for many theorists, classical and mechanical systems and descriptions don’t include things like: Let’s make up another dimension to cover that! Or a favorite from an actual physicist: There’s no limit to how much we can bend space and time! :^)

Yes, physicists, in the REAL world things make sense.

No Sci-Fi stories.

No Quantum-Shcwuantum, new dimensions, imaginary particles or forces here.

The Real World.

The John Device

When reading about The John Device, you may think you are reading about a “Gravity Motor.”

You will see much more than that. 10 Force and force redirection.

It showed those things, and its’ relatives can make all the electricity Man will ever need.

But that’s not what The John Device turned out to be.

In the journey of learning about The John Device, you will learn something about how the very Universe(s) works.

Then, perhaps, you will learn or have your learning reinforced about how Life works.

As a graphic on the website (www.TheJohnDevice.com) says,

Introduction

One interesting aspect of this book is that I never in my wildest dreams imagined I would be writing it. I never had any intention or interest in coming up with and writing about a Theory of 11 Everything. I’ve mentioned before that if anyone thinks that a Man would work his entire life on how to use the force of Gravity to produce power also started out to prove that, among other things, Gravity doesn’t exist… then that person needs to keep thinking for a while.

In fact, I had always avoided extended thought forays into the areas of magnetism, perhaps because I thought that study and pursuit of that field would eventually lead to, or at least dance around, principles that relate to what people may or may not generally refer to as “God.”

I was forced to learn the science behind torque to better explain The John Device technology, and ended up finding out the confusion that reigns in theoretical physics and other disciplines.

This book is about How Everything Works (HEW) and therefore is about force and spin.

It’s about the force that makes every single atom (and the protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos and other constituent parts) in your body spin.

The same force that makes the Sun, Earth and other Planets spin. The force that makes Galaxies spin. The force that makes the Universe(s) spin.

I will leave it up to the reader to determine for themselves ultimately what that “force” is. God, Allah, Jahweh, or whatever name you prefer... or nothing, which is technically illogical, since: …everything is unresolved torque in free space.

(this is an advanced concept so don’t let it “get you down” at this point – in fact, think of everything as fields - as in electromagnetic fields - and, at the atomic level, the constant exchange of electrons)

Circles

12 What makes things want to grow?

Was my first attempt to find the “ultimate” question.

Eventually, I realized that was a macro-version of what is, in one perspective, the “ultimate” question:

What makes things (want to) spin?

Right, but Wrong

In the very beginning of Feynman’s lectures (considered some of the most important lectures on 13 physics), he says:

“If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.” (3)

So, how DOES everything work and what’s wrong with what we think now? …and how did we get here?

Well, it’s complex and covers topics that people don’t want to discuss, but a viable discussion can be brought about by looking at the two paths that faced Man a little over a Century ago.

One path was that of Maxwell and electromagnetic ideas. The other path was that of Einstein’s various relativities.

It was well understood that the very math involved in field calculations that are necessary when dealing with the fields of electromagnetic theories were so complex that they were quite literally beyond the abilities of Mankind at that time.

Einstein, meanwhile, provided a set of math equations and descriptions that were within the abilities of Mankind, even down to the level of an individual with a paper and writing device.

The result of the “feud” between these two schools of thought was (obviously) that Einstein won, because of Mankind’s technological inabilities, and a couple of observations that matched predictions.

It is interesting to see how science has evolved since then. 14

Richard P. Feynman, is for those not “in the know,” considered one of the greatest physicists who ever lived, and I understand that his various books and documents are required reading at every College or University for someone majoring in Physics.

In his commencement address to Caltech’s 1974 graduating class, titled: “Cargo Cult Science” he offers remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself:

“But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO’s, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.” (4)

It is fascinating to me that a claimed scientist would belittle the idea of UFO’s, let alone other things mentioned. Because of the state of Man I won’t comment further.

It’s also interesting that he automatically puts down anything he doesn’t understand or hasn’t experienced with the wonderful “and so forth” tacked on at the end.

My Father has a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Purdue University. Needless to say, it is a field of pure logic. He is also a lifelong Christian. He should be the definition of the type of person who would join right along with Feynman in that statement about those strange things. Incredibly, he has actually lived and traveled and read and learned and knows there are things that happen and things that have happened that science simply cannot account for – no matter what. Since he is an actual scientist, he would never be caught making such a broad, sweeping, and uninformed statement. An interesting story my Father told me: When he was considering his Doctorate in the late 1950’s he was looking at the fields of Mathematics or Physics. He recounted how in discussing his dilemma, one of the physics professors said that they had

essentially “figured out” everything in physics and just had a few things to finish up. That was one of my Father’s deciding factors as to why to go into Mathematics instead.

In the document by Feynman, he goes on and on about how he tried to feel and experience some of those different things and he found it a waste of time and the people involved 15 charlatans or comical.

I’m sure there were some characters!

I supposed physicists don’t venture out into the World much and so don’t know about different kinds of people, eccentric behavior, etc. (or should I say: and so forth?) Just for his or anyone’s info – just because “odd” or “eccentric” people are interested in something does not, by scientific analysis or any court of law, make it ridiculous or stupid or not worthy of investigation.

“So we really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t science.”(81)

In the quote below from the commencement speech, Feynman was talking about Millikan (Robert Andrews) and the charge of the electron, but you need to read the second paragraph twice and think of the name Albert Einstein instead of Robert Millikan. (or just Einstein instead of Millikan)

“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.” (81)

"Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be

wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that kind of a disease.” (81)

I think for him to make such a statement: “…and now we don’t have that kind of a disease” is exactly the kind of attitude and arrogance that has led physics to where it is now. Nowhere. 16

“But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.” (81)

Regarding the last paragraph, the integrity he yearns for unfortunately has been washed away by the harsh dilutes of money and title and adulation and location and situation, heightened even further by our media-frenzy nature of the modern day.

EVERY physicist KNOWS to NEVER say anything negative about Einstein, as it is the end of their professional career. Period.

For example, in the section on perpetual motion, an effect that was discovered regarding zero point energy is discussed. Because it contradicted current thought, the researchers were hesitant to announce their results.

The very concept that someone would hesitate to release results from a physical, empirical study because they conflict with math and other theories written down on a piece of paper is laughable, and almost enough to make me puke.

“But that object CAN’T do that!! It’s not what the math says!!” “I know! I built it myself and it’s right there, but the math says it doesn’t exist.” “Thank goodness math and thoughts on paper defeat physical, empirical evidence!” :^) It is yet another indictment (there are thousands and thousands of them) against our scientific community and the outmoded models they propose as vague explanations.

In THIS book and theory, EVERYTHING has to be explained. (other than Who’s or What’s unresolved torque in free space that we are) There is no magic. If there is, we’ll just “drill down” until said “magic” becomes a simple physical occurrence. No cats in boxes and other games.

For example: 17 Light isn’t magically “emitted.” How it happens is explained in detail.

Gravity doesn’t just “make things attract other things”, because: a) that would violate the other laws of physics, and b) what we actually observe doesn’t fit the “model” of Gravity anyway.

However, as you will see, until further research is done, the “numbers” that we currently use for the phenomena we refer to as Gravity are good enough to use for now.

They must be, as they are the aggregate of thousands of years of empirical, or observational, research. Many of the “numbers” of quantum physics are correct also, again as they are based on observational research.

However, remember that the research is almost entirely done on the surface of the Earth at various altitudes and in different local environmental situations, affecting the outcomes.

In that commencement speech, Feynman said something that terrifies many “scientists” but which I welcome with open arms… and an open mind:

“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory.” (81)

…and to that, I say:

B R I N G I T O N ! ! ! ! :^)

Simply put: Everything is right… and everything is wrong.

Basic Concepts

In the simplest form, consider these shafts: 18

The figure on the left is “vertical” - the figure on the right is slightly tilted or angled “off-center.”

And now with “weights” (or electrons, or other pieces…) added:

Now, with a “framework” or “orientation” or “structure”:

Throughout history, we have come to think that it is better to perfectly balance a shaft, or align it in regards to external forces, as shown on the left in each of the examples above. To “tilt” a weight or object doesn’t “seem to get you anywhere”, as any “gains” you might think you’ve made on the “downstroke” side will be negated by the “upstroke” side - and we know the tilt also adds vibration and potentially a variety of other problems. (advanced tip: don’t forget about rotation/vibration, and its’ attendant cousin, frequency)

The mathematics and physics involved in calculating the amount of energy required to rotate a given mass at a given speed (or any other combinations) are well known and well-recognized, and can be looked up in any number of sources online or otherwise.

In fact, standard, easily available formulas are used when calculating the various features regarding the CVRP technology of The John Device.

CVRP

One recent problem that has been encountered with these thoughts and what “everyone knows” is that highlighted by The John Device and CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology.

In a video called: “The Impossible Video” on Youtube,(1) The John Device rotates 125 lbs of weight from a stand-still to 45 RPM and maintains it. (Note: The only reason the system stops at 45 rpm is because the drive motor is only rated to go up to 45 rpm.)

- The weights are more than 2/3 of a meter from the central torque shaft that is rotating, providing an overall diameter of more than 5 feet.

- The energy that would be required to do this, if the shaft was perfectly straight, would be at least a thousand (1,000) Watts. (It is not calculated exactly here or in the videos because more weight can simply be added, thus changing the calculations.)

- Yet The John Device is able to do this never using more than five (5) Watts of power.

In fact, the system shown has done the same rotation shown in the video but with 250 lbs, or twice the weight. That setup is not shown in calculations because there is no supporting video – the horizontal arms on the mechanism broke under the weight before deciding to record it.

Again, any experimenter who builds a system will be able to add as much weight as their design and implementation can handle.

How does it (The John Device) do that?

In a video called: “Why you can’t use Gravity for Power” on Youtube,(1) I discuss the general idea to imagine a hill and a rock on it. If you roll the rock “down the hill” to gain power, everyone knows that you will lose at least the same amount of power moving the rock back “up the hill.” There are variations on this theme consisting of endless shapes and structures to try to figure out how to get the weight (rock) back “uphill.” 21

Well, as stated in the video, The John Device doesn’t actually move the weight.

It moves the hill.

Another term that might be used is the plane.

The weight or mass moves by being pulled (in this case) by the Earth’s “gravity.” The John Device is moving the plane of rotation in a pattern, described below.

Besides the mass/weight being relatively equally distributed, at the “top” of the John Device system shown below, the vertical shaft fits into an inner wheel rotating around a larger, cut-out round opening. Using the image below, the area described is under the white support bars.

Credit: David Woodrow John

One solution to accomplish the desired rotation “pattern” was to use a hypocycloid gear system. The simplest and quickest description for most people would be to think of would be a loved Childhood toy – the Spirograph.

With a Spirograph, you can put a pen or pencil in a hole in a smaller, inner gear that rotates on 22 the “inside” of a larger external gear, producing various patterns.

Source: Wikipedia

In fact, in the initial design of The John Device, a Spirograph type device WAS used to determine the correct location on the correct gear to produce the correct rotation pattern, and then everything was measured and “scaled up” to the larger size needed on the actual John Device system shown in various Youtube videos.

The pattern desired was that of a equilateral triangle, so if viewed from the “top down” it would look something like this:

Credit: David Woodrow John

In terms of rotation and “falling” you will find that the system is “falling” throughout the straight lines in the drawing above, and then will have to “turn the corner” before falling again.

23 So, in a period of a possible 360 degrees of rotation, the system is “falling” through a majority of the rotation, approximately 300 out of 360 degrees – and then relies on momentum contained in the system to carry it through, or “round the bend.”

Technically, you can see that mathematically, the system is actually “falling” all the time, with essentially instantaneous transitions from stopping falling to starting falling. But that’s an example of math and the real World hitting each other right in the face. I allowed, in the paragraph above, a 20 degree area on each “corner” with no “falling” effect. That 20 degree allowance was determined after an extended session of firing a weapon from mid-torso.

From another perspective, it looks something like this:

As you can see, it’s “falling” on the line angled downward, and the sharp jump from the bottom to the top represents a corner on the equilateral triangle.

Interestingly enough, if you use the same information, plotted circularly, you’ll see this:

Credit: David Woodrow John

Remember, this is with a system made out of plywood that shakes because of insufficient support braces, a toothed sprocket covered in a layer of duct tape for the top inner rotation wheel, a small variable-height center shaft that rubs against the main center torque shaft, and no bearings of any kind… in short – an engineering mess.

Yet it shows a concept. By being off center, but constrained in a framework, it is able to start and rotate any amount of weight that can be put on its’ simple assembly using only a few Watts where a traditional perfectly aligned shaft would require perhaps tens of thousands of Watts, the latter statement of course depending on the weight, distance, speeds desired, etc.

An important thing to remember is that the system as shown is relatively evenly balanced, so the amount of weight could be increased infinitely. The system does this with little or no change in the input Wattage. In other words, you could rotate a Trillion Tons of weight at 45 RPM using just a few Watts of input power. (tip: You’re only actually moving the difference between the two “masses.”)

Remember this concept:

Weightless, Not Massless.

25 p.s. for you advanced folks, I know it’s not technically accurate, but it conveys an idea.

CVRP provides a non-linear relationship regarding the input power or energy measured in Watts used relative to the amount of mass rotating – which speaks volumes to some.

The graphic on the next page shows calculations for a 125 lb. setup. It’s important to note that the system in the video far exceeds the numbers used. The weights are farther “out” than calculated, which dramatically effects the various calculations used. Therefore, the resultant amount of Wattage estimated is definitely on the low side.

Another way to think of it is that you could rotate an entire Planet or an entire Solar System, or Galaxy, or Universe… with just a few Watts of power.

In fact, this is related to the cosmological background radiation or cosmological constant “problem.” When physicists calculate their expected energy levels for these, they are incorrect 27 from the actual observed levels by a factor of 10120.

That’s the number 10 (ten) followed by 120 (one hundred twenty) Zeros. (or Zeds for much of the World) So, another way to say it is that they calculated that something should cost: $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 Dollars

When it actually only costs: $0.02 Dollars - or a couple of cents.

Fundamentally, that is why scientists never understood how this small amount of radiation could power anything, let alone the Universe(s).

This is also why the existing concepts of an “Electric Universe” ultimately fail. They can account for virtually everything (which they should, since they are essentially correct being direct relatives of the principles in this document) but they can’t account for spin, and so fall on the standard ideas of the Big Bang and total angular momentum, etc.

Additionally, many theorists are constrained (the reasons why are quite varied and deal with psychological principles, not scientific ones) by their allegiance with the various relativities, and so, of course, cannot ever see the truth.

This ability is shown by The John Device’s Continuously Variable Rotating Plane (CVRP) technology and concept:

The Impossible Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_saRaWSl_Cw

www.TheJohnDevice.com www.Facebook.com/TheJohnDevice

We are all actually somewhat familiar with the ideas of an object that rotates around, but not in a perfectly “straight” orientation. Here are some examples that relate to this commentary, one familiar, one not so much:

Planets (Earth’s precession) Atoms (Larmor precession)

Many people are also familiar with a “top” or “gyro” that spins and as the spin degrades, the angle of the precession increases until it falls over.

When looking at the Larmor precession of the Atom, consider this from Wikipedia: “Larmor precession (named after Joseph Larmor) is the precession of the magnetic moment of an object about an external magnetic field. Objects with a magnetic moment also have angular momentum and effective internal electric current proportional to their angular momentum; these include electrons, protons, other fermions, many atomic and nuclear systems, as well as classical macroscopic systems.” (2)

Therefore, every thing has precession and spin (angular momentum).

For a recent example, in a research article from 2021, titled: “Does the Milky Way move like a spinning top?” they even found precession in the Milky Way Galaxy(106), as shown in this graphic:

Credit: Gabriel Pérez Díaz, SMM (IAC)

Wikipedia goes on to say: “The phenomenon is similar to the precession of a tilted classical gyroscope in an external torque-exerting gravitational field.” (2)

Then consider the gyromagnetic ratio: “In physics, the gyromagnetic ratio (also sometimes known as the magnetogyric ratio in other disciplines) of a particle or system is the ratio of its magnetic momentum in an atom to its angular momentum” (2)

Regarding precession and spin: “Any free system…such as a rigid system of charges, a nucleus, or an electron, when placed in an external magnetic field… that is not aligned with its magnetic moment, will precess at a frequency… that is proportional to the external field.” (2)

30 From the same Wikipedia page: “Protons, neutrons, and many nuclei carry nuclear spin, which gives rise to a gyromagnetic ratio as above. The ratio is conventionally written in terms of the proton mass and charge, even for neutrons and for other nuclei, for the sake of simplicity and consistency.” (2)

In other words, everything spins. Now let’s be absolutely clear: Scientists (including physicists) assert that an Atom and the various constituent parts such as Quarks do NOT actually spin, as in spin around.

Physicists even assign attributes that are normally given to a physical, mechanical object that spins, such as angular momentum, orbital angular momentum, the moment, and more, but assert that it doesn’t actually spin, offering no explanation of any kind for their assertion.

Quite literally, a physicist’s answer to the question if a particle is actually spinning is: “No, but it acts exactly like it does, and the reason for that is ‘just because.’ Also, don’t forget to use all 6 mathematical corrections we add for things that are actually spinning, which we have to apply, or nothing works right.”

James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), who discovered the laws of electrodynamics, (and who will be replacing Einstein in importance someday) said a wonderful and interesting thing:

“To those who study the progress of exact science, the common spinning-top is a symbol of the labours and the perplexities of men who had successfully threaded the mazes of the planetary motions.” (6)

Frequency

It’s also important to remember that when things spin, they have what we refer to as a 31 frequency. You could simply say an object’s frequency is how frequently something “comes around” in a given period of time.

Since all objects spin and have precession, and at the atomic level we refer to it as Larmor Precession, it is natural that there is also a Larmor Frequency.

“The angular momentum vector J precesses about the external field axis with an angular frequency known as The Larmor Frequency.” (2)

NMR, or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy imaging, uses Larmor frequencies because the various frequencies have been documented at various magnetic field strengths. This topic also relates to areas discussed later in this commentary about biology and other implications.

An interesting and important concept regarding Larmor Frequencies is found on Wikipedia:

“Crucially, the Larmor frequency is independent of the polar angle between the applied magnetic field and the magnetic moment direction. This is what makes it a key concept in fields such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), since the precession ratio does not depend on the spatial orientation of the spins.” (2)

In a study looking for dark matter (also mentioned later in the dark matter section) the researchers were looking for fluctuations in neutrons due to theorized interactions with the theoretical particles called Axions. Here are some interesting things relating to this research that also relate to this HEW:

“Although neutrons have no overall charge, they are made up of quarks that do individually have a positive and negative charge, and that gives neutrons a magnetic moment.” (7)

“In the presence of an external magnetic field, the neutron precesses with a frequency 32 known as the Larmor frequency, due to that aforementioned magnetic moment. By switching the direction of the field, the scientists measured the change in a neutron’s Larmor frequency, and from that calculated its electric dipole moment, which is a measure of the distribution of positive and negative charge inside the neutron.” (7)

Additionally, the g-factor, which relates to a system’s angular momentum to the intrinsic magnetic moment, is 1 in classical physics, but in nuclear physics includes effects of nucleon spins, orbital angular moments and couplings.

Polarity, as defined by Wikipedia, is also good to know:

“In physics, polarity is an attribute with two possible values. Polarity is a basic feature of the universe.

• An electric charge can have either positive or negative polarity.

• A voltage or potential difference between two points of an electric circuit has a polarity,

describing which of the two points has the higher electric potential.

• A magnet has a polarity, in that it has two poles described as "north" and "south" pole.

• More generally, the polarity of an electric or magnetic field can be viewed as the sign of

the vectors describing the field.

• The spin of an entity in quantum mechanics can have a polarity – parallel or anti-parallel

to a given direction.” (2)

Every atom has a frequency (we know this already, but for advanced thinkers, our research is also Earth-based and necessarily tainted by the Earth’s field), and every combination of atoms has a frequency.

“All normal (baryonic) matter emits ElectroMagnetic Radiation when it has a temperature 33 above absolute zero.” (2)

Continuing on, every combination of combinations of atoms has a frequency, unique to that combination.

We know this scientifically, and for one example, use the field of spectroscopy (using different types of light, even such as infrared) to analyze materials to determine what they are composed of. If you’ve seen most crime TV shows, there’s some point where they use a spectrometer or similar device to determine the exact “chemical composition” of something relevant on the show, in order to “bust” the criminal.

Here’s an example of the spectrum of a Metal Halide Lamp:

Credit: Wikipedia

As Wikipedia says: “Spectroscopy is the study of the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation.” (2)

For example, every individual biological cell has a frequency, as does groups of cells such as organs (this relates to cell differentiation, cancer, and other topics discussed elsewhere). You, collectively, have a frequency – made up of all the individual atom frequencies and molecule frequencies and cell frequencies and organ frequencies. (some people even refer to other people or animals or things as “having a frequency”) 34

Learning and knowing the frequencies of these molecules, cells, and organs will have a direct impact on disease detection and healing.

For example, with the Covid-19 Pandemic, scientists could determine the frequency of the specific Coronavirus and do a finger pinprick or other test and know immediately if the client was positive or negative. Of course the virus would be mixed with blood or saliva or other biological content that would have their own frequencies “contaminating” the sample, but with enough samples and tests, the various ranges could be determined for different contaminants and their respective frequency ranges.

This frequency chart is an example showing the higher the frequency, the smaller the object involved with it. Obviously, we just haven’t gotten to the high enough frequencies to start playing with sub-sub-atomic particles yet.

Credit: pixgood.com

Those fields/frequencies of combinations include any chemical or things, of course, so as mentioned, they have direct impact on chemistry, biology and sciences not normally thought of

when one thinks of the theoretical physicists and the science and physics of galaxies and planets and “outer space.”

Those fields/frequencies are also exactly what Quantum Entanglement is related to (or should I say Revolves Around?:^) and is discussed in other chapters like Biology / Life / Cancer , and 35 Quantum Entanglement and You in this commentary.

Simply put:

The Larger the Object, the Lower (Smaller) the Frequency. - Or - The Smaller the Object, the Higher (Larger) the Frequency.

Here’s a quick pic to give a visual example:

What is a “Harmonic” Frequency?

A John Device Analogy.

Think of a spinning John Device, with two horizontal opposed arms. 36

If you’re spinning it by hand, by reaching out and hitting the weight as it goes by;

If you spun it faster and faster, you would (possibly) be unable to “grab a hold” or “push” every single rotation, and would end up “grabbing” or “pushing” the system “every so many” or “every couple” of rotations, perhaps trying to make it spin even faster.

But still, you always have to be careful when trying to interface with the systems because, like a John Device with the two opposed arms, it only has certain locations you can “grab” or “push.”

If you arrive early or late, you’ll bash your hand. (in simple terms)

If you get it just right, every so many spins, you’ll be able to “grab” or “push” the system or even add weights or spin it faster.

If you get the timing wrong, you may have found a “destructive” frequency or combination of frequencies.

Now, add in the concept of polarity, and say that one of the spinning weights has the positive pole “up” (negative down) and the other weight has the positive pole “down” (negative up). Also include your hand as having polarity of North and South.

Now, if you try to “reach out” and “grab” or “push” the weight (dipole) you may find that you have the wrong orientation or polarity. If so, you may feel the same effect as when you have two magnets and place the matching poles facing each other and they don’t attract, but repel.

- Think of the spinning John Device with two arms, with weights that are dipoles, one oriented North up, one oriented North down.

- Your “hand” that you use to reach out to attempt to “grab” or “push” those weights/dipoles is itself a dipole, with a North/South orientation.

- If you reach out with the “dipole” of your hand and it is oriented “wrong,” it will attempt to repel the weight, instead of attract it. 37

So, if you’ve been following along and thinking, you can see, mechanically and electromagnetically, WHY harmonic frequencies that are “Even” multiples are just fine, but ones that are “Odd” multiples cause all kinds of strange problems and wobbles in the frequency spectrum and the system.

In Electrical design, such as for a home or business, but really anything, they are concerned with the possibility of damaging “harmonic” frequencies that can cause a variety of damage in an electrical system.

Also, has anyone seen a shattered Wine Glass around here? Someone was singing at a particular frequency, I don’t know what – probably something like a harmonic of 3 or 5 or 7 or something – and the next thing I knew this Crystal Glass fractured.

Matter / Mass

38 Richard Feynman, considered one of greatest physicists (or at least explainer of current physics) of all time, said this: “All mass is interaction.” (3)

On a molecular level, Wikipedia says: “A molecular vibration occurs when atoms in a molecule are in periodic motion while the molecule as a whole has constant translational and rotational motion. The frequency of the periodic motion is known as a vibration frequency, and the typical frequencies of molecular vibrations range from less than 1012 to approximately 1014 Hz.” (2)

And: “Perhaps surprisingly, molecular vibrations can be treated using Newtonian mechanics to calculate the correct vibration frequencies.” (2)

In the standard model, the Higgs Field is what gives or imparts mass through the mechanism of the Higgs particle, or what in John Device terminology would be the Torque Shaft or Torque Shaft Mechanism.

In this same model, these particles, quarks, etc. are considered the smallest or ultimate division of energy and mass and matter. Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are not. That is not relevant to this document.

Perhaps (and actually – probably) each Electron, Neutrino, etc. is nothing more than the beginning of the same field and construct as an Atom is to us currently. For example, a neutrino is probably the same as an electron, but sub-atomic in nature.

In that case, not only could the entire “mass” of the Human race fit into a sugar cube, as some scientists show it would… it would easily fit onto the head of a pin… smaller than the period at the end of any of these sentences. .All the Human race, including all those who have ever lived - inside of a simple period.

We ARE energy.

That image is sometimes hard to think of – so remember that an atom is just some bits that are spinning so fast (at the atomic level – up to the speed of light and the constituent particles – up to the higher E=mcx speed) that they appear solid.

Also, take note of arrangements – the hexagon, or actually, the double equilateral triangle. :^)

Here are some examples to show this effect – starting with the drawing in 2D, and then showing the 3D shape constructed from it. (Of course it is shown in 2D since it’s printed on paper or viewed on a 2D display)

The “visible” atom’s size and shape is really the overall “swept” shape. (Note: this also relates to the concept of a star’s collapse – black holes, neutron stars, etc.)

This first example uses a shape somewhat similar to the shaft with weights attached shown earlier. The double end is because each “weight” rotates at a different location. 40

3D Rotated

In the following example, the shape representing the center is the large circle and the three (3) small circles represent objects circling the center large circle. After those 4 circles are rendered in CAD and “swept” through 360 degrees, you see the examples in 3D.

3D Rotated and rendered

Descriptions and renderings of atomic and molecular orbitals are known and available that show similar features. As Wikipedia says: “Atomic orbitals are the basic building blocks of the atomic orbital model (alternatively known as the electron cloud or wave mechanics model), a modern framework for visualizing the submicroscopic behavior of electrons in matter.” (2)

Source: Wikipedia

“Each orbital in an atom is characterized by a unique set of values of the three quantum numbers, n, l, and m, which respectively correspond to the electron’s energy, angular momentum, and angular momentum vector component (the magnetic quantum number).” (2)

Energy and angular momentum.

Everything spins.

An article in Scientific American, entitled:

“What exactly is the ‘spin’ of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons? Does it have any physical significance, analogous to the spin of a planet?” discusses the opinions of several scientists, and is discussed below with commentary.

Morton Travel, a professor of physics at Vassar College, responds:

“When certain elementary particles move through a magnetic field, they are deflected in a manner that suggests they have the properties of little magnets. In the classical world, a charged, spinning object has magnetic properties that are very much like those 43 exhibited by these elementary particles.” (23)

“Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down, and we have come to realize that that it is misleading to conjure up an image of the electron as a small spinning object. Instead we have learned simply to accept the observed fact that the electron is deflected by magnetic fields. If one insists on the image of a spinning object, then real paradoxes arise; unlike a tossed softball, for instance, the spin of an electron never changes, and it has only two possible orientations. In addition, the very notion that electrons and protons are ‘solid objects’ that can ‘rotate’ in space is itself difficult to sustain, given what we know about the rules of quantum mechanics.” (23)

Commentary on Morton Travel quotes:

As you can see, Morton makes some great statements, especially with the first quote. As with everything, he is basically correct. The ‘paradoxes’ he refers to are only a problem or a paradox for people who believe in Gravity and all the old-school stuff.

Why would the spin of an electron change? I suppose if you don’t know how it spins in the first place, you’d have some type of Gravity expectation that it would slow down?

Since everything has/have only two possible orientations in their most basal states, it goes without saying that electrons, which are part of everything, also have two possible orientations.

And finally, according to HEW principles, protons and electrons are no more “solid” than anything else is, and are constructed of sub particles rotating at higher speeds. CVRP and swept area.

Kurt T. Bachmann of Birmingham-Southern College, adding historical background, said:

“Starting in the 1920s, Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach of the University of Hamburg in Germany conducted a series of important atomic beam experiments. Knowing that all moving charges produce magnetic fields, they proposed to measure the magnetic fields 44 produced by the electrons orbiting the nuclei in atoms.” (23)

“Much to their surprise, however, the two physicists found that electrons themselves act as if they are spinning very rapidly, producing tiny magnetic fields independent of those from their orbital motions.” (23)

“Spin is a bizarre physical quantity. It is analogous to the spin of a planet in that it gives a particle angular momentum and a tiny magnetic field called a magnetic moment.” (23)

“Based on the known sizes of subatomic particles, however, the surfaces of charged particles would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order to produce the measure magnetic moments.” (23)

“In a broader sense, spin is an essential property influencing the ordering of electrons and nuclei in atoms and molecules, giving it great physical significance in chemistry and solid-state physics. Spin is likewise an essential consideration in all interactions among subatomic particles, whether in high-energy particle beams, low-temperature fluids or the tenuous flow of particles from the sun known as the solar wind.” (23)

“Indeed, many if not most physical processes, ranging from the smallest nuclear scales to the largest astrophysical distances, depend greatly on interactions of subatomic particles and the spins of those particles.” (23)

Commentary on Kurt’s quotes:

The first quotes just re-iterate the point that everything spins.

The 4th quote, stating that the sub-atomic particles would have to be moving faster than the speed of light is correct – but they just don’t believe it. This is referenced in the section E=mcx.

The last two quotes are to give the reader and understanding of spin and scale.

Victor J. Stenger, professor of physics at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, gives a technical perspective:

“Spin is the total angular momentum, or intrinsic angular momentum, of a body. The spins of elementary particles are analogous to the spins of macroscopic bodies. In fact, the spin of a planet is the sum of the spins and the orbital angular momenta of all its elementary particles. So are the spins of other composite objects such as atoms, atomic nuclei and protons (which are made of quarks).” (23)

“At our current level of understanding, the elementary particles are quarks, leptons (such as the electron) and bosons (such as the photon). These particles are all imagined as pointlike, so you might wonder how they can have spins. A simple answer might be, perhaps they are composite, too.” (23)

“But deep theoretical reasons having to do with rotational symmetry of nature lead to the existence of spins for elementary objects and to their quantization.” (23)

Commentary on Victor’s quotes:

The first quote is correct.

The second quote’s point, is that yes, they are composite.

The third quote relates to not having an understanding about CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology and the problems physicists have always had accounting for spin, in

the Universe, the Galaxy, Solar System, and all the way down to atoms and sub-atomic structures.

Here are 3 interesting research articles: 46

Spinning electrons open the door to future hybrid electronics Internet: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-electrons-door-future-hybrid-electronics.html

“Just as the Earth spins around its own axis, so does an electron, in a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction. ‘Spintronics’ is the name used to describe technologies that exploit both the spin and the charge of an electron.” (24)

A sea of spinning electrons: Discovery could spawn a wave of new electronic devices Internet: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-sea-electrons-discovery-spawn-electronic.html

“Most importantly, the electrons’ spinning axes are level and perpendicular to their velocity.” (25)

Spin current detection in quantum materials unlocks potential for alternative electronics Internet: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-current-quantum-materials-potential-alternative.html

“The spin current, namely the total angular momentum of moving electrons, is a behavior in topological insulators that could not be accounted for until a spin-sensitive method was developed.” (26)

This image shows calculated atomic orbitals:

Source: https://chemlinks.beloit.edu/Stars/pages/orbitals.html

“In atoms with multiple electrons, the energy of an electron depends not only on the intrinsic properties of its orbital, but also on its interactions with the other electrons.” (2)

Of course molecular orbits, or MO’s, which represent the regions in a molecule where an electron occupying an orbital are likely to be found, are the combination of atomic orbitals.

In fact: “They are invaluable in providing a simple model of bonding in molecules, understood through molecular orbital theory. Most present-day methods in computational chemistry begin by calculating the MO’s of the system.” (2)

As Wikipedia points out:

“Many molecules have such dipole moments due to non-uniform distributions of positive and negative charges on the various atoms.” (2)

48 “Therefore, a molecule’s dipole is an electric dipole with an inherent electric field which should not be confused with a magnetic dipole which generates a magnetic field.” (2)

In a related concept, researchers from the Brookhaven Lab collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy have:

“combined atoms with multiple orbitals and precisely pinned down their electron distributions. Using advanced electron diffraction techniques, the scientists discovered that orbital fluctuations in iron-based compounds induce strongly coupled polarizations that can enhance electron pairing – the essential mechanism behind superconductivity.” (27)

Here is an image created by Brookhaven Labs showing atoms before doping and after:

“Doping” means adding an impurity or other substance to a crystalline substance generally altering its electrical properties. (you’re adding atoms and/or electrons)

In a Scientific American article, titled: “The Glue That Binds Us”, which is also available on the Brookhaven National Laboratory website, they say:

“We also do not understand how a proton’s rotation – a measurable quantity called spin – arises from the spins of the quarks and gluons inside it: a mystery because the smaller 49 particles’ spins do not easily add up to the whole. If physicists could answer these questions, we would finally begin to comprehend how matter functions at its most fundamental level.” (67)

Undoubtedly, they operate exactly as an atom does - Atomagnetism. Powered by the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), or the fields which originate (to some extent) at the “Black Hole” at the center of our Universe. There are a number of fields and names, such as the Higgs Field, Zero Point Energy fields, and others, all trying to represent various effects or observations that have been made.

The image on the cover of this book gives a basic representation of a galaxy field intersecting a solar field which then intersects a planetary field. All those represent single entities, and of course the actual Universe is a more complex interconnection of multiple fields.

The central black hole is connected by fields to subsidiary black holes, perhaps such as the one at the center of the Milky Way. (I don’t have enough data to know if there are other intermediary black holes in our chain.) It is probable that there are other universes, with their respective “centers” each being powered, and also rotating about, this next level. And on and on…

Also, our current “Periodic Table of the Elements” should actually be called the “Periodic Table of the Properties of Atomic Elements.” I know, because as time and motivation are available, I work on the “Periodic Table of the Structures of Atomic Elements” among other things.

After all this, here are a few old John Device “orbitals” to ease the eye…

Credit: David Woodrow John

The Hexagon

The hexagon, or the dual equilateral triangle configuration, is found throughout nature.

Since life on Earth, and indeed the very Elements themselves, are what we call Carbon-based, 51 and Carbon is naturally a hexagon in shape, this is no surprise.

However, WHY carbon is so common, and WHY it shapes into a hexagon is a mystery to our current science. Part of that mystery is caused by the traditional imagery of the nucleus of an atom being a jumbled mess of Protons and Neutrons. It’s not. It’s an orderly structure. If it was a jumbled mass then that would lead to disorder in elements, molecules and nature, which we do NOT see in any way – all we see and observe and measure is order.

Most people know one of the classic hexagons of nature, the snowflake:

Credit: Alexey Kljatov, wikipedia

But, as this next example shows - even the micro structure of a snowflake that is too small to see with the naked eye… looks just like a snowflake. The hexagons are visible throughout.

Credit: Ledinician C., 2013

Big things are made from small things.

This is a tunneling electron microscope picture of silicon:

Credit: http://isaac.exploratorium.edu/~pauld/workshops/Atoms.html

Many things in nature make the “hexagon” shape. Here are a few:

The “Giant’s Causeway” in Ireland:

Credit: Giants Causeway Tours

In the ocean lapping against the edge of the causeway are algae, which are often found in hexagon shapes, like the Actinoptychus senarius:

Credit: Alessandro Bertoglio – eol.org/data_objects/27477509

Many flowers also show the hexagon, or the equilateral triangles, beautifully:

Credit: David Woodrow John

Even ticks have proteins that show the hexagon:

Credit: adobestock.com

Animals that aren’t even alive today knew about the hexagon, as represented by this Glyptodon asper armor (the Glyptodon asper was an ancient relative of the armadillo):

Credit: Internet / Unknown

And of course… we all know the honey comb:

Credit: Internet / Unknown

This image shows the “first X-ray holographic images of viruses.” (68) The color area shows the spectroscopy involved, and the greyscale image at the bottom right is a 2D (obviously) representation of the 3D object, which in this case is a virus.

Credit: Anatoli Ulmer and Tais Gorkhover The Technical University of Berlin and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (68)

And, as of 2021, who HASN’T seen an image of Covid-19? Well, if you haven’t, here’s one:

Credit: Center for Disease Control (CDC)

The Hexagon and The John Device

Some “Theories of Everything” and other tomes will often show a shape or pattern, and then attempt to somehow tie that shape into everything. Circles, Yin-Yang type Bi-lateral, triangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, decagons, you-name-it-agons, etc. They start with a shape and 57 look for answers.

That is somewhat a reverse analogy to Einstein and other theorists, who started with answers (known problems give information too:^) and looked for a shape that might explain them.

The hexagon, or technically dual equilateral triangles offset from one another by 60 degrees, was not chosen because of prior thoughts. It is a simple mechanical situation.

When viewed from “above,” we see a basic John Device with possible descriptions:

Weight Central Shaft Weight

Now the same image, but with a circle drawn to show the area swept by that construct:

This is a simple representation, so the exact precession is not shown.

If we want to increase the “weight” on each “side” of the system, we can increase the main weight, or if dealing with a fixed set of possible input weights, may have to distribute additional weights in some manner.

Placing a support “straight through” on each existing weight and then adding a weight to the 58 ends of the added support leads to the following:

In this example, the connecting shafts on the added weight sub-systems are exactly the same length as the connection to the central shaft.

Note that if this assembly was rotating, the newly added weights would be outside of the normal diameter described by the initial weights.

This does not cause any problem, and so one could conclude that the “H” shape is “Everything.” Of course you might remember that to get to this shape, you had to go right by the Circle and Bi-Lateral constructs. Ugh.

However If you want to design a system in which you have more than one John Device system connected, it may become desirable to have the systems working together in concert. In doing so, gears become a mechanically natural solution. If you imagine a group connected one outer ring to the next, given the overlap of the weights, you would either have to have sophisticated timing and control, or you’d have “weights” bashing into one another constantly.

So, by moving the arms inward, and keeping the length of the connecting arms exactly the same as they were before, we get:

As you can see from this quickly thrown together drawing, a hexagon emerges. Again, the outer circle is just there to represent the rotational or swept area.

You can also imagine the drawing above as an atom viewed from “above.” On one side is a Proton – comprised of three sub-parts, and on the other a Neutron – comprised of three sub- parts.

The “ends” of the proton/neutron groups are attracted to each other (the whole up/down quark thing as opposites attract) and that’s why they “bend” or “move” towards their opposite, but since they are part of an existing group, can only bend or move so far.

It’s a hexagon that’s naturally derived from mechanical necessity, not preconceived notions.

A Proton/Neutron observation: One factor regarding the long life of a Proton is since they’re composed of quarks, there’s not much for them to decay to. They are also almost perfectly balanced, somewhat analogous to the larger element Helium.

60 They two are almost perfectly balanced masses, yet combined, which they naturally do (remember opposites attract), – are beautifully imbalanced. As dumbbell baryons, they are essential building blocks (or should we say “spinning blocks”) of everything we experience.

Here’s a representation of a Neutron in free space:

And a Proton:

When the Neutron and the Proton meet a Higgs particle the result forms a hexagon, or more properly, a dual equilateral triangle configuration with two sections of three parts in opposing positions as in the drawing on previous pages.

61 For your information, according to CERN, a free Higgs particle will join up with them or decay within a fraction of a nanosecond, or fraction of a billionth of a second.

And here we have an example of a single PHUN (Proton - Higgs Unit - Neutron):

An interesting note is that, as a side effect to the natural construct and the Proton and Neutron having slightly different “masses” is that there is no straight line that can be drawn through it keeping the particles whole that has equal “mass” on both sides of the line.

Which is exactly how it should be, always slightly imbalanced. – derived from actual experimentation and hands-on work.

And think what happens if you combine them…

Credit: David Woodrow John

OR (with dipoles thrown in)…

Credit: David Woodrow John

And here’s the link to a Youtube video from the author sowing this same counter-rotating dual equilateral triangle arrangement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0N5RA6OpxQ

If you watch the video above, you’ll better understand that a slice of watermelon shows the counter-rotating dual equilateral triangles growing in nature beautifully:

Credit: David Woodrow John

Putting a group together, we get an example of “Graphene” for your amusement: (it’s just hand-thrown together so not necessarily precise)

Credit: David Woodrow John

On a seemingly different topic, researchers at Yale have taken spectroscopic images of how water molecules conduct electricity, and in an article titled: “A Watershed moment in understanding how H20 conducts electricity” point out:

“The oxygen atoms don’t need to move much at all. It is kind of like Newton’s cradle, the child’s toy with a line of steel balls, each one suspended by a string. If you lift one ball so that it strikes the line, only the end ball moves away, leaving the others unperturbed.” (65)

Another recent project, done by an international research group led by scientists at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), shows various properties of electrons flowing through Graphene.(66)

The image below is their rendering to show the expected electron trajectories in circular 65 Graphene resonators and the grey area shows the projection or shadow if considering the object on the horizontal plane.

Credit: Christopher Gutierrez, John Wyrick, CNST/NIST

The electrons are being passed from sub-system to sub-system, handing them off to the next in line.

If you’ve heard of or seen American Square Dancing, you might get: ”Pass Your Electrons, Doe Si Doe” - as you hook arms at the elbow, let go, and hook arms with the next person in line.

Again, if you watched the youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0N5RA6OpxQ …This would make much more sense.

The U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory captured imagery of the moment atoms bond for the first time in 2013. (88)

Credit: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The flat molecule Pentacene was imaged by IBM Research in 2012. (89)

Credit: Leo Gross/IBM

In the image below, scientists in the Netherlands showed an image of PTCDA (perylene- 3,4,9,10-tetracarboxylic dianhydride) molecules arranged in a herringbone pattern on a silver- coated silicon substrate. (90)

Credit: F. Huber et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (2015)

Saturn South Pole Storm and North Pole Hexagon

These two unexplained effects, along with Saturn’s Rings, may be related to the concepts described in this commentary.

68 The South Pole storm, approximately 5,000 (five thousand) miles across, provides us with a window into the atmosphere, as it is like the eye of a hurricane. On Earth, hurricanes are located along the equator, not the poles. What powers this storm is unknown to current theory.

Credit: NASA

The Hexagon on the North Pole, or North Pole storm, is also a mystery. There seem to be some similarities to Earth’s polar vortex, but the shape is unexplained by current theories.

Credit: NASA

While not providing any more detail, this new image is wonderful, and so is included here.

Credit: NASA

Here is the link to a fantastic video from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab showing the storm in action. Not only is it neat to watch, but of course no one will mention that what it shows can’t be explained with our current “Gravity-based” solution of planetary rotation. https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/764/

There are some things for other researchers to consider:

First of all, the overall construct, with a hexagon, or dual equilateral triangle pattern/shape at the top and a central point at the bottom, is exactly the same as one variation of The John Device’s CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology. Exactly. 70

Secondly, the hexagon, or dual equilateral triangle, is integral to the “shape” or structure of protons and neutrons, the very building blocks of every atom and element.

However, having a hexagon (six sided) pattern at the top is not at all an ideal situation. If the orbit of Saturn is degrading, then Saturn is the most dangerous object known to Mankind. If for some reason the orbit decayed further, Saturn would begin rapidly losing the objects in its’ Rings. (the rings are barely hanging on as it is) Needless to say, these would pummel objects throughout the Solar system, including Earth. Millions of objects thrown in the same plane as us…

The good news, supposedly, is that they say Saturn’s orbit is stable and not degrading at all.

Saturn is also considered to be composed of Hydrogen and Helium.

A hexagon, or dual equilateral triangle, is the exact shape/pattern that is described by an atomic nucleus.

A planet made of Hydrogen and Helium (basic elements) that has a precession that causes cloud formations shaped just like the nucleus of those (and other) atoms. Shocking.

Jupiter North Pole Hexagon and South Pole Storm

The latest images from Juno show the North Pole of Jupiter clearly. This first image is the unaltered photo from NASA:

Credit: NASA

The same image modified with the Adobe Photoshop Posterize filter:

72 Anti-Matter

I didn’t go looking for anything to do with Anti-Matter, and simply “stumbled upon” it. Incredibly, I didn’t “annihilate” myself. :^)

Since the concept of a “Big Bang” is acceptable under this theory, the issue of anti-matter is relevant. Extending “upwards,” the “Big Bang” would be perhaps be analogous to a Supernova, but at the sub-sub-atomic level (or sub-sub-sub?). However, it’s important to note that a Static Universe and many other theories are acceptable.

“Theories of physics require that for every particle of matter created at the big bang – the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe – so too was its antiparticle equivalent, or anti-matter” (28)

One of the problems facing physicists is that they think they only can see “matter.”

So, they conclude that they (scientists) cannot find “anti-matter”, or one half of the potentially available material needed to construct quarks and atoms.

In fact, the quote above is from an article entitled:

“Scientists Ponder Universe’s Missing Antimatter.”

And ponder they do, with theories about if our part of the universe is unique, or different, and complex math on the expansion and rapid heating and different kinds of space at the beginning of the Universe vs. today, and on and on and on.

Let’s cut to the chase:

Because of various types of media and also general education, people (including myself just a few years ago) have no real idea of what “anti-matter” is. We are all told that it will “annihilate instantaneously” in an explosion when it comes into contact with “regular” matter.

73 However, scientifically speaking, Anti-Matter is just Regular Matter that is “upside down and spins backwards” but otherwise exactly the same.

“Matter and antimatter share nearly identical properties except the antiparticle has an opposite electric charge from the particle. For example, an electron has a negative charge, so its antiparticle, the positron, has a positive charge.” (28)

That is simple sounding, but even more so if you spin a top on a table and observe the direction of rotation – then imagine that top flipped over and you will see the rotation would be in the other direction. If it had been turning to the “right” however you perceive that, it would now be turning to the “left” and vice versa.

In other words, by simply turning over a spinning object, you’ve made it both “upside down and spinning backwards”, or, you’ve created “anti-matter” or technically an “anti-object” of whatever you where spinning. Here are some examples:

Matter / Anti-Matter Toy Top / Anti-Toy Top Dreidel / Anti-Dreidel Rapa / Anti-Rapa Dinner Plate / Anti-Dinner Plate :^)

Experiments have also shown identical characteristics for hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, both regarding the charge:

“ The ALPHA experiment (http://alpha.web.cern.ch/) reports a measurement of the electric charge of antihydrogen atoms, finding it to be compatible with zero to eight decimal places. This is the first time that the charge of an anti-atom has been

measured to high precision and confirms scientists’ expectation that the charges of its constituents, the positron and antiproton, are equal and opposite.” (29)

…and the spectral lines (or what some think of as light) emitted by them:

74 “When the spectral lines of anti-hydrogen and hydrogen were compared it was found that the spectral lines were identical within experimental limit.” (30)

Even neutrinos, which we currently believe do not have a charge (they do, but we don’t understand charge at that frequency level) have a property called helicity. The concept of twisted field lines in space is common in field and frequency arenas, and also to HEW.

“Neutrinos have a property called helicity, which describes whether they spin to the left or the right as they travel through space. Matter neutrinos have left-handed helicity, while antimatter ones have a right handed helicity.” (31)

The “double-slit experiment” is well known, and has even been done with pure anti-matter particle (Positron) streams with exactly the same results found with regular matter. Additional information can be found in the section on Light in this commentary.

Again, we have been led to believe, by hook or by crook, that when anti-matter “meets” matter that a violent explosion (annihilation) or “flash of pure energy” will occur.

In some cases, our belief system is so extreme that it may even include the annihilation of the locality, the Earth, or even the Universe – all from an “anti-matter” particle or group of particles colliding with a “matter” particle or group of particles. Remember, there were many who were against the construction of the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the God particle and others, including the dreaded… Anti-matter.

Even in describing the Positron, or anti-electron, Wikipedia says:

“When a positron collides with an electron, annihilation occurs. If this collision occurs at low energies, it results in the production of two or more gamma ray photons” (2)

In our current belief system, almost all of the matter and antimatter created in the Big Bang did annihilate, with estimates of 1 part per Billion or per 10 Billion of matter left over to create what we experience as the Universe today.

This thought process is related to CP (charge-parity) violation, which indicates that matter and 75 antimatter decay differently. However, scientists still can’t find an answer.

“…the degree of CP violation determined by this experiment – and others – fails to account for the entire matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe. ‘We don’t have a complete understanding yet. Our current picture and understanding doesn’t give enough CP violation,’ said Persis Drell, a particle physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center” (28)

In fact, they get so lost in what they’re looking for that they (the CERN – BASE Baryon- Antibaryon Symmetry Experiment) have recently concluded, in the most detailed study ever done, that you - the reader, and I - the writer of this document, don’t exist.

“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist, an asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is.” (32)

That’s right. Scientists, following the Standard Model and their current belief system, can explain to you, mathematically, that either: a) they are wrong in their belief system or b) you, I, and everything ever known simply don’t exist and never did.

If you can’t understand that the paragraph above leads to the inevitable conclusion that scientists are wrong in what they believe about the Universe, then you need to read it again, because if you continue with that thought line, then you can’t exist to read this document.

So, antimatter seems somewhat mystical and dangerous, but:

“Did you know, the bananas that are probably sitting in your kitchen right now produce antimatter – they spit out a positron every 75 minutes.” (30)

UPSIDE DOWN and BACKWARDS

While working on a version of The John Device, it was envisioned to have a group of systems working together for power generation. Instead of having each system with its’ own driving 76 motor and the power needed for it plus some controlling entity (hardware or software or combination) to time the motors running together, it seemed better to use a single drive motor.

You can play games with arranging the systems in a linear fashion, but will find a solution or first step to that problem above would be to locate them in a circular fashion with a drive motor at the overall central point. Then some mechanism could be designed to facilitate transferring that central rotational force to the centers of the various systems surrounding it.

This may seem unusual, but one might even think of this image of turbulence of water drawn by the Great Leonardo da Vinci:

Credit: Leonardo da Vinci, RL 12660, Windsor, Royal Library

Here’s a view of the idea with 6 (six) systems clustered around a central area, all turning to the “right.”

Having a group of systems swirling like that seems orderly and natural (except to a clockmaker :^) for rotation. I’ve seen pictures or drawings of that idea representing many objects. Since in this case, we want to use spin to produce power, we need a method to connect those spinning devices or systems to a central generator or other device.

It became apparent that a single master drive motor could be connected to the drive mechanism of each system. As stated, using only one motor would also eliminate any issues of timing and controlling a group of motors in a sequence or series.

But it became apparent with a group of systems that interact directly with each other that the systems located next to one another would need to rotate in opposite directions.

If they were all rotating in the same direction as shown, the teeth on the “connecting” or “meshing” gears would simply crash into each other. Again, a clockmaker or mechanical engineer who has worked with geared systems would be highly aware of this and find it natural.

So, by making every other system “backwards and upside down”, we end up with (in this case) six systems all working in harmony, nicely balanced.

Credit: David Woodrow John

The triangle shown on the right is simply to try to highlight one of the 3 system groups that would be turning to the “right.” The other 3 system group turns to the “left.”

Another wonderful side effect of that type of design is that it automatically obviates vibrations and stresses or imbalances. This maintains the philosophy of the absolute minimal number of pieces or parts used to construct this or any system.

Here’s youtube video from The John Device channel that gives an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0N5RA6OpxQ

In the simplest terms, it was easiest to take an existing John Device system, and simply flip it “upside down.”

In doing so, if the John Device were to continue to rotate in the direction it had been prior to being flipped, it would now be spinning “backwards.”

So – the second John Device added is “Upside Down and Backwards” when compared to the first John Device in the system. Each one connected to either of those described would also have to be “upside down and backwards” in relation to who it was connected to. Or, as they say, there would be great gnashing of teeth. :^)

So, with the first John Device system, we have “regular” John Device matter. Then, by adding the second John Device system, we have added “anti-matter” John Device components. (upside down and spinning backwards)

Remember the chart from the CVRP chapter of the “falling” of the system plotted circularly? 79 Now, if we add a second system that’s rotating backwards in relation to the first (anti-matter), we see the following (quickly and poorly done, but acceptable) plot and then throw in some color:

Credit: David Woodrow John

Remember, everything is everywhere and actually is everything. It’s not just about atoms or outer space or what astronomical bodies are and how they act. Every. Thing.

Many people struggle with the word everything, actually understanding that means every thing. This idea of “regular” matter and “anti-matter” connecting extends from the Quarks, Protons, Neutrons, Elements, and all the way up to everything.

Physicists and anyone else are welcome to argue these points until they are blue in the face since they are actual physical constructs and concepts and therefore have restrictions and capabilities that can be physically tested and replicated. The only reason any of the constructs are referred to as “anti-matter” is because that’s exactly what the most learned scientists on the Earth would call them.

Atomic Structure

We currently generally describe atoms using what we call the “Periodic Table.” The full name should be “The Periodic Table of the Properties of the Elements. It deals with the number of protons (atomic number) and electron configuration, and supposed chemical properties. 80

Obviously it is a great thing and Mankind has used it for many years with great success.

However, when I look at atomic structures and the resultant elements and then combinations of those elements, I find this table to be more quickly informative. I refer to various elements as “Ones” or “Twos” or “Threes,” etc. Or 1,2,3,4,5, or 6’s.

That’s important because you’ll find similar characteristics of elements in those categories, or columns.

Now, I don’t have much time to work on this, but astute mechanical minds will see some things happening.

For example, once I looked at Neodymium. We have magnets that we generally refer to as being “Neodymium” magnets that are extremely powerful. However, I observed that Neodymium is 60 in the Periodic Table, and therefore a “Six” in my table, and found it odd. Sixes aren’t “magnetic” in that classic sense of the word. In many of their structures, they are close to what you would call a superconductor, able to pass electrons highly efficiently. But “Sixes” don’t have a magnetic orientation, as they’re relatively speaking, complete. Strange. But then I found out that Neodymium isn’t “magnetic” by itself. It’s combined with Iron (and Boron) to make what we call a “Neodymium magnet.” In simple terms, the magnetism is derived from the iron and it’s amplified by the neodymium.

The first six elements have the most likelihood of “fitting” in with another structure and so are somewhat unique. For example, Hydrogen is more reactive than other “Ones” higher up the table, simply because it is a simple construct, able to “work with” almost anybody.

But overall, here are some of the general characteristics of the structures.

Ones: Excellent ability to connect to other atomic structures. In Ones above Carbon, they will tend to provide additional energy sources or distribution points. They will tend to connect with other atoms through the 1 additional system, but after having done so will not be a particular 81 point of entry/connection for any other atoms as the rest of their system is balanced Sixes.

Twos: As the first naturally balanced structure, Helium, a Two, would be one of the most abundant elements in nature. Beyond Carbon, Two’s are where, depending on the structure of the system, you will find what we refer to as “magnetic” properties. This is because the 2 outlying atomic structures can be located at various points. When they are heated and given mobility, they can “align” with fields. Then, as discussed, quenched and subsequently locked into a particular orientation.

Threes: Threes would be considered the most volatile elements. They are unbalanced and essentially halfway between the mechanically desired Six of Carbon and the individual pieces of Hydrogen. They can become a Four, but it’s a close “dance” to ending up with a Boom instead.

Fours: Fours are nicely stable. Two sets of dipole relationships completed. A very strong system. Not very likely to want to become a Three, but would consider a bid for a Five or perhaps even a Six.

Fives: Fives are strong and very hungry to “finish” their dipole relationship and in doing so, complete the basic hexagon of a perfect Six. That’s why Fives are excellent as cleansers and soaps. They love to grab anybody with a loose connection hanging out, but then they have their own atomic strength and may very well wrest away the atomic structure or part thereof when they break free.

Sixes: Sixes are perfect. They don’t desire to “become” anything else. They can be excellent superconductors, but that depends on their final structure.

Here are some graphics to show an example of an atom’s nucleus. In viewing them, please pay attention to the colors on the spheres, attempting to show the dipole concept.

Also note that as they grow and add PHUN units (Proton, Higgs Unit, Neutron), the additional units are “Upside Down and Backwards” when compared to those they are connected to. (anti-matter) 83

Remember, the atoms don’t “look” like this because they are spinning (at the speed of light) so would seem to be a single object. (The study of Topology relates to how they appear and their various characteristics relating to that appearance.)

Hydrogen

Credit: David Woodrow John

This is also what a Higgs Boson will almost instantaneously create when it joins with a Proton and a Neutron, if they are available.

In reference to the Periodic Table of the Structures of the Elements, Hydrogen is a “1”, and as such, it is “anxious” to find a partner and complete its most basic “dipole” relationship…

Helium

Credit: David Woodrow John …and so, Hydrogen “likes” to become Helium, a “2,” or a relatively balanced structure.

Lithium

Credit: David Woodrow John

Lithium, a “3”, like Hydrogen, is “anxious” to find another partner to complete a dipole relationship, in this case a “4.” Since it’s a 3, it can go all the way towards a 6, but that’s a long way to go and this is an unbalanced structure to begin with. That’s why it can react so violently with various elements and break apart instead of building.

Beryllium

Credit: David Woodrow John

Beryllium, a “4”, is a relatively balanced structure with two completed “dipole” sets. 4’s don’t do much, as they are just about as happy to become 5’s as they are to become 3’s, depending on their configuration.

Boron

Credit: David Woodrow John

Boron, a “5”, is even more “anxious” (and powerful) to find a partner and complete basic dipole relationships and complete the larger inherent hexagon structure. That’s why it reacts with various elements so strongly, bonding them to it. (cleaners, soaps)

Carbon

Credit: David Woodrow John

Ahh, Carbon, a “6”. Carbon is perfect.

The dipole relationships are complete, echoing the underlying hexagonal patterns. This system can pass electrons simply from one system to the next (Remember square dancing and “swing your partner, doe si doe” and you can hook elbows and pass electrons to the next partner all day or night long), which is why they are inherent in superconductors.

On a side note, everything from this point on in the Periodic Table is “based” on carbon, so that’s why all kinds of various elements are found (and will be) to have “superconducting properties.”

In fact, in research published in 2021, Princeton researchers found that when they prepared a monolayer – a single atom thin layer (what is currently being called “2D” materials) of tungsten ditelluride, and tested it under magnetic fields:

“In effect, the material – a very strong insulator – was exhibiting the most remarkable quantum property of a metal.” (98)

From the same article, and for reference:

“In metals, electrons are highly mobile, and resistivity – the resistance to electrical conduction – is weak. In insulators, by contrast, electrons cannot move and the materials have very high resistivity, so quantum oscillations of this sort are not expected to occur, no matter the strength of the magnetic field applied.” (99)

87 So when they reduced a bunch of atoms, called an insulator - which they think doesn’t pass electrons - to a single layer of those same atoms, they found the single-layer structure of atoms DO pass electrons.

“’This is only the starting point.’ Wu said. ‘If we’re correct, future researchers will find other insulators with this surprising quantum property.’” (99)

“Wu noted that there are no current theories to explain this phenomenon.” (99)

Also, remember that the image above is a carbon nucleus. You wouldn’t “perceive” it as shown. It’s spinning at the speed of light, so the “swept area” is all you’d “see.” A single dot.

Images such as those above are fine in helping discern the “upside down” aspect, but without motion, it’s really difficult to “see” the “backwards” part of the process.

This video on Youtube, shows a John Device system or a Carbon Atom (they’re all related), but still shows the motion to give you a much better visualization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0N5RA6OpxQ

(Also for advanced thinkers, I should have shown the different rotations within each PHUN unit, but it was a lot of CAD work initially, and when I thought of adding it, I didn’t have CAD.)

1+1=3

88 Another thing to understand is the idea of 1+1=3

Credit: Clipart

When two atoms, which have their own fields, combine by whatever method appropriate, they each still have their own field, and now share a new field with each other. The appropriate method would depend on what the two atoms each were. In some cases, they would exchange electrons, in some cases share them. If their frequencies are related or harmonic, even if they are distinctly different atoms, they may still combine or coalesce.

The exact field shapes will vary greatly, depending on the atom’s basic structure and its ionization state or energy level.

The circles used in the various graphics to represent fields are simply used because of their simplicity in construction for this book and because they have a familiarity to many people.

This concept continues to extend beyond individual atoms (it actually began with those atoms constituent components) to groups of atoms, molecules, and all the various mixtures possible.

This combination or outer field is simply the aggregate of those it contains. The Earth is a large scale example. In science today, talking about the “topology” of atoms and molecules is completely in vogue. (accepted and exciting and award winning)

Remember, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences “Scientific Background on the Nobel Prize 89 in Physics 2016” is titled: Topological Phase Transitions and Topological Phases of Matter.

Aggregates of atoms and things have fields while retaining and blending their own with others. In other words, your very body has one overall field, but every organ has one, every vein and artery, every bone… every single part down to the atom, and indeed to the quarks and who knows what else and how far down we go.

This is important to understand (although it’s an awful drawing – sorry): . 1 + 1 = 3

For a simple example, if you “stick” two magnets together, they each technically still have their own field, but once joined, the pair also has its own field encompassing both objects (magnets in this case).

To think of examples of different fields joined together in a single construct, consider Apples - which have multiple seeds and the seeming ridges in the structure caused by the seeds and their attendant fields, or Oranges, with their individual slices or sections, each with a seed.

Remember the Hydrogen Atom picture?

Credit: David Woodrow John

Looking at the Fields, we see there are: 3 UpQuarks 3 DownQuarks 1 Proton 1 Neutron 1 Higgs 1 Electron 1 Hydrogen Atom ------For a total of at least 11 (eleven) Fields minimum, in a low-energy Basic Hydrogen Atom (assuming the quarks, higgs, and electron are elemental particles, not constructed of sub-sub-atomic particles).

In the book “The Electrotopological State”, the authors have a great statement that applies throughout the principles taught here:

“We can view each atom in a molecule as existing in a field within a molecule in which all other atoms participate. This field participation is characteristic of any atom in a 91 particular molecule.” (14. p.14)

They then describe how even when various things are mixed in different chemicals, they retain certain aspects or characteristics of their original construct:

“The methyl group in toluene is different from the methyl group in acetic acid by virtue of its context, despite its intrinsic state as a methyl group. Quantifying the methyl group requires both an identity as a methyl group and its modification through the relationships to all other atoms in the molecule in which it resides.” (14. p.14)

In describing what they call the I-State, or Instrinsic State of a molecule, they point out the three factors relating to it. These factors are important because they apply to all kinds of things, including light, and will be apparent in later sections.

The first attribute or factor is elemental. This represents the elements (structures) of which a particular molecule is created from. An example might be water, which has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Not surprisingly, each of their individual, or elemental, constructs (and technically, how they fit together) must be considered in the making of the whole.

The second attribute is that of the electronic organization. The is also referred to as the valence state of the atom. In HEW terms, we just say it just depends on how many weights (electrons) you’ve added to the structure. Some people would refer to ionic states or ions in discussing this.

The third attribute is called the degree of adjacency. This is also referred to more generally as the local topological state of the atom or group. In other words, this refers to where the atom or molecule is in relation to neighbors. (In simple terms, a gas has a lot of space between atoms or molecules, and a solid doesn’t.)

You will find references to Van der Waals forces everywhere. When you see what they are, it’s not surprising.

An interesting study on Van der Waals forces found a nonlinear increase in strength with growing molecular sizes. These forces are considered to act somewhat like glue on all types of 92 matter.

“Although the Van der Waals force was discovered around 150 years ago, it is still difficult to quantify when predicting the behavior of solids, liquids, and molecules. Precise measurements were only possible up to now for single atoms or macroscopic objects.” (16)

In their research, they found that:

“It was also revealed that the bigger the molecule, the stronger its attraction to the surface. In reality, this effect is even stronger than simple models predict and also than would be intuitively assumed.” (16)

And so as not to bore you too much further, but make a great final point:

“The Van der Waals force, to put it simply, emerges due to the displacement of electrons in the shells of atoms and molecules, caused by quantum fluctuations, which leads to a weak electrical attraction. In the case of larger molecules, more atoms are involved as each of these molecules also comprises more atoms. And on top of this, each and every atom contributes more strongly.” (16)

In reference to the quote above, the reader should note that the phrase: “caused by quantum fluctuations,” is physicist-speak for “we don’t know.”

The Field of Life

The Force of Life

What is the Force…that Drives the Field of Life?

In our American history, we learn that Columbus and others showed that the World wasn’t flat, but circular. The idea that the World isn’t flat is part of our culture, and of course, we know 93 scientifically it isn’t “flat.” However, we now know that everything is, in a way, flat. (it’s always interesting how things come and go) Our solar system is in a plane, or what we would call flat. Our galaxy is in a plane. Other galaxies are in planes. Our Universe is in a plane.

This image from NASA represents the w-band Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation (CMBR) and give an idea of this flatness or anisotropy:

Image Credit: NASA / WMAP

For more detailed information on this anisotropy, see the chapter “Gravity and Other Anomalies and Oddities” relating to the Allais Effect and Flat Structures. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error, according to NASA scientists. It is called anisotropic, meaning it has a “grain” or “orientation”, or what could be thought of as an “Up and Down.”

It’s also isotropic in that various physical effects operate the same everywhere – for example: a compass on Earth could be considered both isotropic and anisotropic in that it works everywhere with the same physical effects, but shows an orientation or grain while doing so.

In fact, a 2017 study of galaxies has shown: 94

“…all galaxies – including the Milky Way – are streaming towards a single flat sheet.”(5)

We know the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR or CMB) is also anisotropic – so the question is: “What is the orientation or direction of this radiation and for advanced HEW theorists - how or why does it exist?”

In modern physics there are directly related terms – the CMBR and/or the Higgs field. Again, the origin(s) of the CMBR/Higgs Field is the question – not whether or not such a field exists. If you continue thinking about HEW, you see that there are at least the candidates of the center of our universe and the center of our galaxy.

Of course, every black hole at the center of every galaxy and the one at the center of our universe all contribute their own fields.

The Higgs particle that interacts with the field is not only in perfect alignment with HEW – it’s what can be called the “Torque Shaft or Torque Shaft Driving Mechanism.”

In theory, the Higgs Field interacts with the Higgs Particle, which we have found. Therefore, using that theory (which coincidentally is the same background field as required for this commentary) we can deduce that the Higgs Particle can convert/re-orient the field energy into rotational energy using the most efficient system possible which is the Continuously Variable Rotating Plane (CVRP) concept discussed elsewhere.

The Combined Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is another candidate, but it’s always hard to say, given our observations and their historical reliance on visible light, which limits our actual understanding of the higher frequencies common in the Universe(s).

Zero Point Energy (ZPE) as defined in Wikipedia is quite interesting:

“Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. As 95 well as atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g., photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy. These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics, since some systems can detect the existence of this energy; however, this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.” (2)

In reference to the ZPE description above, I would add that there actually is no uncertainty in what’s going on – just in the minds of the scientists studying it. Also, the last sentence is typical in the adherence to Einstein’s belief system.

But, what is THAT force that powers that Higgs Field / CMBR / Zero Point Energy?

That’s up to you, the learner, to decide.

There are many religions of Humanity, and therefore it is assumed each reader will reach a conclusion at ease with their own mind and belief system.

The title of this document starts with the word How - not When, Why, Where, What, or WHO.

Atomagnetism

96 The name Atomagnetism was created not for technical reasons, but because people understand the idea of an Atom and it is also easy for people to think of the field of “magnetism” (ferromagnetism), with the traditional North and South Poles (a dipole).

Richard Feynman, in his “Lectures on Physics” says:

“However, gravitation and other forces are very similar and it is interesting to note analogies. For example, the force of electricity between two charged objects looks just like the law of gravitation: the force of electricity is a constant, with a minus sign, times the product of the charges, and varies inversely as the square of the distance. It is in the opposite direction – likes repel. But is it still not very remarkable that the two laws involve the same function of distance? Perhaps gravitation and electricity are much more closely related than we think.” (9)

Remember the formulas for Gravity and Electromagnetism shown a few pages ago?

Newton’s Law of Attraction or Universal Gravitation

2 F=G * (m*m’)/r -Where F=force of attraction, G=grav. constant, m and m’ the masses of the bodies, and r the distance.

2 F= k * (q * q’)/r -Where F=force, k=Coulomb’s constant, q and q’ the charge of the bodies, and r the distance 97

Coulomb’s Law of Electromagnetism (above)

When you look closely at the formulae, you see they are the same, except they switch mass and charge. Scientists would point out that you can have a negative charge and not have a negative mass, causing the apparent difference. Remember, however, that within every atom are both what are called positive and negative (matter and anti-matter) particles contributing their own spin to the overall spin of the atom. That’s why seemingly on anything larger than a few atoms, the collective effects of the various up/down / attraction/repulsion / matter/anti-matter particles would seem “the same” as the formula for Gravity. (because collectively, they are)

Fields (Electromagnetic or otherwise)

Another visual idea one may think of for a “field” is to look at a single pit fruit cut in half. This visual representation will be discussed in other areas. (you may also do this at home and you will notice the pit is at a slight angle…just like a tilted or canted “torque shaft”…)

Peach Plum

Here are ideas to help with visualization:

Credit: David Woodrow John

Multiple Fields

As early as 1644, Renee Descartes drew a representation of multiple regular magnetic interactions. His drawing, show below, may help in visualizing combining multiple fields:

Example basic components of a Hydrogen Atom with 1 Proton, 1 Neutron, and 1 Electron:

Although the word Atomagnetism is new, it does not represent something new. It represents a new way of thinking – not a new fantasy concept – as it relies on all modern science and research as its foundation. Scientists already know about atomic frequencies, the dipole magnetic moments and combinations, and other electromagnetic/electrostatic phenomena. 100

Simply think of “Atomagnetism” as an easier word to say... or make up your own word. (actually, given the scales that can be involved, some might think Attomagnetism a better term)

In particle physics, this Combined Analogous Dipole Magnetic Moment ADMM (the sum of the contribution of effects of quantum mechanics), the Nuclear Quadrupole Moment, and other electromagnetic/electrostatic effects are what “replaces” all 4 forces, scaled appropriately. Note: it doesn’t actually replace them – it is them.

They’ve just been given different names for different sizes and scales of the same phenomena. In fact, the current model has already been combining 3 of the forces, but hasn’t figured out how to fit “Gravity” in. (of course :^)

In Physics, they have the “g-factor” which is described as:

“…a dimensionless quantity that characterizes the magnetic moment and gyromagnetic ratio of a particle or nucleus. It is essentially a proportionality constant that relates the observed magnetic moment of a particle to its angular momentum quantum number and a unit of magnetic moment, usually the Bohr magneton or nuclear magneton.” (2)

“Protons, neutrons, nuclei and other composite baryonic particles have magnetic moments arising from their spin” (2) This is particularly interesting, when you remember that “composite baryonic particles” refers to everything that you or I have ever seen or experienced.

Electrons also join in, in regular, muon, and tau configurations, with their magnetic moment being expressed with 3 different magnetic moments – one from their spin angular momentum, one from their orbital angular momentum, and one from their total angular momentum – each with their own corresponding g-factor.

In fact, the Electron magnetic moment is defined as:

“In atomic physics, the electron magnetic moment, or more specifically the electron magnetic dipole moment, is the magnetic moment of an electron caused by its intrinsic properties of spin and electric charge.” (2) 101

There’s also the “Bohr magneton,” which, according to Wikipedia:

“…is a physical constant and the natural unit for expressing the magnetic moment of an electron caused by either its orbital or spin angular momentum.”(2)

Wikipedia has a nice quote regarding g-factors:

“However, not all of the difference between the g-factors for electrons and muons is exactly explained by the Standard Model. The muon g-factor can, in theory, be affected by physics beyond the Standard Model, so it has been measured very precisely.” (2)

In fact, recent measurements relating to muon size and also using the muon to measure the size of the Proton have caused major problems in traditional physics, causing physicists to try to bend the Standard Model even more to make it fit their preconceived ideas.

Because current physics is on the wrong road, the more they look, the more they see that doesn’t fit what their “map” shows. The more they look at “lepton universality” the more trouble they run into.

In an article from Scientific American entitled: “Lawbreaking Particles May Point to a Previously Unknown Force in the Universe”, they discuss some experiments and problems resulting therefrom:

“But three recent experiments have produced growing evidence – including results announced in just the last few months – that the particles react differently to some as-yet mysterious influence.” (11)

These experiments, in case you were wondering, were from major organizations: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization in Japan, and the Large Hadron Collider (LHCb) experiments. These systems even use different methodologies of researching and obtaining the data, making it all the more real.

102 The article goes on, as physicists tend to do, with a somewhat correct thought process (what they call the unknown force) mixed with the inevitable: “must be a new something… blah blah.” “…while visions of Doctoral thesis papers or research funding dance in their heads.”

“If more taus are coming out than the weak force should produce, then some unknown force, associated with some undiscovered attendant force-carrier particle, must be breaking down the larger particles in a way that favors taus. Finding such a force would be as fundamental as the discovery of electromagnetism, albeit with much less effect on our daily lives.” (11)

“There’s a story line that the theorists tell,” Wise says, and “this isn’t the story line.” (11)

Sounds like it’s time for some new lines. :^)

Going down in size, neutrinos are considered by scientists to have some mass and therefore a magnetic moment – allowing them to interact electromagnetically, which, according to the principles described in this commentary and elsewhere, they should.

Neutrinos probably drive the Higgs mechanism in every atom we know, so they probably do.

In Chemistry, various terms such as Surface Tension, Adhesion, Cohesion, and van der Waals bonding, all directly relate to this concept of “Atomagnetism.” These are just molecular level terms for something that also has atomic level terms. Remember – everything is the same – you’ll find the same patterns of every thing at every level: sub-atomic, atomic, molecular, individual, societal, global, solar, galactic, universal, ?.

For example, the HyperPhysics page, hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Georgia State University, says some fascinating things about “van der Waals Bonding”:

“Even though the water molecule as a whole is electrically neutral, the distribution of charge in the molecule is not symmetrical and leads to a dipole moment – a microscopic separation of the positive and negative charge centers.” (12)

They go on to say: 103

“Even nonpolar molecules experience some van der Waals bonding, which can be attributed to their being polarizable. Even though the molecules don’t have permanent dipole moments, they can have instantaneous dipole moments which change or oscillate with time.” (12)

And for a finish, that is rather interesting when you’ve read HEW, they say:

“Examination of the dipole electric field shows that the electric field from one instantaneous dipole will tend to polarize a neighboring molecule such that it will be attracted – sort of the electrical analog to a bar magnet magnetizing a paper clip so that it will be attracted to the magnet.” (12)

For example, Wikipedia defines the van der Waals force as:

“…the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds, or the electrostatic interaction of ions with one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.” (2)

Adhesion is the term for the tendency of dissimilar particles to cling to one another, while Cohesion is the tendency of similar particles to cling to one another.

You can think of it this way – on a typical roll of tape, the backing material is highly cohesive, so the tape stays together. An adhesive material is usually applied to one side, creating the “sticky side” of the tape. Things stick to the adhesive side, but not to the other side, which is only cohesive. (unless they happen to be related to that cohesive material in one of a variety of ways)

In fact, Wikipedia describes Dispersive Adhesion, which the term adhesion almost always refers to, in this way:

“In dispersive adhesion, also known as physisorption, two materials are held together by van der Walls forces; the attraction between two molecules, each of which has a region 104 of slight positive and negative charge. In the simple case, such molecules are therefore polar with respect to average charge density, although in larger or more complex molecules, there may be multiple “poles” or regions of greater positive or negative charge. These positive and negative poles may be a permanent property of a molecule (Keesom forces) or a transient effect which can occur in any molecule, as the random movement of electrons within the molecules may result in a temporary concentration of electrons in one region (London forces).” (2)

London forces are particularly interesting because they don’t need either surface (particle) to have any permanent polarity. The UC Davis Chemwiki says it simply:

“Unequal sharing of electrons causes rapid polarization and counter-polarization of the electron cloud forming short lived dipoles. These dipoles interact with the electron clouds of neighboring molecules forming more dipoles.” (13)

We already know about the frequency of atoms, or individual elements, and an example from the M.I.T.’s Department of Chemistry can be found here: https://chemistry.mit.edu/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/NMR-Frequency-Table.pdf

We also know about the frequency of molecules, although as with atoms, this is often referred to as the “vibration” of molecules (or atoms). Wikipedia has a page on “Molecular Vibration” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration.

Remember - It has that great quote:

“Perhaps surprisingly, molecular vibrations can be treated using Newtonian mechanics to calculate the correct vibration frequencies.” (2)

From a larger, molecular perspective, Lemont Kier and Lowell Hall wrote a book: “Molecular Structure Description – The Electrotopological State” (14) and also produced software to help people “model” the interaction of various molecules.

In their book (from 1999) they refer to the I-State, E-State, and Free Valence values of various 105 molecules/chemicals, which they calculated and were able to turn into predictable values for the pharmacological and other industries.

Many companies use software either from them or other companies that have started up with the same concept – that atoms and molecules have a specific, predictable, calculable shape, and that it has an electrical field associated with it, depending on the shape – or the topology, as some might refer to it.

Speaking of topology, don’t forget that the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded with one half to David J. Thouless, and the other half to F. Duncan M. Haldane and J. Michael Kosterlitz "for theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter" (15) for their work which is obviously related to topology and atoms and “matter.”

We know about electromagnetism – but our knowledge in “magnetic” realms is horribly polluted by our understanding of ferromagnetism, or what we call regular magnetism. We know about various anomalous dipole moments, but don’t relate it to our knowledge of atoms, nuclei, electrons, quarks, etc. which also undoubtedly follow the principles described herein.

Ferro Magnetism

Mankind has noticed magnetic effects beginning with lodestone and moving through permanent magnets with various materials making progressively stronger and stronger magnetic (gauss) fields, as various breakthroughs have occurred.

Normally, to magnetize a metal, it is first heated to extremely high temperature. Then a current is run through the material to give an alignment to the atomic structure.

Finally, this material is cooled as quickly as possible. (rapid quenching) The faster the cooling occurs, the stronger the resultant magnetic field.

Regular (ferro) magnetism is, just like everything else, based on unresolved torque in free space. This magnetic field is very apparent when considering elements like iron or ferrite. 106

The atomic structure of iron or ferrite, is according to scientists a cubic/crystalline one with a center body that is relaxed, or limp, and not connected to an end point of the cube face lattice when very hot. When cool, this body resolves to an end point of the lattice. If this body is “trapped” before reaching its connection with the end point, unresolved torque is created. That is why the faster you can cause it to cool, the more magnetic the substance will tend to be.

Additionally, when cooling a block or piece of metal, one needs to consider the atomic scale. Even a block ¼” thick is millions or billions of atoms thick. Therefore, even if you cool it as quickly as possible, the inner atoms, which constitute the vast majority of the total number of atoms, will be successively quenched or cooled slower than those on the outermost layer(s), as they must pass their electrons on to the next in order to “cool down.”

Of course that begs the question: Do they turn off the magnetic field before quenching the metal? If so, why?

Diamagnetism / Paramagnetism

While most people may be familiar with ferromagnetism, many may not have heard of diamagnetism, and its’ relative, paramagnetism.

In describing diamagnetism, Wikipedia states:

“Diamagnetism, to a greater or lesser degree, is a property of all materials and always makes a weak contribution to the material's response to a magnetic field.” (2)

They then go on:

“Materials called diamagnetic are those that laymen generally think of as non-magnetic, and include water, wood, most organic compounds such as petroleum and some plastics, and many metals including copper, particularly the heavy ones with many core 107 electrons, such as mercury, gold and bismuth.” (2)

Paramagnetism is described as:

“Paramagnetism is a form of magnetism whereby certain materials are attracted by an externally applied magnetic field, and form internal, induced magnetic fields in the direction of the applied magnetic field. In contrast with this behavior, diamagnetic materials are repelled by magnetic fields and form induced magnetic fields in the direction opposite to that of the applied magnetic field. Paramagnetic materials include most chemical elements and some compounds;” (2)

It is important to remember, though, that although it is MOST evident to us because of the obvious physical interactions of traditional ferro-type magnets, these effects are only impressive because of the strength of the field… not because of the existence of the field - that all atoms (and combinations of atoms) have.

Force(s)

108

Force(s)

109 We currently classify the same force, scaled appropriately, into 4 classifications – Gravity, the Weak and Strong forces, and Electromagnetism. We consider them different, because they seem to relate to things of different sizes, and seemingly in different ways.

There is just one force.

Atomagnetism – or the Combined Anomalous Dipole Magnetic Moments, or Quadrupole Nuclear Moment, and a variety of names relating to the spin, or moments of various particles, atoms, elements, and molecules. Again, this is the name used by this author instead of all those names, and for the scales involved, may be better called Attomagnetism. In current physics terminology, it is closely related to the term and ideas of topology.

Electromagnetism In basic form, electromagnetism involves everything in life. Almost all phenomena we encounter, including chemical reactions and forces between objects, involve the electromagnetic force - the exchange of electrons, if you will.

Electrons are never created or destroyed, just moved around.

Example of an electric copper wire:

In this simple form, electrons are being pushed (or pulled) into a medium, such as a copper wire, that has an atomic structure that allows it to pass more electrons to its neighbor rather than pass it on to the surrounding air (if it can contact said air in the first place).

With this influx of electrons, the atoms are receiving and passing electrons as fast as their particular structure allows, although a typical wire is a jumble of atoms with an endless variety of orientations and so is highly inefficient.

The atomic wobble through frequencies will also be producing what is referred to as heat (higher frequencies) or may be producing visible light – again depending on the particular atomic or combination structure and the frequencies they produce.

110 But, in this “excited” state, where the ions and electrons flow freely, the field strength of each particular atom will be at a large or inflated size – what we perceive as “electromagnetism.”

Superconductors are simply atoms and combinations thereof that “like” to pass electrons on as quickly as possible – with the goal of getting ones to do that in a “hotter”, or electron-rich, high frequency environment.

Superconductivity research generally revolved around super-cold (electron-poor, no ambient frequencies) environments, which obviously doesn’t work for everyday applications.

The relatively new field of Spintronics in physics will overcome many of the obstacles of the atomically “jumbled-up” wire of today by leading to “wire” that is only an atom or two in thickness that perfectly passes, if needed, or stores, if needed, an electron. Scientists generally refer to atomic scale engineering of individual atoms into chains or other shapes, 2D materials, because they relate to something only 1 atom thick. I get the usage, but of course it’s technically incorrect, as it implies an atom has no thickness, but we’ve got to “say” something.

Also, scientists have already combined electromagnetism and the weak force into electroweak theory because of the cross-over between the two “different” forces.

Current theory now has essentially merged the three forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic), and understand they are the same thing. However, Gravity cannot be reconciled – even with the current model.

One researcher, studying eclipses, noted regarding the fields:

“…there is more to electromagnetism than the mere transfer of energy.” (17)

He went on to note that if a change was made in radiated synchrotron photons:

“Only some observers (on Earth) will measure the limited number of synchrotron photons radiated by the gently accelerated charged source, but the field distribution will be 111 updated everywhere and the change will be verified by all observers.” (17)

In other words, only some people saw photons, but EVERYBODY sees the field change – instantly, or at least at the speed of light. This would make perfect sense if you read the section on “Light” in this commentary. The actual thrown particle(s) would only be “seen” by certain receptors, but the change in the field frequency would be “seen” by everyone.

The keys: • The field is already there and always has been – we call it the Higgs Field or Zero Point Energy Field or CMBR. For these purposes, we will refer to the Higgs Particle/Field. • The Higgs Field Interacts with a Higgs Particle, causing it to spin in the optimum triangular pattern of what I call CVRP, or Continuously Variable Rotating Plane. (As far as the current physicist idea that it: “imparts mass” or “blesses” other particles with mass is as usual: right but wrong. See the section on Matter/Mass in this commentary for more information.) • The Higgs Particle attracts a Proton and a Neutron (or their component sub-atomic parts), and at some point collect an Electron. • A Hydrogen Atom is born. • If pressure (and attendant temperature) are sufficient and other Atoms are available for building blocks, other Atoms like Helium, Lithium, and up the Elements, may be created by adding the additional structures to the overall structure of the Atom. (spoiler alert: an Atom’s Nucleus is not a bunch of balls joined together in a random mess like you’ve always seen in pictures. That very concept would lead to disorder in nature as elements would have somewhat variable characteristics, especially with more Protons and Neutrons.)

Gravity

112

Gravely speaking, there is no such thing as “Gravity.”

Throughout history, dating more accurately to Newton, Einstein, and for scientists, Cavendish, the concept of Gravity – an omni-directional force with no underlying cause or mechanism - has been marketed and branded into our collective conscious mind.

Generally speaking, no one would dare to claim that Gravity simply doesn’t exist in any way as conceived, since its’ effects can be “tested” by anyone by simply dropping an object.

However, it’s very important for you to note, as you laugh and begin your defenses, that Newton and Einstein didn’t believe in Gravity, as there was no mechanism provided and it violated other well known and established laws of Physics for no reason. They knew it (Gravity) was illogical.

Both authors instead chose to describe a conceptual World/Universe that could mathematically account for observations available at their respective time.

As everyone knows, more observations are made every day.

The amount of information available to us compared to Einstein is almost ridiculous, even more so in the realms he tried to explain. We currently know that Gravity doesn’t work with really small things or with really big things. In other words, Gravity doesn’t work with all the things we have been able to observe since the idea of Gravity was “refined” by Einstein with the supposed “bending” of space and time.

Restate “Gravity” in other ways, though, and it seems different:

• We currently accept a concept – Gravity - that violates the other laws of physics because it is an omni-directional force and also because no mechanism responsible has ever been found. (some people would call Gravity a law of physics, but it is simply a law in and of itself – as it specifically violates a number of other actual known laws)

113 • We say we know that Gravity exists and is real, because we can see it and feel it every day. The scientists generally associated with it such as Newton and Einstein are the first to admit that it doesn’t make sense, and aren’t sure it even exists, but don’t know what else to say is causing what they’ve observed.

• No scientific proof or test (other than empirical evidence) has ever been found to prove that the force of Gravity, as currently imagined, actually exists. (including the recent “gravitational wave” hype covered elsewhere in this commentary) - Empirical evidence is the same evidence used to prove the mechanism of The John Device, which people tend to disbelieve out-of-hand, with little or no investigation.

• Einstein came up with his ideas about spacetime/gravity to make the math work by simply changing the laws of physics to allow 1 cubic meter of nothing to vary its’ shape and total volume, and also time itself to change, to make the math work.

According to CERN’s website:

“However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, Gravity, is not part of the Standard Model, as fitting Gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a difficult challenge.” (8)

They go on to say:

“The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity used to describe the macro world, are difficult to fit into a single framework. No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the Standard Model.” (8)

They finish with a wonderful statement:

“So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain, it is still incomplete. Perhaps it is only a part of a bigger picture that includes new physics hidden deep in the subatomic world or in the dark recesses of the universe.” (8) 114

In response to that quote – it’s not NEW physics... it’s just understanding the old ones.

Richard Feynman was considered almost universally to be a great physicist, and in his lectures he includes a chapter on “The Theory of Gravitation” and is perhaps the most prescient in his very first sentence on the topic:

“In this chapter we shall discuss one of the most far-reaching generalizations of the human mind.” (9)

Hmmmmm. Please read that sentence above about Gravity from Feynman again.

Far-reaching generalization. Hmmm. You can say that again.

So, we believe Gravity is an omni-directional force, with no reason or underlying mechanism to explain its’ existence, and it doesn’t fit our observations of the last 50+ years, at least. The closest word to describe the action it portrays is “Magic.” That sounds funny, (my Dad laughed) but it is absolutely technically accurate.

As Feynman says later in the very same chapter:

“But is this such a simple law? What about the machinery of it? All we have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypotheses about this; he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery.” (9) Also, while not directly relating to Gravity, per se, the same work by Feynman goes on to say:

“The law of conservation of energy is a theorem concerning quantities that have to be calculated and added together, with no mention of the machinery; and likewise the great laws of mechanics are quantitative mathematical laws, for which no machinery is available. Why can we use mathematics to describe nature without a mechanism behind it? No one knows.” (9) 115

No one knew. (It’s past tense now:^)

Without knowledge of the capabilities of the CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) no one could have been able to describe such a machine or mechanism.

Most people at home don’t even know that the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, was built to find several particles. One was the Higgs particle. That was found, and pretty much anyone alive and connected on the Planet Earth heard about the discovery of “The God Particle.”

The other particle they wanted to find were the Graviton or Axion. Why is that? That’s because without the Graviton they can’t quantify Gravity, and without the Axion String Theories are dead. Besides those aspects, they have NO MECHANISM for their claims regarding the supposed force of Gravity. Zero. (spoiler alert: they didn’t and won’t find a graviton or axion)

You can imagine the frustration of having spent 5 Billion + in US Dollars plus a Billion or two per year, and hundreds of thousands of hours doing math formulas, looking for something and not finding it.

These are the smartest minds on the planet Earth, doggone it! Years of work and Billions of Dollars and NO Graviton and NO Axion!

Well, like any good physicists, more interested in their pensions, salaries, and benefits than in doing actual science (I got that from an article written by a physicist :^) – when their experiment didn’t work, they figured to just make it bigger and smash stuff harder.

So, the World waited while they re-built the LHC for the second big run. This time, the Graviton would be found for sure, because the power and frequencies they covered would far, far exceed

even the slightest chance of missing it. Scientists with all kinds of variations in their theories contributed to make sure that nothing was overlooked. This time the Graviton would be found!

Oops. The LHC Run 2 concluded with NO GRAVITON and NO AXION.

116 Physicists, in all their champagne-soaked glory, have NO Mechanism for a “Fundamental Force” of nature. All they have is a bunch of observations, many of which contradict their own current belief system(s). More importantly, or funnily, depending on your perspective, they have NO IDEA of where to turn or what to do next.

So, instead of telling the public they’ve been wasting hundreds of Billions of dollars every year at all the various Colleges and Universities and Think Tanks, and Technical Institutes… they decided to play a game on you with “Gravity Waves.” (that nonsense is covered later)

Actually, the only good news is that besides destroying any chance they have of “proving” Gravity, they also destroyed a bunch of other nonsensical theories.

So, in short, for someone like me, the LHC-II run was a wonderful thing.

For physicists? Not so much.

A research paper studying the “gravitational constant” using cold atoms mentioned this in their opening sentence:

“About 300 experiments tried to determine the value of the Newtonian gravitational constant G to date but large discrepancies in the results prevent from knowing its value precisely.” (10)

Then, even with their own work, they found thing weren’t working right:

“Our value is at a 1.5 combined standard deviations from the current recommended value of the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA).” (10)

In other words – the math and science of Gravity doesn’t add up to the facts.

Speaking of science, and without further interpretation from a novice like me, consider these formulas for gravity and electromagnetism:

117 Newton’s Law of Attraction or Universal Gravitation:

2 F=G * (m*m’)/r - Where F=force of attraction, G=grav. constant, m and m’ the masses of the bodies, and r the distance.

2 F= k * (q*q’)/r - Where F=force, k=Coulomb’s constant, q and q’ the charge of the bodies, and r the distance

Coulomb’s Law (above):

See any similarities between the formulae?

Coulomb’s Law - From Wikipedia:

“Being an inverse-square law, it is analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation. Coulomb's law can be used to derive Gauss's law, and vice versa. The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.” (2)

Scientists may point out that the electromagnetic formula leads to the possibility of both positive and negative results, or attractive and repulsive forces, where the gravity formula only produces positive, or attractive forces. That topic is covered in the section regarding Anti-Matter in this commentary.

Numerous scientific tests by NASA and others (for example, see: GRACE – Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment ) and others have shown that the ENTIRE EARTH is what could be called a Gravity Anomaly.

To visualize “Gravity,” GRACE data converted to imagery shows the following examples:

118

Credit: NASA

This graphic shows the measured strength of the Earth’s “Gravity.”

If you examine it, you will notice some slight correlation with known mountain ranges, but then face anomalies where mountain ranges don’t correlate and oceans don’t either.

After a while, you realize it’s all a mess. The beautiful “uniformity” that Gravity should produce from an Earth-sized object just isn’t there.

The surrounding field is equally affected, so the field lines are not perfect as visualized on a ball. (This is also related to things like the orbit of Mercury and other “oddities” that really aren’t odd.)

Quantum scientists, knowing the problems they face mathematically and otherwise, simply “turn off” Gravity in their little World, because it just doesn’t work or make sense there. They seek an imaginary quark called a Graviton, and a model of “Quantum Gravity” or else their model won’t work. (Spoiler alert: it won’t, because there is NO such thing as Gravity.)

Later in this book, various well-known anomalies are discussed and “Gravity” simply cannot explain them. When you think of a fully circular or omni-directional force like Gravity that is caused with no underlying mechanism other than to say “it’s just there” - there are lots of things that don’t work right.

In fact, another movement in physics, started after finding no new particles with the latest run of particle collisions at CERN, and all kinds of other evidence that they continue to be wrong, is towards Erik Verlinde and his 2010 paper: “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton.” String theorists and others are now calling Gravity an “emergent phenomenon” and not a 119 fundamental force at all. (imagine that! :^) This is also covered elsewhere in this commentary.

Another model of Gravity, MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), has recently come back into “vogue” as new research continues to eliminate General Relativity and the Lambda CDM (Cold Dark Matter) model. Due to this new information, a new section on MoND has been added to this commentary.

Verlinde, MoND, the stringers, and others, including the Electric Universe crowd, will still fail, as mentioned before, because they don’t understand the revolution of CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology, and so can’t account for spin, except by playing the old Big Bang/Relativity/Total Angular Momentum game. That won’t be a problem for them, because with the scientific community set to appease Einstein, rather than thinking and analyzing facts and data, none of them really want to know what’s going on anyway. (my specialty is psych, so we could talk for hours about the kids)

In other words...Don’t think you’re crazy if you’re starting to believe that Gravity doesn’t exist..

Many highly respected people don’t believe in Gravity, either. (Newton and Einstein didn’t – they just knew that their mathematical models provided good representations of whatever was actually going on, based on information available to them at the time.)

Regardless, if there is NO Gravity, then what is holding us down to the ground?

…Why don’t we “fly off into space”, as they say?

If you remember the image of a simple Hydrogen atom, you might recall it had at least 11 (eleven) different fields.

Now imagine all the different and various atoms, molecules, and other systems of the Planet Earth, with all the fields. Now imagine all those with all the up and down spins and moments - all the attractions and repulsions.

As Dr. Evil would say: “Billions.” :^) (The actual number is more like 69 Sextillion69) Needless to 120 say, the ability to know exactly what atoms to calculate and then calculate the sheer number of fields involved is beyond our technology and may be beyond anyone’s technology - or interest.

However, the Newtonian idea of Gravity and the various formulae have worked for hundreds of years as tested general representatives of the effect.

In fact, scientists only use the calculations from Einstein’s theories in what they consider extreme environments near black holes or with objects approaching light speed. Otherwise, the Newtonian calculations are accurate. And even when figuring out something in Einstein’s equations, they always verify the results with Newtonian equations. (so, in other words, they always verify the fantasy numbers with actual numbers)

As stated at the beginning of this commentary, there are no new formulas to consider here.

But remember, knowing the effect of something isn’t the same as knowing How that something happened. Those effects may be interesting and may be nice to know, but still just observational. Somewhat like a painter or poet describing something in their own medium.

In other words,

Knowing What Happens When Everything’s Working

Is different than

Knowing How Everything Works.

Light

Mankind has a particular affinity for the area of the spectrum known as Visible Light. Since we 121 have seen that light brings warmth and life in the Spring and Summer, and the lack of light brings cold and death in the Fall and Winter. Anyone alive can feel the Sun on their skin.

We are in awe of light. We are in awe of a narrow portion of the spectrum. This awe causes us to forget that it is just radiation.

First of all, and to the dismay of many, there is no such thing as a “Photon.” People have perceived an electron (or portion thereof) that is apparent at the time that light is “created.” They therefore named this a Photon, because of its’ seemingly direct relationship to the appearance of light. As Wikipedia points out:

“The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light.” (2)

This thinking uses words such as “emit” and “release of energy”, which, while being acceptable and useful words in many circumstances, must be used with extreme caution when dealing with

scientific principles and concepts. Dictionary interpretations of “emit” include words like “produce” and “create”. In simple terms, our modern definition states that light somehow appears “out of thin air” - or out of nothing. (they actually call it a “release of energy” but offer no explanation why that would produce light) It is therefore akin to Magic or a God-created Miracle.

122 From Wikipedia:

“In physics, emission is the process by which a higher energy quantum mechanical state of a particle becomes converted to a lower one through the emission of a photon, resulting in the production of light. The frequency of light emitted is a function of the energy of the transition. Since energy must be conserved, the energy difference between the two states equals the energy carried off by the photon.” (2)

As with many things observed/discovered, this is essentially true. It’s the underlying mechanism that’s different.

In the language of HEW, an atom “throws” an electron or “weight”, or an electron jumps from one atomic shell or orbit to another. This may be caused by an excessive amount of electrons in the atom’s environment, and also is dependent on the frequencies of the environment itself.

When the atom throws the electron or one jumps orbits, it causes the atom’s structure (with a “central” Torque Shaft or Torque Shaft Driving Mechanism in some parlance, Higgs particle in others) to wobble. All atoms have a frequency, and when the atom wobbles after throwing the electron or the electron jumps orbits, its’ frequency may pass through the spectrum that includes visible light as it returns back to its’ original frequency.

This “walk through” a frequency range also is what causes light to seem to flash, or gain intensity quickly and then diminish quickly. This is also why, in some observations, light seems to have a “wave-like” structure (frequency) with peaks and valleys.

Since different atoms have different frequencies, and can have various configurations such as different ionizations while remaining the same basic element, they will wobble through different ranges of frequencies after throwing electrons.

This is why different atoms or elements or combinations thereof seem to have different colors visually. Remember that colors are simply different frequencies in the (visible) spectrum.

Different structures of atoms from different elements, and combinations of them, will absorb and throw electrons at different rates, all of which relate to what we perceive as their “natural” color 123 or appearance, and what is thought of as their abilities to absorb and emit(!) light and heat (electrons or what you used to call photons).

“Each element’s emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition.” (2)

Not only is each element’s emission spectrum unique, but recently, scientists have figured out how to “fake” elements. Andre Campos and colleagues from Princeton figured out how to use a laser pulse on hydrogen atoms to make them “look like” (or have the same frequency as) argon atoms:

“What Campos’s team realized was that they could use lasers to excite an atom into a state of any energy, at least temporarily, by hitting it with a specially designed light pulse. When the electron fell back down, it would then emit whatever light colour the physicists chose.” (18)

“In fact, any two atoms or molecules can be made to look alike, by applying specific pulse shapes. In general, this means that simply measuring the light given out by a material is not enough to know what its composition. You need to know the input light, too.” (18)

That is a critical point about the input light, or how you input electrons in general. Too many “scientific” papers and such that I read talk about applying “heat” to some process they’re doing. That is a very vague way of telling someone that you are transferring electrons to whatever you’re doing. See the section on heat in this document for more information.

This same research brings another area that is discussed later in this document:

“It might also be useful helping in biology, where it is a major challenge to distinguish very similar molecules in certain mixtures. Specific laser pulses will cause different molecules to emit different colours, and so provide a means to tell between them.” (18)

Again, we already know these things. The scientific community is very aware of optical and 124 mass spectroscopy, and so is the TV-watching general public, thanks to various forensic and crime analysis shows or segments where they mention various aspects of spectroscopy (or perhaps the more common term spectrometry) – from luminol used to identify body fluids to various lab tests used to determine, perhaps, the exact model and manufacturer of a vehicle from a paint chip from a crime scene.

Simply Put: There is no such thing as a Photon, it’s just terminology (remember, Einstein made it up to fit other things) – in fact, some scientists refer to it as a photoelectron and others note that it can easily “change” into an electron.

Again, It IS an Electron, or portion thereof, that when being thrown from an Atom, or jumping from one shell or obit to another, causes the Atom to wobble, which may move its frequency through that of visible light, depending on the structure of the atom.

Light, as we say, is a Field and a Particle, as represented (poorly) below: (it can be called a field with a wave going through it and caused by an electron)

In the case of this graphic, the atom that is wobbling is located on the surface of the object labeled as a “Light Source” and so only field lines propagating out are shown.

This concept is important because when atoms are packed together, their frequencies and thrown electrons will be contained by the atoms around it. Those atoms will then pass the electrons on, wobbling through their frequency range as they do so.

Depending on their atomic and molecular structure, they will be able to pass the electrons efficiently, or with low resistance, with minimum wobble and attendant frequencies (heat or light) or they will be less efficient with more wobble and frequencies, or high resistance.

125

The field or Atomagnetic field can be visualized with the classic magnetic (ferromagnetic) image, which has standard field-like shapes. This standard field concept is well understood by modern science, and examples are shown and discussed elsewhere in this document.

The concept of the thrown or moved weight/electron (and the fact that said weight/electron is spinning internally at sub-atomic speeds, which are “faster” than atomic speeds) also relates to the “torque” or angular momentum, of light.

A recent paper studying optics and photons further quantizes “light” and has an interesting conclusion:

“We conclude that for light, as is known for electrons, reduced dimensionality allows new forms of quantization.” (19)

“Effects due to the angular momentum of light have been studied since the first measurements of the torques exerted on wave plates.” (19) (which, according to the reference used here, were published in 1936)

“As with spin and orbital angular momenta, the torque exerted on an object depends on how it couples to the field.” (19)

“…confirming on mechanical grounds that it represents a form of angular momentum.” 126 (19)

Simply put - “photons” act like electrons, have torque like electrons, and have all the things electrons have – but “they” have been given a new name because of their association with the frequency range that Humans have labeled Visible Light.

As Richard Feynman says:

“When a photon comes down, it interacts with electrons throughout the glass, not just on the surface. The photon and the electrons do some kind of dance, the net result of which is the same as if the photon hit only on the surface.” (20)

Another fascinating concept from physics is that of “Radiation Pressure.” Wikipedia defines it:

“Radiation pressure is the pressure exerted upon any surface exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Radiation pressure implies an interaction between electromagnetic radiation and bodies of various types, including clouds of particles or gases. The interactions can be absorption, reflection, or some of both (the common case)). Bodies also emit radiation and thereby experience a resulting pressure.” (2)

By the way, “Bodies” is physicist-speak for every known particle and thing.

So, EVERYTHING emits radiation, or a frequency.

In fact, an international collaboration of researchers from the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology): “has demonstrated the ability to make photons emitted by quantum dots at different frequencies identical to each other by shifting their frequencies to match.” (91)

As an interesting side note, a July, 2020 study from the University of Surrey could:

“change the way scientists understand and describe lasers – establishing a new relationship between classical and quantum physics.” (86)

127 This study questions the basic principles of lasers and the spectral linewidth, which have been used for over 60 (sixty) years. Unfortunately for physicists, they found:

“as we have explained in this study, there is a simple, easy-to-understand derivation of the laser spectral linewidth, and the underlying classical physics proves the quantum-physics attempt of explaining the laser spectral linewidth hopelessly incorrect. This result has fundamental consequences for quantum physics.” (86)

Two traditional tests regarding the photon are the photoelectric effect and Two-slit experiment. In short, both of these proofs simply provide further evidence for this theory on How Everything Works.

Photoelectric Effect According to Wikipedia:

“The photoelectric effect is the observation that many metals emit electrons when light shines upon them. Electrons emitted in this manner can be called photoelectrons. The phenomenon is commonly studied in electronic physics, as well as in fields of chemistry, such as quantum chemistry or electrochemistry” (2)

The UCDavis Chemwiki shows the following graphic:

128

Credit: UCDavis Chemwiki

The description of this includes this quote:

“Einstein proposed that in the photoelectric effect, each photon was striking a single electron and causing it to break its association with the atom.” (4) As with most things, this is mostly correct, but it is simply an electron doing that.

An interesting point is that we currently say that if, for example, 10 Million Photons were to strike a surface, then 10 Million PhotoElectrons would be produced (under perfect conditions) which could also be considered 10 Million Electrons.

In old physics, “many metals emit electrons.”

In HEW terminology: Everything is able to absorb electrons and then shed them, which causes their structure to wobble, and in doing so may make their natural frequency pass through the spectrum of visible light (and/or other parts of the spectrum) representing the perceived color of the particular object as they return to their relative state of equilibrium.

Or, when atoms and collective groups such as molecules get more electrons than they need or want, they give some back to anybody who needs or wants them.

129 Double-Slit Experiment

The double-slit experiment originally was considered to prove that light acted both as a wave and a particle.

There are numerous considerations that helped with the effects when considering that the object that had the “slits” in it had its’ own field and as some of the electrons passed close to the edges of the slits, the fields interacted causing the variances in the tracks of the detected electrons (photons). (as in bending starlight around astronomical bodies – the infamous redshift)

Also, since visible light is a specific frequency of a field, it essentially acts like, or seems essentially the same as a wave, caused by the wobble through frequency ranges of the basal elements involved when moving or exchanging electrons. As mentioned, it’s somewhat of a “wave through a field because of changes with an electron.”

We usually think of electrons with this experiment, but:

“This kind of experiment has revealed the wave-particle duality of photons, electrons, atoms and even large molecules.” (98)

In 2019, the double-slit experiment had also been done using anti-matter (Positrons). In the research, they found that the anti-matter acted the same as matter.

“…our measurement illustrates the principle of wave-particle duality; Positrons are emitted as point-like particles by a radioactive source, interact as de Broglie waves with the interferometer, and are eventually detected as distinct spots in the emulsion detector…providing the first demonstration of antimatter wave interferometry.” (97)

Simply put: the Double-Slit Experiment (like all experiments, technically) simply is another test that can be used to prove this “theory,” as the results of these experiments (comprised of both matter and anti-matter) are exactly as what would be expected.

Relating to the term Photon, this graphic might help: 130

Credit: David Woodrow John

Here’s a recent 2020 quote. It has a lot of “information” in it:

“All the behavior we know about light really takes tacitly an underlying presumption that its properties in space and time are separable. So, all we know in optics is based on that. It’s a built-in assumption. It’s taken to be a natural state of affairs. But now, breaking that underlying assumption, we’re starting to see new behavior all over the place.” (85)

FYI, space doesn’t bend and time isn’t variable.

E=mcx

131 Energy = mass times the speed of light squared.

It is perhaps the most famous equation in history.

One immediate “problem” with the formula is that of mass. We now know “mass” on the atomic scale (and therefore, ultimately at all scales) really consists of the swept area of smaller particles – so what really is the “mass” in this formula?

As far as the “speed of light” goes, those smaller sub-atomic particles, such as quarks and neutrinos, (and perhaps their constituent components) will be found to have a higher “speed limit” than regular atomic particles.

Not being a mathematician or physicist, I have no idea what that number will be – other than the knowledge that it will be a natural harmonic of what we call the speed of light, at least formulaically.

Being a natural engineer, I can assure you these sub-particles have to have a higher speed in order for the electrons to be exchanged (remember, they’re “thrown” at light speed) and re-integrate without destroying the underlying basic structure.

In fact, in an April 4, 2019 article, titled: Researchers develop way to control speed of light, send it backward, the researchers:

“demonstrated they could speed a pulse of light up to 30 times the speed of light, slow it down to half the speed of light, and also make the pulse travel backward.” (85) Remember, throwing electrons causes both a particle (the electron) and the “wave” of the natural frequency wobble. When the electrons strike a surface or go through a medium, they will only penetrate to a particular level or depth. The wave, however, is received by those atoms

and depending on structure may cause them to alter frequency while attempting to match, which is then passed on to all their neighbors at the speed of the frequency field.

There are “seismic waves” - caused by an object throwing an electron and thereby causing the structure and attendant frequency to wobble through a range in the low frequency spectrum and 132 also the “particles” - electrons propagating through a medium.

There are “sound waves” - caused by an object throwing an electron and thereby causing the structure and attendant frequency to wobble through the audible spectrum and also the “particles” – thrown electrons propagating through a medium.

There are “light waves” - caused by an object throwing an electron and thereby causing the structure and attendant frequency to wobble through the visible spectrum and also the “particles” – thrown electrons propagating through a medium.

There are “high-frequency waves” or “high-energy waves” - caused by an object throwing an electron and thereby causing the structure and attendant frequency to wobble through the gamma or x-ray or other spectrum and also the “particles” – thrown electrons propagating through a medium.

Interestingly, while researching this, I found that scientists refer to one as mechanical waves and the other as electromagnetic waves.

I had mentioned to my father that I wasn’t sure, but I thought that perhaps scientists, as it were, consider propagation (and of course the creation, etc., of) of waves in liquids, and sound and visible light, and higher frequencies like x-rays or gamma rays as somehow different.

Regardless, they’re all the same, by the way.

It’s just moving electrons at the atomic/molecular level, and probably neutrinos at the sub-atomic level.

‘ons are Off

As long as we are on the topic of Photons - many other ‘ons, as I call them, turn out to be 133 equally false, or constructed to satisfy math and other considerations or observed phenomena.

In some cases, like the Photon, it’s simple terminology. In others, it’s an entirely manufactured entity, created only in formulas based on conjecture trying to explain observed effects. In the Standard Model, in HEW terminology, Quarks are the various pieces and beginning weights of the system and the Leptons (electrons and neutrinos) are the additional weights.

Credit: MissMJ, PBS NOVA, Fermilab, Office of Science, U.S. DOE, Particle Data Group

All that have ever been observed are either Fermions or Bosons.

“Fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, while bosons are said to be the particles that transmit interactions (force carriers), or the constituents of radiation.” (2)

As Wikipedia says regarding Bosons:

“Whereas the elementary particles that make up matter (i.e. leptons and quarks) are fermions, the elementary bosons are force carriers that function as the ’glue’ holding matter together.” (2) 134

Think of it this way: If you held regular magnets (fermions) in each of your hands, and then moved your hands close enough to one another to feel the magnets interaction, you would be “feeling” a boson – a force “carrier.”

These Bosons, or “carriers” of force are just math representations that work to show the (atomagnetic or pick another word) field interactions going on between the various particles.

An example of an ‘on failure is that of the Graviton. Some people put the word “hypothetical” in front of it, and I would too. In fact, the most recent version (Run2) of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) was built to find the Graviton – to no avail.

Some imaginary Bosons: Graviton, Axion, Magnon, Phonon, Photons, and all Quasiparticles. Again, any Particle (which isn’t really a particle, but that’s for advanced thinkers) that we find exists. We found it through physical observation. The Bosons are mathematical explanations for observed phenomena caused by field and topological interaction.

Recent examples of failures to find the Axion: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/16/dark_matter_axions/ http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/nov/17/measurements-of-electric-dipole- moment-rule-out-axion-like-dark-matter-candidates

Hot / Cold

Closely allied with light are the ideas of hot and cold.

135 More electrons and higher frequencies – heat Few electrons and lower frequencies – cold

How these are transferred between atoms is important.

Every atom has a field and associated frequency. Again, this is not a new concept.

When atoms, or combinations thereof, are being struck by electrons (heated up, in some parlance), they have various abilities to absorb said electrons. Some can absorb more, some can absorb less, and some essentially not at all. That obviously relates to their structure.

When they acquire too many, or when electrons jump shells or orbits, they may become imbalanced, and finally throw or lose one of these electrons. In doing so, they wobble, passing through a frequency range whilst returning to their natural frequency. The higher the frequency, the “hotter” it is.

Space is “cold” because it has few atoms and electrons, and also therefore few “ambient” frequencies.

A Fire is “hot” because it has many electrons seeking new homes, after their host atoms/molecules have thrown them and said hosts have momentarily wobbled through a frequency spectrum.

Some of the atoms/molecules wobble through what we call Red, and Orange, and Yellow, among other colors/frequencies.

We see flames as their atoms meet the “cold”/electron-receptive air. (the use of various chemicals can obviously alter the “color” – hence the use of fire additives to make interesting colors in the flames)

Wobble City.

Only marshmallows and a stick are needed to finish the “scientific” process.

136

Some other topics that relate to hot and cold, interestingly enough:

Sonic Sealing vs. Heat Sealing

Remembering that “heat” just refers to some frequency, you may find it interesting to notice that various packaging you may have around your house for food has transitioned in the last few years from “heat-sealed” packages to “sonic-sealed” packages.

You can use heat (a collection of frequencies) or sonic (a particular frequency range known to disrupt the molecules you are trying to fuse together) to break the frequencies of the atoms/molecules of products so that they can meld or stick together, if they are of the appropriate molecular structure to be able to do so once broken apart.

The advantages to the manufacturers were many: - The sonic sealing doesn’t produce as much heat, so the product being packaged is less likely to be damaged.

- The seal is performed without heat, so there is virtually no “cool-down” time before the product can be packaged and boxed up for shipment.

- The sonic sealed area is “shorter” than the heat sealed area on the end of the bag, so less material is needed per sonic-sealed package.

137

Credit: David Woodrow John

Spot and Sonic Welding

Many products have elements or parts that are connected to one another by spot welding or sonic welding. Spot welding is generally thought of as relating to metals, and sonic welding relating to plastics and rubbers and other non-metallic materials.

138 In either case, a frequency is used that disrupts the atomic structures of the materials seeking to be joined. Usually, various testing has determined the correct frequencies for the exact material seeking to be modified, and the extent to which it is desired to be modified. (i.e. softened, melted, vaporized, etc.)

Many plastic products used to have the various pieces of them joined by various glues and epoxies or mechanical connections like screws. Many manufacturers of different components today understand the frequency welding to connect pieces quickly, using no additional fixators or glues in the process. They just push two pieces together and “zap” the parts/connection with the appropriate frequency, so they “melt” together.

Cooking Food / Ohmic Heating

Ohmic heating is another example of “it’s just moving electrons around” in the way that it can be used to cook, or bake bread.

When baking bread in an oven, you have a hot environment around the baking pan and the dough. The heat, obviously, has to move from the outside to the inside.

When making bread using Ohmic heating, you have electrodes placed on the pan so that the electricity (electrons, heat) moves directly through the bread to the other electrodes.

They seem different, one using “heat” and one using “electricity” to “cook” the bread dough, but, again, they are exactly the same thing – just moving electrons around.

“"The heat is generated instantaneously within the complete dough," explains Prof. Henry Jäger. "This is the main advantage of the Ohmic heating technology.

Conventional baking in the oven requires more time, since the heat needs to penetrate from the outside toward the center of the dough." (83)

And just in case you think that the Ohmic bread must be “weird” or “different” they found:

139 “The Ohmic bread showed excellent quality characteristics compared to conventionally baked products. The volume of the bread was 10 to 30 percent higher. The crumb was softer and more elastic, and the pores were smaller and more evenly distributed.” (83)

When you think about baking bread in a hot oven, always having to pass electrons from the outside to the inner areas, you can see how a “crust” would form, as those outer elements and molecules have had to pass a large amount of electrons continuously and at times would have become overwhelmed and thereby have their atomic or molecular structure (and frequency) broken, reducing them to some arrangement of constituent parts, carbon being a favorite. This is obviously quite similar to regular fire.

But, since Ohmic heating doesn’t use “heat” in the conventional sense, as you can imagine:

“Browning and crust formation do not occur…If a crust is desired, it can be formed afterward in a controlled manner by infrared heating.” (83)

So, you can “add” a crust to the bread using “fire.”

For the business side of things, they found that Ohmic heating should provide a savings of around two-thirds when compared to a conventional oven. Remember, for a commercial bakery, the heating costs for the ovens can be 40% of their revenue.

Laser Cooling

Although it may seem counter-intuitive to some people reading this, things can only be “cooled” down so far by placing them in an electron poor/hungry environment. (or what people would call a “cold” environment)

“Laser cooling refers to a number of techniques in which atomic and molecular samples are cooled down to near absolute zero through the interaction with one or more laser fields.”(2)

“All laser cooling techniques rely on the fact that when an object (usually an atom) 140 absorbs and re-emits a photon (a particle of light) its momentum changes.” (2)

They’re in the neighborhood, but what they mean to say is that “it’s the fact that when an object like an atom absorbs and/or re-emits an electron its momentum changes (it wobbles), and will cause its natural frequency to vary as it regains equilibrium, depending on the structure, and the range of this frequency variance may pass through all or a portion of the visible spectrum, producing either white or colored light as appropriate.”

Note that the electron itself is not relevant in the actual perceived color of the wave.

An interesting part of laser cooling is that they have to use very particularly timed pulses, and it matters where on the atoms the pulses strike it.

If you’d like to get this image clearly in mind, think of The John Device, spinning around slowly. If you throw a weight at it and you strike the weight coming towards you, (assuming various factors relating to the speed and mass, etc.) it may slow down (get colder) and if everything’s just right, you may stop it, or even knock it backwards for the moment that your weight “hit.”

Once the shock of getting hit by the weight is gone, however, since The John Device is a driven system, similar to the Higgs/ZPE/CMBR field driving quarks and sub-quarks, (or what some call Zero point energy) the system will start to move “forward” again.

And that, in a paragraph, is why scientists struggle to get atoms to absolute zero, and if they technically do (zero spin), they are unaware of the accomplishment. Many groups have gotten better and better at timing their laser pulses and making sure to use apparently correct frequencies, and the result has been that they’ve been getting closer and closer to “reaching absolute zero.”

“Light” Powered Nano-sized 3-Wheelers

A direct cousin to laser cooling, and also an interesting article to read for the future, relates to using laser pulses to “drive” nano-sized vehicles. 141

“Rather than drive them chemically or with the tip of a tunneling microscope,…the researchers used light at specific wavelengths to move their nanoroadsters along a copper surface. The vehicles have rear-wheel molecular motors that rotate in one direction when light hits them. The rotation propels the vehicle much like a paddle wheel on water.” (21)

Credit: Alex Saywell/Leonhard Grill

“Powering them with light frees them to be driven wherever one can shine a light – and eventually we hope they will carry cargo. This is precisely what we seek – to use a light to activate motors and have swarms of nanovehicles moving across the surface, made directional through electric field gradients.” (21)

As you probably see, this is exactly the same concept as laser cooling, but just with a bunch of atoms stuck together instead of a single atom. It’s simply electrons being thrown around, and all the frequencies from everything wobbling, trying to get back to equilibrium, combined with a natural structure that facilitates rotation in the process of doing so.

142

Another group of researchers sees the ability to drive nanomotors with pulses of light. In an article entitled: “Topologically enabled optical nanomotors” they discuss how light can be used to drive nanoparticles. Of note to HEW readers is this statement:

“Specifically, even linearly polarized light that carries zero angular momentum can give rise to a steady state in which a particle is spinning indefinitely around its stable orientation.” (22)

That quote above is worth much thought: Something with zero angular momentum that strikes another particle, causing it to spin indefinitely around its stable orientation.

Sure sounds like a relative of The John Device’s CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane).

“Here, we show that a simple spherical Janus particle illuminated with light in the appropriate spectral range can become a stable nano-scale motor. When illuminated by a plane wave, such a Janus particle – consisting of a dielectric core and a thin metallic half-shell – exhibits rich rotational dynamics, which include the existence of precessing steady states in a light field that carries no inherent angular momentum.” (22)

Uh oh. Another, less scientific way to say it is: The stuff’s going to hit the fan.

Or, as they say in the same research article:

“Full-wave simulations demonstrate the existence of steady-state orientations with nonzero net torque, resulting in a spinning particle even in the absence of the angular momentum of the external electromagnetic wave.” (22)

Not that the authors of this research are implying this in any way, but I am…

Can you say Higgs/Zero Point Energy/CMBR? (this is discussed in the section on Perpetual Motion in this document)

143

Dental Work / Other Light/UV Activated Adhesives

If you’ve been to the dentist lately, or perhaps work in a manufacturing or other production-type facility.

If you’ve had a dental filling, you may have had a polymer-type filling put in, and then the dentist or dental assistant shines a bright blue light (ultraviolet) on the material, hardening it in seconds.

In many manufacturing environments, new “light-activated” adhesives also come into play for the exact same reasons:

o Very little heat produced when compared to conventional methods.

o The quickness of “setting” of the final joint or connection.

o Additionally – parts can be moved about with the adhesive in place until “solidifying” the connection with the appropriate light source or frequency.

In other words, the frequency of visible light normally isn’t correct for breaking the molecular structures of the components of the adhesives and items to be connected, but a higher frequency, such as infrared or ultraviolet, is. (although they do make regular visible-light activated compounds too)

Fission Fission, as we commonly refer to it, is thought of as relating to atomic bombs or nuclear reactors, or perhaps nuclear medicine.

It is used and related to those things, but that type of fission is simply atomic. Other known 144 types of fission include (at least) biological, molecular, and sub-atomic fission.

The chart below summarizes some points about the different types of fission:

LEVEL OF FISSION > MOLECULAR ATOMIC SUB-ATOMIC

Common Terms Chemicals, Wood, Atomic, Elements, Various Quarks, Particles, associated with Gas, combustion fission fusion

Examples Fire / Engine Sun Black Hole Conventional Nuclear/Atomic Bomb Hydrogen Bomb explosive Nuclear Reactor Fusion Reactor (?) Chemical reaction Particle Accelerator Hadron Collider/CERN

What Happens Molecules are broken Atoms (elements) are Quarks or particles are down into their broken down into their broken down into their constituent elemental constituent elemental constituent elemental components components (depending components (depending on (depending on on variables*), typically variables*), typically referred variables*), typically referred to as quarks or to as ? or ??. (sub-quarks and referred to as particles. sub-particles) elements or atoms.

(note on what You may notice that in the examples above, the concept is the same. The only happens) thing that changes in the term for what is broken down and what it is broken down into. This concept can be extended upwards or downwards beyond the three levels or examples shown here.

*variables The variables referred to above include the basic assumed composition of the elemental objects (be they molecule, atom, or sub-atomic) and the groupings they have established, the distribution of the objects and their “surface” contact area with other disparate areas, and the energy (frequencies) in the system, either ambient or available, generally referred to as heat and cold.

How it Happens How the concept of Fission happens is the same process in all environments. The process just occurs at different frequency ranges, depending on whether dealing with the combination of atoms that make molecules, or the combination of sub- the same atomic particles that make atoms. (technically, as these processes apply to everything, they go beyond the three “levels” discussed here)

145 The local environment has an excess amount of electrons and neutrinos - although we only perceive electrons because neutrinos are at too high a excess frequency for our current scientific methods to detect, other than through having electrons neutrinos striking atoms that have a particular affinity for being able to be suspended in a medium, and are probably one-sided or lop-sided constructs (in John Device concepts) in order to highlight maximum effect from the neutrino strike.

When an object ordinarily accumulates too many (or too large) electrons, it would shed electrons by “throwing” them. After releasing the electron, the structure of the object wobbles slightly as it returns to its’ equilibrium. Since all objects throwing (molecules, atoms, quarks, and particles) have a known frequency, this wobbling electrons causes them to pass through a range of frequencies around this. Depending on the structure and resultant frequency of said object, these frequency ranges may be what we refer to as higher, or shorter duration wavelength, or also what we refer to as hotter. (this is the same process that creates visible light – it just

depends on the objects’ natural frequency range and if its’ wobble range takes it through the visible spectrum in any area) breaking If the environment is already “overloaded” with electrons - the medium is called apart “hot” (high frequencies from other objects reacting to the electrons) and also the objects are constrained by other objects (collected together like Wood, or compressed like Uranium), their atomic structure may break apart, resulting in a wave near their frequency, but also exposing the higher frequency inner structures (that comprise them) to the environment. recombining, reducing These constituent parts will then bond with other constituent parts into structures. If the environment continues to be electron-rich, the cycle continues until the most basal elements remain. This level of reduction depends on the environmental factors to a large degree. Ultimately, high levels of “heat” or “radiation” – electron and frequency rich environments such as the Sun - will reduce even the most steadfast of the normal Atomic elements. Sub-atomic elements find their ultimate homes in Black Holes and similar constructs.

Fusion Fusion, as we commonly refer to it, is thought of as relating to hydrogen bombs or the attempts to make viable fusion reactors. It is used and related to those things, but that type of fusion is simply atomic. Other known types of fusion include (at least) molecular and and sub-atomic fusion.. 146

The chart below summarizes some points about the different types of fusion:

LEVEL OF FUSION > MOLECULAR ATOMIC SUB-ATOMIC

Common Terms Elements, Compounds, Atomic, Elements, Various Quarks, Particles, associated with chemical reactions fusion fusion

Examples Earth Sun Black Hole Chemical reactions Welding Fusion Reactor (?) Sex (organism fusion:^) Atomic Enrichment Hadron Collider/CERN

What Happens Molecules are Atoms (elements) are Quarks or particles are combined into new combined into new combined into new groupings of molecules groupings of atoms or groupings of quarks or or components components particles (depending on (depending on (depending on variables*) variables*) variables*).

(note on what You may notice that in the examples above, the concept is the same. The only happens) thing that changes in the term for what is combined and what it is combined into. This concept can be extended upwards or downwards beyond the three levels or examples shown here.

How it Happens How the concept of Fusion happens is the same process in all environments. The process just occurs at different frequency ranges, depending on whether dealing with the combination of atoms that make molecules, or the combination of sub- the same atomic particles that make atoms. (technically, as these processes apply to everything, they go beyond the three “levels” discussed here)

The local environment has an excess amount of electrons and neutrinos - although we only perceive electrons because neutrinos are at too high a excess frequency for our current scientific methods to detect, other than through having electrons neutrinos striking atoms that have a particular affinity for being able to be suspended in a medium, and are probably one-sided or lop-sided constructs (in John Device concepts) in order to highlight maximum effect from the neutrino strike. 147

If the environment is already “overloaded” with electrons - the medium is called “hot” (high frequencies from other objects reacting to the electrons) and also the breaking objects are constrained by other objects (collected together like Wood, or apart compressed like Uranium), their atomic structure may break apart, resulting in a wave near their frequency, but also exposing the higher frequency inner structures (that comprise them) to the environment.

In the concepts of Fission and Fusion, the objects are under pressure, or in extremely close proximity on all sides with neighboring objects, which contributes recombining, to them being unable to “throw” their electrons. This may be because their reducing neighbors are also already overloaded with electrons, or also because of their individual structures (atomic or otherwise) are inherently overloaded.

These constituent parts will then bond with other constituent parts into structures. If the environment continues to be electron-rich, the cycle continues until the most basal elements remain. This level of combination and reduction depends on the environmental factors to a large degree. Ultimately, high levels of “heat” or “radiation” – electron and frequency rich environments such as the Sun - will reduce even the most steadfast of the normal Atomic elements. Sub-atomic elements find their ultimate homes in Black Holes and similar constructs with the subsequently higher frequencies found in those objects.

A self-sustaining reaction occurs when a sufficient quantity of base material has been “overloaded” and has broken apart, exposing the higher frequencies of the sub-objects, and additional materials are available to become overloaded to the point of breaking apart in the normal electron release/absorption process.

148 Black Holes

A “Black Hole” has two interesting things about it: It is one of the “brightest” things in the Universes, and isn’t a Hole at all.

It just depends on what you mean – does the “brightest” mean the strongest and highest in frequency in the visible light range, or the strongest and highest in frequency, overall? (e.g. Is a very strong Visible light ray “brighter” than a Gamma ray?)

As far as being a “hole” or a “singularity” - it’s just an astronomical body comprised of quarks and other small(er) atomic parts.

Something to consider is that the Sun is an “Atomic” Astronomical Body (comprised of raw elements and the quarks that comprise them) and the Earth is a “Molecular” Astronomical Body (comprised of raw molecules and the elements that comprise them). Spoken that way, a Black Hole is a “Sub-Atomic” Astronomical Body (comprised of raw quarks and the ??? that comprise them).

All Suns (atomic structures) may eventually become Black Holes - or sub-atomic structures. (technically, all objects may eventually become black holes, but that’s real big picture, long term stuff)

As an object continues to gather additional atoms (fields) becoming what we call a black hole, its’ own field will eventually become so powerful and at a higher frequency because of its’ sub- atomic structure, that the atoms nearest the surface (or interface area with the cooler area with lower frequencies/less electrons) are breaking into their constituent particles, and in doing so, they may or may not wobble through the lower frequency visible spectrum as they break up into their sub- atomic pieces, depending on their structure.

Finally, once reduced to the constituent parts of atoms, the attendant frequencies will be much higher than that of the visible spectrum, so there would be no perception of visible light from an object like that anyway – except at interface layers with space. (What Physicists think of and named the “Event Horizon.”) 149

Size-wise, the “collapse” of matter is somewhat grasped, and we already have a calculated “Schwarzschild radius” that estimates this “compressed” or “collapsed” estimated volume of a Black Hole. (note: collapsed is a better term)

The collapse idea relates to the volume occupied not by the swept area of the constituent quarks/particles, but by the quarks/particles themselves. This is also discussed in the section on Matter and Mass in this commentary.

In other words, a Black Hole may make some visible light – and does produce lots of frequencies, in fact. Many other higher frequencies are also apparent because of the various constituent sub-atomic structures. We just don’t “see” it because possibly, the frequencies of the visible spectrum are unable to propagate through the higher frequency field; the frequencies of the visible light may also be distorted by the “breaking” of the atomic structure; and since a black hole is itself comprised of sub-atomic particles, they produce higher frequencies than visible light at rest and then, after throwing a weight, when they wobble through a frequency range attempting to return to equilibrium. In other words, a black hole acts just like our Sun, but in a higher frequency range, so we just don’t “see” it.

In fact, a recent article discusses, visible light has been detected and may even be visible to amateur astronomers, coming out of a Black Hole.

In the article link below, Mariko Kimura of Kyoto University said:

“We now know that we can make observations based on optical rays - visible light, in other words - and that black holes can be observed without high-spec x-ray or gamma- ray telescopes,”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/06/visible-light-black-holes-detected-for-first- time-v404-cygni

When I updated this commentary last, they had not yet taken a picture of a Black Hole. Now they have. After two years, including one with no explanation as to why the photograph taken 150 and processed was never released, they finally released an image of a ball with a ring around it touting how it proves they were right. They state that the ring that’s viewable is the event horizon.

New images show that the ring around the Black Hole is “Wobbling.” In fact:

“Because the flow of matter is turbulent, the crescent appears to wobble with time,” says Maciek Wielgus of the Harvard and Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who is a Black Hole Initiative fellow, and lead author of the paper. “Actually, we see quite a lot of variation there, and not all theoretical models of accretion allow for so much wobbling. What it means is that we can start ruling out some of the models based on the observed source dynamics.” (84)

While “Wobbling” Shadows may rule out some models, it’s just old news to John Device fans.

Credit: M. Wielgus, D. Pesce & the EHT Collaboration

We believe that at the center of our Sun is a ball of fusion, surrounded by a layer of fission, surrounded by an outer layer.

To speak in general terms, at the fission layer, atoms are breaking apart (after having been 151 compressed, or more accurately, their frequency broken) and shattering each others’ atomic “shells” or frequencies and perhaps parts of their structures. In fusion, the continued pressure has caused the sub-atomic structures to “rub” against each other. (More correctly, their fields are being pushed together so hard that they are exhibiting increasing repulsive force as they are attempted to be forced together.) This rubbing, combined with the probable transfer of sub-sub-atomic material causes the same wobbling effect as with atoms, but on a smaller scale – and also at higher frequencies.

After this point, speculation prevails. The shells of the sub-atomic components would begin to finally reach a frequency where they would shatter – which could be called sub-atomic fission?, and finally where the constituent components, being held under increasing pressure, would begin “rubbing” together, in preparation for the next level, which would be, of course, sub-sub- atomic fission and fusion.

The visible light produced may simply be stopped by the higher field frequencies of the object (black hole or other). This stopping of the field wave is similar in concept to a field that bends light – or what is currently referred to as gravitational lensing. Again, a possible explanation is that as the frequencies at the core of the object get higher (hotter), the overall field intensity, and probably more importantly, the frequency, is so high that simply don’t exist, or they contain the lower frequencies, including those of visible light, so they don’t propagate further outwards.

Another explanation is, as mentioned, the higher frequencies produced by the sub-sub-atomic actions simply don’t register to us because they are beyond “visible” light.

This concept would indicate that black holes should put out a tremendous amount of what could be called radiation, but of course at the higher gamma and x-ray levels that their very parts are used to. Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) and Fast Radio Bursts (FRB) are completely normal and simply caused by unbalanced versions of these higher frequency objects.

This may very well be related to the dark areas or sunspots on our Sun – a much more probable explanation than the old “those areas are bright, they’re just dimmer than everything around them…so they just look black.” (again, the issue with visible light)

The M-sigma relation indicates that Black Holes have mass, and this is why scientists have 152 been using the terms Massive Black Hole and Super Massive Black Hole in their descriptions.

The idea that a black hole is into which things seemingly disappear is a problem for many scientists because of the Information Paradox and various entanglement issues.

As Joseph Polchinski (the “P” in the acronym: AMPS) said:

“Hawking had identified a deep conflict between the predictions of quantum theory and relativity in these extreme environments. (a black hole) According to his reasoning, either quantum mechanics or Einstein’s depiction of spacetime is flawed.” (33)

Simply put: Black Holes don’t work well with science as they are currently perceived to exist.

However, since they are not as currently perceived, there are no problems.

They are exactly what they seem to be: Massive objects constructed of quarks and other sub- sub-atomic pieces that have other objects orbiting them, and others that they interact with.

Black holes are closely related to other areas of interest to physicists – Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN), Neutron Stars, Magnetars, Quasars, and objects that emit Fast Radio Bursts (FRB) and Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB), both periodic and rapid, to name a few.

For example, according to Wikipedia:

“An Active galactic nucleus (AGN) is a compact region at the center of a galaxy that has a much higher than normal luminosity over at least some portion – and possibly all – of the electromagnetic spectrum. Such excess emission has been observed in the radio, microwaves, infrared, optical, ultra-violet, X-ray and gamma ray wavebands.” (2)

When you become familiar with the Continuously Variable Rotating Plane (CVRP) concept displayed by The John Device, and indeed, planets and plants and everything, you will see these things are what you’d expect with an out-of-balance system. Relatively well-balanced systems have no “jets” or at least not as pronounced as is found on this wild crowd. 153

When you take the tilt or angle of a torque shaft out too far, the field it generates is forming in such a way as to allow the higher frequencies at its’ core be exposed at either “end,” generating the perceived “jets.”

The way you tilt or angle it is through an imbalance in what, for the lack of a better term, we will call “mass” hitting it. Sometimes imbalances work themselves out, but it depends on the fluidity of their construct and exactly when and where additional mass is acquired.

In other words, when a large astronomical object finally smashes into/is reduced atomically it will be in a particular location or area on the Black Hole (or Neutron Star or other astronomical body). That would potentially cause imbalance and wobbling.

- Guess why on Earth continents drift and volcanoes form and all kinds of geologic things happen? Mr. Miyagi knows. :^) Recent research has shown that Black Holes also have a direct relationship to the formation of stars in a galaxy:

“Our findings suggest clearly that, in effect, supermassive central black holes can affect the formation of stars throughout the lifetime of the galaxy, and that this effect depends on their masses.” (34)

Ready to have your mind blown? (at least mine was!)

154 It’s funny how something can be right in front of your face but you just don’t see it. Sometimes, at least, it’s caused by prior learning and phrasing and terminology.

For this discussion, we will call the “Largest Objects” the various Black Holes – Ultramassive, Supermassive, Stellar; and the “Smallest Objects” - Quarks.

Note: Currently, physicists refer to Quarks as “fundamental particles,” indicating they have no constituent parts. The only problem with that is Quarks exhibit all the characteristics relating to spin and dipoles as other particles, which all have constituent parts. Needless to say, the probability is that Quarks DO, in fact, have constituent parts that we have simply not detected yet because of the incredible frequencies involved. So as not to be constantly annotating the discussion with “and perhaps smaller particles,” please refer to the “For this discussion” sentence above.

------SO, since the Largest Objects in the Universe are constructed from the Smallest Objects…

We could do the “Flip” and would then say:

The Smallest Objects in the Universe are constructed from the Largest Objects. ------

Now, that immediately doesn’t seem necessarily correct. (or some might say correct at all!)

Get ready to think – it’ll be a ride!

We think of an “Atom” and parts like “Protons” and “Neutrons,” and we know those last two have constituent parts we call “Quarks.”

A Proton is made of 1 Down and 2 Up Quarks and a Neutron is 1 Up and 2 Down Quarks.

We’ve taken three things, grouped together, and given them a name as a new entity.

155 Remembering the 1+1=3 concept, and referring to the example Hydrogen Atom graphic in this commentary, you can see/imagine this. In this case it’s 2+1=4, but that’s nitpicking.

This is analogous to having a group of athletes who have now formed a “Team,” or many other groupings found in society. A group of people make up your local City Council or School Board or Church, but they are all still the original people in every way. The Super Bowl Champions or NCAA Basketball Champions of any given year exist, in a way, and don’t really, in another way.

The name attributed to the group is almost like a “Skin” or a “Film.” It overlays the group and has its’ own field (caused by the collective fields of the group) but in some respects – it’s not there. It’s just a word or phrase. Each constituent part of that word or phrase still has all its’ own capabilities and may contribute to the others in the group in a positive or negative overall way. We collectively refer to the team as having its’ own chemistry, but that chemistry is still reliant on the individual parts (players).

Also, for fun, you can extend that idea (and all other ideas I mention) infinitely “up” or “down” to anything – or just move “laterally” like this: If two people are together and “have a relationship” they become a “couple.” Just like Quarks or anything else, they each still have their own characteristics and may contribute to the other in a positive or negative way. Is the “Couple” a physical entity? Or a name?

So, if you think about it, a “Proton” or “Neutron” is really just a collection of 3 Quarks together in a group. There is no separate entity in reality that is something different than those 3 parts, other than by grouping together the 3 now have a collective field which we assign a name to, depending on the spin alignment of the elements of the group of 3. (Proton – 2Up-1Down, Neutron – 2Down-1Up)

That means an Atom – a bunch of Protons and Neutrons flying around (which are actually just Quarks flying around), is… a bunch of Quarks, flying around, with various names assigned to

the various groups flying. (“Proton Squadron – Get ready to move out! Neutron Squadron! – Let’s get going!”) Simply put:

Atoms (like we, and everything we know of) are comprised of Quarks (and smaller). 156

Ultramassive, Supermassive, and Stellar Black Holes are comprised of Quarks (and smaller).

So, incredible as it sounds at first, every Atom in our bodies and elsewhere, is comprised of the exact same particles (Quarks or smaller) as a Black Hole.

It makes sense when you think about it, because all “matter” that we know eventually gets sucked into a Black Hole, where it is eventually jetted out as Quarks or the Black Hole explodes releasing huge amounts of Quarks, to “seed” new Galaxy and Star formation, and eventually, Planets and things like us.

Here’s another way to say it:

- Dark Matter is unorganized Quarks. (outside the field effects of a Black Hole or Sun) - Matter is organized Quarks. (within the field effects of a Black Hole or Sun) - Black Holes are highly compressed Quarks. (within the field effects of larger Black Holes)

The difference is the pressures involved.

Atoms are comprised of Quarks, with lots of “room” or “space” to spin around.

Black Holes are comprised of Quarks that have no “room” or “space” to spin around.

An article from 2021, titled: “After decades of effort, scientists are finally seeing black holes – or are they?” says something that might make more sense after having read this commentary.

“…the environment around the supermassive black hole in our Galaxy appears surprisingly fertile, teeming with young stars not expected to form in such a maelstrom.”(100)

It’s only surprising if you don’t know what a Black Hole is. It’s not surprising if you do.

In fact, when you think about it, with all the Quarks being released through jetting and possible explosions, the area around (but not TOO close!) a Black Hole would be EXACTLY where lots 157 of new matter and new Stars would be forming.

Jetting would, needless to say, probably be expelling more small or individual pieces of Quarks and matter. Explosions would probably expel more “chunks” of Quarks along with the small pieces, thereby being more likely to create additional new “baby” Black Holes.

Additionally, you would have a “Goldilocks Zone” around a Black Hole, just like you have around a Star, with favorable field strength and available “matter.”

- If you’re too close to the Black Hole the field strength will be too strong, pulling the available matter into it relatively quickly.

- If you’re too far from the Black Hole the field strength will be too weak to organize the matter effectively forming stars and planets.

- But when the range from the Black Hole is Juuuuust Right, the field strength and available matter may form Other Black Holes (depending on the size of the original), Stars and subsequent Planets, etc. (In other words, perfect for Porridge :^)

Scientists have been seeing something going on for some time. As far back as 2011, Scientific American said:

“The co-evolution of black holes, almost unfathomable in their bulk, and the even more massive galaxies that host them remains poorly understood – a kind of chicken-and- egg problem on mammoth scales.” (101)

“’There are all kinds of interesting relationships’ between black holes and their host galaxies,’ says astronomer James Ulvestad, director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Astronomical Sciences, ‘But we don’t really know very well

how that happens or how these things get started.’ (Ulvestad commented on the research as an astronomer in the field, not as an NSF representative.)” (101)

The Royal Astronomical Society, in the Monthly Notices in 2012, published research from an international team of astronomers, titled: “Do black holes help stars form?” They found: 158

“The center of just about every galaxy is thought to host a black hole, some with masses of thousands of millions of Suns and consequently strong gravitational pulls that disrupt material around them. They had been thought to hinder the birth of stars, but now astronomers studying the nearby galaxy Centaurus A have found quite the opposite; a black hole that seems to be helping stars to form.” (102)

One interesting thing from their study is that they found that black holes “turn on and off.” To explain, that’s when they are eating matter. They switch “on” when swallowing a stellar mass or planets, etc. Here’s what they said:

“ Black holes at the centre of galaxies ‘switch on’ from time to time, driving material around them into outflows that can stretch for millions of light years… Much of this gas is the raw material from which stars are made, so the outflows significantly affect star formation in the galaxies that host them.” (102)

In 2017, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported:

“A team of astrophysicists has discovered that supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies aren’t just destroyers of stars, but can also be their creators.” (103)

Using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, they observed the collision of two galaxies about 600 million light-years away that each have a supermassive black hole at their center.

“There, they found evidence of new star birth from material being ejected from the black hole, called an outflow. While it might seem a contradiction that nothing can escape a black hole, but an outflow of gas is responsible for creating new stars, it’s all about the location; nothing can

escape a black hole once it gets so close that all matter is sucked in and can’t escape. The stars that have been created lie a good distance from the supermassive black hole, some about 100 light-years away, while others considerably farther, perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 light-years away. 159 Some of these stars might eventually fall back into the supermassive black hole in a type of recycling, while others may end up on the far edges of the galaxy’s spiral arms, or even out of it.” (103)

I couldn’t have said it better myself, but they go on to say great things:

“The discovery is exciting for astronomers and could reshape the theory on galactic formation. ‘If this is common…this could change quite drastically our understanding of galaxy formation evolution,’ Maiolino told CBC News. ‘It is a completely new model of forming stars in galaxies.’ As well, this could help explain how heavy elements have come to exist in the space between galaxies, called the interstellar medium.” (103)

In 2019, astronomers using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes found a black hole jetting material that is not only helping create stars in its’ own Galaxy, but in the other Galaxies surrounding it.

“They found the black hole at the center of a galaxy located 9.9 billion light-years from Earth, and the galaxy itself has seven galactic neighbors.” (104)

“’This is the first time we’ve seen a single black hole boost star birth in more than one galaxy at a time,’ said Roberto Gilli, study author at the National Institute of Astrophysics in Bologna, Italy. ‘It’s amazing to think one galaxy’s black hole can have a say in what happens in other galaxies millions of trillions of miles away.’” (104)

“Black holes are usually associated with what astronomers call negative feedback, which actually keeps stars from forming… But this was an instance of positive feedback, which is more rare.” (104)

*Note on the quote above: “Positive Feedback” isn’t “more rare.” It’s how it works.

“’The story of King Midas talks of his magic touch that can turn metal into gold,’ said Marco Mignoli, study co-author at the National Institute of Astrophysics. ‘Here we have a case of a black hole that helped turn gas into stars, and its reach is intergalactic. 160 This is a prime example that they sometimes defy the stereotype and can be nurturing instead.’” (104)

Funny thoughts…

We are like the “Expanded Polystyrene” of a Black Hole. :^)

Low Pressure Folks. Takin’ it easy. Cool Operators. Room to Roam.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” said the Black Hole to the Human, “I am Your beginning, and I am Your ending.”

The Yin-Yang symbol (which I suppose should be the symbol on astronomical charts for Black Holes), can be commonly interpreted as meaning or communicating these ideas:

“In every beginning, there is an ending. In every ending, there is a beginning.”

As an additional reference, any American Mom (Maybe Every Mom Everywhere?) knows this statement: “I brought you into this World, and I can Darn Well take you out of it!”

So you see, that idea She’s expressing is just the everyday reality of a Black Hole. This Motherly behavior is obviously(?) inherited learning passed on to Her from the Universe. The only real difference is that a Black Hole says: “…and I WILL take you out of it!”

So, yes, I think it somewhat “blows the mind” but then it’s so obvkous, it “blows” it again, that:

In the known Universe, the largest objects are constructed from the smallest objects, and the 161 smallest objects are constructed from the largest objects.

Also, as a general invention/discovery note:

Not only will you find the “Flip” usually works, it will generally bring new levels of understanding with it.

Quite often, after you’ve done a mental “flip,” you’ll find yourself saying things like:

“Wooowww…but…but…but that would mean… wough wough wough! But…then…No. Whaaaat?!? No, no, no…but…waaahh…no. NO WAY! WOW! …It can’t… but… it is. I N C R E D I B L E. Absolutely INcredible! Woooooooooooow… OH MY GOD!! (hahahahahahahaha)”

I know because I’ve done that a bunch of times. A whole bunch of times.

Also, for advanced inventors/discoverers don’t forget to “turn it inside out.”

Take whatever process your idea involves, and think of how to “reverse” every part of those processes. I don’t necessarily mean run them backwards or in reverse. I mean reverse the very way it functions.

Dark Matter

162

People have heard about “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” through various media forms for many years, to the point that the terms are well known and also somewhat “co-joined” in that many people think that they “go together.”

“Dark matter and dark energy are mysterious, unknown substances that are thought to make up more than 96 percent of the universe. While we may have never directly seen them, they beautifully explain how stars and galaxies move and how the universe is expanding. But a new study, published in The AstroPhysical Journal, suggests they may not exist at all.” (36) (Quick note: the “beautifully” they refer to is because they were used to stretch Einstein’s work in order to keep it relevant due to new observations. No one wants to know they’ve wasted years of their life, both in University and/or in professional life, hence the use of an adorative adjective, instead of just saying: “…they explain how…” )

Here’s beauty in another way:

“The beautiful, spinning pinwheel of the Andromeda galaxy, our celestial neighbor, poses a mystery. The breakneck speed of its rotation cannot be explained by applying the known laws of physics to the disk’s visible matter.” (37)

This is an example of what happens throughout physics and cosmology. What we observe doesn’t fit the model or the “known” laws of physics.

“Most of the visible matter of a galaxy is concentrated near the center of a galaxy, so we would expect that more central stars should move much faster than stars on the outer rim. Thus the rotation curve should decrease with distance. However most galaxies have a fairly flat rotation curve, meaning outer stars move about as fast as inner stars. This and other evidence has led us to develop the theory of dark matter. But new

research on galactic rotation curves has found an odd correlation, and it could mean that dark matter is wrong after all.” (38)

Even when you move beyond a single galaxy into groups of galaxies, research shows multiple things interesting to readers of this document: 163

“Most of the small satellite galaxies orbiting the large galaxy Centaurus A rotate in the same direction in a well-defined plane. This coordinated motion is contrary to predictions made by the cold dark matter (CDM) model of structure formation in the universe. The finding was made by an international group of astronomers and is consistent with previous observations in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. The team suggest these puzzling observations should prompt astrophysicists to consider alternatives to CDM.” (39)

At first glance, you might think the articles above are from the same research since they deal with galaxy rotation(s). They’re not, and not related at all. They show the same thing, however - that our current model MUST be wrong. Different objects and things were observed, using different methodologies, but with the same result.

“But despite decades of searching for direct evidence of the dark matter particle, no one has been able to prove its existence. Further, a few discrepancies remain between astronomical observations and this simple theory.” (37)

Then, as is the current fashion in physics, we must begin to imagine some new science fiction material as the possible answer. A later sentence from the article quoted above pretty much sums up the mindset:

“The combination of these residual disagreements with the failure to detect this elusive substance has led some scientists to question the traditional theories and imagine a more complicated form of dark matter.” (37)

Of course it must be more complicated… then more research dollars can be spent (wasted) looking for it – inside of the Earth’s own field, where it will NEVER be found, because the matter

is organized. (For advanced readers – ask a physicist how long a Higgs particle will stay by itself before combining with quarks… you will learn new terminology for incredibly, infinitesimally small increments of time for your effort!)

Regardless, without a field to orient and organize them, the various elements that we perceive 164 as making up an atom have no structure and float freely in space, with only their own sub- atomic “Atomagnetic” force to attract and repel others (and sub-sub-atomic if smaller particles are found). Because the energy available is only the CMBR field/frequency, it may be sufficient in effect to begin to organize atoms, or may only be sufficient to organize sub-atomic structures such as quarks and electrons.

Regarding how these supposedly basal structures in free space can themselves spin and have energy - each element has its own field and it may receive the energy for that field from the Sun, or the nearest Black Hole, which may in fact be the one at the center of our Universe, or the Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, or what is apparently our new “grandparent” galaxy – Andromeda, or more practically, combinations of all of them. (because if you extend 1+1=3 and fields, you find out you’re part of… everything)

If, in fact, the known elements of the atom are in fact the smallest building blocks, then the idea of those elements receiving their energy from that particular Black Hole seem to make some sense. However, when you understand field theory, you will understand that the Black Hole at the center of OUR Universe should be, in fact, driven by a similar field that drives all the Universes, it gets a little fuzzy.

Regardless, the unorganized components become organized when they encounter a field of a sufficient strength, or when enough have gathered together to begin the 1+1=3 idea. On a large scale, in three examples we can see the fields of the universe, galaxy, and solar system quite clearly. We don’t actually see the field, because fields don’t ordinarily have the frequency of visible light. What we see are the effects of those fields as they bend background radiation (light) and organize matter, which further coalesces into various astrophysical bodies like the Sun, Earth, and Moon, amongst others.

Also, Dark Matter is composed of unorganized matter, so may therefore appear “dark” as we tend to look for the spectrum of various known elements and some known parts of atoms.

Even if they don’t know what Dark Matter is, scientists are learning what it isn’t.

A recent paper that analyzed six years of data from the Fermi Large Area Telescope concluded that they’ve eliminated Axion-Like Particles (ALP) and Axions as potential candidates for Dark 165 Matter. These particles, according to scientists, are theoretical and were devised to address problems with quantum chromodynamics, and were perfectly situated to continue to solve problems with Dark Matter.

The article: “Search for Spectral Irregularities due to Photo-Axionlike-Particle Oscillations with the Fermi Large Area Telescope” can be found here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.06978v2.pdf

Other previously mentioned research projects done at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland and also at the Laue-Langevin Institute in Grenoble, France, as part of the Neutron Electric Dipole Moment Collaboration also found No evidence of the Axion through a wide mass range of electronvolts covering most predicted values. The co-author of the paper said, regarding their results:

“They disprove the existence of axions with a wide range of masses and therefore help to limit the variety of particles which could be candidates for dark matter.” (7)

So, we know two things: a) Axions and Axion-Like Particles are NOT Dark Matter, and b) Physicists make new things up whenever something else doesn’t “fit.” (but of course we already knew b) – so we only actually learned a) :^)

Dark Matter, or more correctly, unorganized sub-atomic structures, also have a direct relationship to problems with Diffuse Interstellar Bands, or DIBs.

“The great problem with DIBs, apparent from the earliest observations, was that their central wavelengths did not correspond with any known spectral lines of any ion or

molecule, and so the material which was responsible for the absorption could not be identified.” (2)

…and “One important observational result is that the strengths of most DIBs are not strongly 166 correlated with each other. This means that there must be many carriers, rather than one carrier responsible for all DIBs.” (2)

So, in other words, they don’t match anything that we know of, or at least think of. (For advanced thought – our measurements are taken in the Earth and Sun and Andromeda and the Milky Way at the very least and are therefore suited/modified/tainted to that extent.)

Some of the DIBs, at least, are thought to be large Carbon-based molecules because of their longevity and resistance to outside forces. This may well be true, as recent research shows, and also because the natural structural element of carbon, namely the hexagon, is the basis for many things and is also discussed elsewhere in this commentary.

Finally, research of multiple galaxies by multiple scientists using different methods are all showing the same result: the Lambda-CDM model doesn’t work anymore.

“An international team of astronomers has determined that Centaurus A, a massive elliptical galaxy 13 million light-years from Earth, is accompanied by a number of dwarf satellite galaxies orbiting the main body in a narrow disk. The significance of this finding is that it calls into question the validity of certain cosmological models and simulations as explanations for the distribution of host and satellite galaxies in the universe.” (40)

“The researchers were able to demonstrate that 14 of the 16 Centaurus A satellite galaxies follow a common motion pattern and rotate along the plane around the main galaxy – contradicting frequently used cosmological models and simulations suggesting that only about 0.5 percent of satellite galaxy systems in the nearby universe should exhibit this pattern.” (40)

“’So this means that we are missing something,’ Pawlowski said. ‘Either the simulations lack some important ingredient, or the underlying model is wrong. This research may be seen as support for looking into alternative models.” (40)

167 In September, 2020, research on observations by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) have shown that something is wrong with the current ideas and theories about Dark Matter and how it behaves.

“The new findings indicate that some small-scale concentrations of dark matter produce lensing effects that are 10 times stronger than expected.” (87)

They studied galaxy clusters and found, according to a Yale University researcher:

“There’s a feature of the real Universe that we are simply not capturing in our current theoretical models” (87)

“This could signal a gap in our current understanding of the nature of dark matter and its properties, as these exquisite data have permitted us to probe the detailed distribution of dark matter on the smallest scales.” (87)

And finally:

“We have done a lot of testing of the data in this study, and we are sure that this mismatch indicates that some physical ingredient is missing either from the simulations or from our understanding of the nature of dark matter.” (87)

Dark Energy

168 Since the late 1990’s astronomers have noticed that the expansion of Universe has been speeding up rather than slowing down, as it would with their Gravity-based model. (Don’t forget that according to Einstein, the Universe isn’t expanding, which is why we have this theoretical concept of Dark Energy in the first place.)

This oddity, along with other math fun, caused scientists to “attribute” this to a thing which they named Dark Energy, which they then estimated makes up 73% of the Universe. Note: This estimate also relates to the10120 error discussed elsewhere. In other words, not knowing about CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology, they thought it would take a lot more energy to make galaxies, etc. spin or rotate than it actually does.

Since we believe/know there is a large Black Hole (B.H. as discussed in HEW, not the old B.H. concept of a hole in space), at the center of ours and other Universes - and we also know that Black Holes continually attract more “mass” to fall into them, then we know that the attendant field of the Black Hole will continue to grow in size. In other words, the Universe expands, until eventually – boom! It starts over again. Just like a supernova but on a slightly bigger scale. :^)

No form of Dark Energy has ever been measured or observed, leading many in the scientific community to question the whole Dark Energy / Dark Matter concept for years.

A recent event, where two Neutron stars collided, provided additional insight into what current cosmologists refer to as Dark Energy CAN’T be, even according to their models. In the event, the field wave caused by the collision was detected by LIGO (although they refer to it as a Gravitational wave) and visible light was detected 1.7 seconds later.

Since cosmologists have never found Dark Energy, and know it is primarily needed to extend Einstein’s work, other theories have emerged over the years to try and change or replace the existing thoughts. This virtually simultaneous observation of the field (gravitational) wave and

visible light eliminate many of them. Of course it has no impact on the thoughts discussed in this document – other than being right in line with what would be expected.

“In the absence of compelling data, it is still possible that we can update Einstein so we can account for dark energy. But the wiggles from the gravitational wave data has left 169 very little wiggle room.” (41)

“All the theories that have survived the pruning are much simpler than those that were allowed before; and the simplest theory and the frontrunner, is that dark energy is the energy of empty space, and just happens to have the value we observe. Another

explanation that has survived is that it’s a Higgs-like field.” (41)

Andre Maeder, of the University of Geneva, looked at the concept of scale invariance:

“Scale invariance means that the properties of a given law of physics (or set of physical objects) do not change, even if we were to multiply their lengths or energies by some number. They are the same, independent of scale.” (42)

This is the concept of scalability, which is a fundamental concept.

Only physicists, with their multiple realms where they “turn on” and “turn off” various “laws” of physics in order to “make things work” have forgotten scalability.

Cooks, carpenters, teachers, manufacturers, shippers, designers, and literally every science and profession known to Mankind is VERY familiar with scalability… except physicists.

Here are some good quotes:

“Suppose for a moment that both dark energy and dark matter are too strange a pill to swallow. What would the alternatives be? One way out would be to suppose that our understanding of the universe is at fault. Perhaps gravity and general relativity do not work in quite the way that we think they do.” (51)

“In the same way that Newton’s laws – which we long thought told the whole story about movement – are a simplification of the more complicated theory of relativity, perhaps our understanding of relativity is a simplification of something else?” (51)

Author Note: “relativity is a simplification”? Now that’s rich. 170

“More fundamentally, perhaps we have made some error of judgement about the assumptions that underpin the equations we deal with? Maybe we need to modify the equations of gravitation?” (51)

According to another author, Maeder is now:

“…re-examining the Standard Model of the universe, pointing out that the scale invariance of emply space is also present in the fundamental theory of electromagnetism.” (53)

“When Maeder carried out cosmological tests on his new model, he found that it matched observations. He also found that the model predicts the accelerated expansion of the universe without having to factor in dark energy.” (42)

“In short, it appears that dark energy may not actually exist since the acceleration of the expansion is contained in the equations of the physics.” (42)

More recently in 2020, a team of astronomers at Yonsei University in South Korea performed high-quality spectroscopic observations over a 9 (nine) year period and then presented their results to the American Astronomical Society:

“Taken at face values, it’s (sic) significant enough to question the very existence of dark energy. When it’s (sic) taken into account, the team found that the evidence for the existence of dark energy simply goes away.” (91)

The project leader may have summed dark energy up:

“Quoting Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I am not sure we have such extraordinary evidence for dark energy. Our result illustrates that dark energy from SN cosmology, which led to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, might be an artifact of a fragile and false assumption.” (91)

171

And those are just two papers. There are hundreds of others discounting or arguing against dark energy and also dark matter. I selected that one because it is relevant to HEW topics.

Since the author of this and other papers don’t know about CVRP, so they will have problems accounting for spin that lead them into variations of the old thinking… for the time being.

Neutrinos

172

In a 2016 article in Symmetry magazine, “The neutrino turns 60”(19), they point out:

“The Standard Model – the theoretical model that describes elementary particles and their interactions – does not include a mechanism for neutrinos to have mass. The discovery of neutrino oscillation put a serious crack into an otherwise extremely accurate picture of the sub-atomic world.” (44)

Unfortunately in some regards, the famous 1998 Super-Kamiokande experiment in Japan, as well as other observations, have now given us evidence to confirm that neutrinos oscillate. This confirmation was well-received because it also solved issues collectively called the Solar Neutrino Problem.

“The fact that neutrinos oscillate is interesting, but the critical thing that it tells us that neutrinos must have mass,” says Gabriel Orebi Gann, a neutrino researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and the DOS’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ana SNO collaborator. “This is huge because there was no expectation in the Standard Model that the neutrino would have mass.” (44)

As a matter of fact: “The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015 recognises Takaaki Kajita in Japan and Arthur B. McDonald in Canada, for their key contributions to the experiments which demonstrated that neutrinos change identities. This metamorphosis requires that neutrinos have mass. The discovery has changed our understanding of the innermost workings of matter and can prove crucial to our view of the universe.” (45)

“For particle physics this was a historic discovery. Its Standard Model of the innermost workings of matter had been incredibly successful, having resisted all experimental challenges for more than twenty years. However, as it requires neutrinos to be massless, the new observations had clearly showed that the Standard Model cannot be the complete theory of the fundamental constituents of the universe.” (45)

Olga Botner, a member of the Nobel Committee for Physics and professor of physics at Uppsala University in Sweden, added:

“The neutrino has a mass and it’s more than a million times lighter than the electron.” (44) 173

Michael Turner, Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago contributes my favorite:

“Neutrinos punch above their weight. They contribute as much mass as stars do.” (44)

Turner simply says this: “…provided evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model, that there was something more to the understanding of particles and forces.” (44)

We know that neutrinos act both as a particle and a wave, to use the common parlance. In that regard, they act just like other things do.

What a surprise. Something very small could be the same as something bigger.

Neutrinos “spin,” have what is referred to as “mass”, angular momentum and a charge, even though we currently state that neutrinos don’t have a charge. The correct statement for our “scientists” is that neutrinos don’t have a charge that they can detect. The statement they “don’t have a charge” implies omniscience, which I can personally assure you is not a word to ever, ever, ever use when talking about physics.

In a simple way of looking at it: neutrinos are to the sub-atomic world as electrons are to the atomic world. (This is discussed elsewhere in sections on black holes, fission and fusion.)

On a side note, neutrinos or electrons are never created or destroyed, just re-deployed or re-distributed, so to speak.

Galaxy Formation

174

The current model of the Universe, to some extent, is called the Lambda-CDM (Cold Dark Matter) or just CDM model, which should operate like this:

“Conventional wisdom says that a network of filaments of dark matter pervades the universe. Large galaxies form and grow as multiple dwarf galaxies are drawn in along these filaments. ‘The satellite [galaxies] will fall into the potential of their host galaxies from different directions.’ Explains team member Oliver Muller of the University of Basel in Switzerland. ‘They have all these different initial directions, so they will have all different orbits’” (39)

Unfortunately, as discussed in prior sections, observations now indicate that a number of galaxies are shown to be moving and/or rotating in a plane or flat structure, with elements not in the “center” or “flat” part of the plane moving towards alignment with it.

“Observations, however, show that most satellite galaxies around the Milky Way, and the nearby Andromeda galaxy, orbit in step in single planes.” (69)

“They found that rather than following random orbits, 14 of the dwarfs of Centaurus A are surprisingly coplanar, that is, they share the same orbital plane – a bit like bees flying in a well-ordered ring around a hive. The puzzling configuration – which Muller’s simulations suggest only have a 0.5 percent probability of occurring by happenstance – has some scientists questioning just how much they understand the behavior and environment around these satellites. If seen around many other galaxies across the universe, Muller says, such bizarrely coplanar dwarfs could even challenge cosmologists’ ‘Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) conception of the universe – the standard model used to explain how galaxies and galaxy clusters emerge and evolve.” (43)

“In their study, Muller and his team argue that if coplanar alignments of dwarf galaxies are widespread, this would pose a worthy challenge to the LCDM model – which predicts a random distribution of dwarfs. Finding many coplanar arrangements would suggest, in short, our already limited understanding of dark matter is even more incomplete than previously appreciated.” (43) (note: It is.) 175

For example, we now know that 13 (thirteen) galaxies orbit the Andromeda galaxy, which is shown below in a wonderful image from NASA. (This also violates Gravity-based models but is in perfect agreement with the ideas presented in this commentary.)

“The Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model struggles to explain the formation of these thirteen satellite galaxies orbiting around Andromeda.

The Lambda-CDM is a standard model in astrophysics that assumes galaxies collide and merge with one another to grow mass.” (35)

Credit: GALEX, JPL-Caltech, NASA

Simply put, we know everything rotates along a plane, and those that are not, thrown there by explosive forces, are in the process of aligning to it.

However, we can observe objects such as Galaxies that are not currently “aligned” with the 176 plane. We can see that idea in imagery from Hubble and other sources.

Something to consider is that if everything is in a plane, how can Galaxies and other objects NOT be in direct alignment with the plane, or moving towards that alignment?

First of all, people are aware of Super novae and other explosions. (Or what more properly could be thought of as sub-sub-atomic fission, or sub-sub-sub-atomic fission, depending on where you start your subs) These explosions will cause atoms and sub-atomic atomic structures to be thrown in all directions, as explosions tend to do.

From that point, these pieces and parts will eventually coalesce with others, creating objects such as Suns and Black Holes, and subsequently of course Planets and Moons and Asteroids and such. Since they were distributed over a vast circular area, they are not necessarily in “alignment” with the plane at their inception.

Over time, however, the objects WILL move into orientation with the plane. This very concept has been recently confirmed on many scales and many situations.

In the clouds of gas we see after a Supernova we say that stars are born.

No explanation for the spin is ever given other than vague explanations about Total Angular Momentum and such, and no proposed explanation exists for why Gravity, an omni-directional force (as currently believed), forms matter into planar disks.

In fact, if you had an explosion and mass was ejected in a roughly spheroid shape like a ball, then stars and their attendant solar systems would have all kinds of orientations as there would be no reason for them to be in any kind of a plane.

A separate idea to consider relates to concepts of rotation of objects.

We normally think of objects that rotate around each other, like the Sun and the Earth, with one object orbiting “inside” the “gravitational field” of the other, and having a relatively stable distance between the objects.

177 However, two dipole objects that are rotating, with one being 90 degrees offset to the other, (think of the letter T or something like --| ) can rotate in exactly the same fashion, maintaining a stable distance between the objects, with the same “push” or “pull” between them.

That may sound odd, but you can experiment with it yourself, and find how you can rotate two dipole objects (regular magnets will work) offset by 90 degrees and never change the distance in a straight line between the two objects, while also discerning the field interplay between them.

Big Bang / Inflation Theory

178 The “Big Bang”, which has now become a part of our language and culture, may or may not have happened according to the principles of this theory.

To some extent, if it did happen, it would be roughly analogous to the idea of a Supernova or exploding neutron star, but with THE Black Hole at the center of our Universe being the object exploding. (That would probably be very bad, since all the fields in our Universe are connected.)

The concept of reducing everything to virtually nothing, or a single, infinite point is acceptable to HEW, but there is no criteria that this point relates, as we generally think, to the other requisite Universes, as they would have their own infinitely small points, which of course combined, lead to nothing but an infinitely small point.

Also, HEW is fully compatible with the idea of pulsing Universe(s) that grow and collapse. The origin and the end are not requisite concepts to any scientific thought – just extremely important to Mankind for some reason.

What most people don’t realize is that the Big Bang was primarily constructed to mathematically account for Spin in the Universe, and of course by extension, the spin of the Sun and the Earth and the Moon, and atoms to this day. Total Angular Momentum rules, to some.

One obvious problem that has popped up was with the concept of an explosion, which anyone can grasp, is that it is omni-directional, and couldn’t account for a “flat” universe, which we now know is what we have, by actual observation. This is referred to as the Flatness Problem.

Other problems relating to the Big Bang Theory are the Horizon Problem and the Monopole Problem. While they are interesting to a HEW reader, they aren’t problems, per se.

The Horizon Problem is a problem for traditional physics because all the regions of the Universe that we can probe have similar temperatures. This indicates to them that the different regions were in contact with each other at some point in the past. Since we know that these regions are in fact in contact with each other even to this day, the “problem” is clearly not a problem, just an area to study. 179

The Monopole Problem is a “created” problem, made by physicists, whilst trying to explain the “Big Bang.” Not only is it not a problem, it’s not worth any study at all.

Finally, our scientific community agreed upon the concept of Inflation. As they would teach you, pretend you are an ant on a balloon that has blown up - even though you are on a sphere (or other shape), it will appear “flat” to you in your small plane of reference.

As discussed on this NASA link, Inflation Theory “answers” many problems associated with the Big Bang Theory. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

The following graphic attempts to show this idea visually:

This is a wonderful construct to answer many problems physicists face.

Oh, except they forgot to explain (which they can’t) how it began, and perhaps more importantly, why it (inflation) stopped.

While the idea of Inflation is acceptable to HEW readers, if one must place a beginning and end on the Universe, it brings up one inevitable point: 180

The math involved to ascertain the size of a region required, with the “height” of an observer and any other observational parameters known, while maintaining the illusory experience of observing “flatness” (i.e. no observable drop from sides to center of horizon) should be quite simple for someone as advanced as a physicist.

I should think it would be fun for them to do, because then they could calculate exactly what incredibly tiny, small percentage of space they have ever seen with their most advanced tools.

In fact, an article in Scientific American titled: “Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges” states it simply:

“The data suggest cosmologists should reassess this favored paradigm and consider new ideas about how the universe began.” (46)

That article drew many responses, including direct critics such as Steven Hawking. It’s fun to read this part of an FAQ page from Princeton regarding it:

“Inflation has two major problems: First of all, we have learned that inflation is highly sensitive to initial conditions. This is the opposite of what everyone thought originally. For example, in the 1990s, by considering different initial conditions and parameters, Linde (and others) championed models of inflation that would lead to an open universe rather than a flat universe, because, at the time, observations seemed to point that way (see, e.g., Phys. Lett. B 351, 99 (1995); Phys. Rev. D 52, 3314 (1995); Phys. Lett. B 425, 25 (1998)). We do not hear about these models anymore because later measurements showed the universe to be flat.” (46)

“Second, we have also learned that inflation generically produces a multiverse (“multimess”) of outcomes – literally an infinite number of patches with an infinite diversity

of possibilities - and there is currently no criterion to prefer one possibility over another.” (46)

As Guth has put it,

181 “In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times. Thus, the question of what is possible becomes trivial—anything is possible […] The fraction of universes with any particular property is therefore equal to infinity divided by infinity—a meaningless ratio”. See, J.Phys. A40,6811 (2007). In other words, there is nothing that says that what we observe in our patch is typical or could be predicted a priori on the basis of the theory.” (47)

In other words, if you believe in inflation, above and beyond the < 3% Section in this document, then you believe you know almost nothing. (by your own estimation, in case that makes you mad) Refer to the picture of the ball and Man’s supposed awareness level.

Oort Cloud

From Wikipedia: “…is a theoretical spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetismals to surround the Sun at a distance of up to around 100,000 AU. This places it at half of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun.” 182

This representation of the Oort cloud is from NASA. Notice the shape.

Credit: David Woodrow John A classic field, being driven by Cosmic Microwave Background.

For an interesting thought experiment: Look at the Oort cloud above, then look at a single-pit fruit cut in half. Not only is there a striking similarity in shape, but consider that the center of both can easily be construed as a seed.

Along the same lines, NASA recently announced that Hubble observations have led to this example of a cloud that surrounds the Andromeda galaxy.

“Scientists using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense 183 halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The dark, nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy.” (48)

Credit: NASA/STSci

Time

184

I thank you, the reader of this tome, for taking time out of your valuable day to learn the fundamentals of the Universe and everything you can imagine.

It’s very special - the time you spend reading this – because it can never be retrieved.

It has passed. It is the past. All of the endless numbers of, at the least, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, and bigger and bigger and bigger objects with lower and lower frequencies will never be in that same location of space again, because in passing electrons and neutrinos around, they are no longer as they were in the past.

Time is absolute. Immutable.

The concept of “time travel” is a direct result of Einstein’s work regarding “space-time” and E=mc2.

Collectively, you could just say that, according to Einstein, the speed of light is the fastest any object can travel, because at the speed of light (and beyond), it would be nothing but pure energy. From the same Einsteinian point of view regarding time - as the object accelerates, time would “slow down” for it and anything in or on it, traveling at the same speed.

First of all, everything IS pure energy.

The quarks that make up the atoms in your body are moving at the speed of light at least. You ARE pure energy.

You don’t need to accelerate to the “speed of light” for that to be true.

As far as time, there are numerous papers, studies, and articles that refute Einstein’s thoughts on time dilation, etc. Here’s an excellent point from a paper entitled: “Clock Time is Absolute and Universal”

185 “Actually, a clock can never directly measure the abstract time, but can only record the result of a physical process during a period of the abstract time such as the number of cycles of oscillation which is a multiplication of the abstract time and the frequency of oscillation.” (49)

In simple terms, with an Atomic clock, we measure the number of cycles, or frequency, of an atom that occur in what we refer to as a second.

The reason that there are so many problems with clocks fundamentally lies in Man not understanding field concepts. An Atomic clock will show a different rate if it is far out in space in a weak field when compared to the same type of clock on the surface of the Earth, or even under the surface. (closer to the center, to a certain extent)

Mankind’s (waste of time) pursuit of time is based on several principles:

1. Time travel and wormholes and such are creations of someone to try and fit their “theory” into “reality.” It’s hard to believe people fell for it, but since “scientists” said it was a real possibility…

2. Personal problems and desires to “change” circumstances, situations, and reactions in life to “better” your current self-perceived status or something.

3. Assumption that the speed of light is some type of limit of speed.

4. (ties in with 3) Fascination with visible light and photons and also having learned that when you “see” things, those things technically happened at a point in the past, as the visible light had to travel to your eye.

Because of not understanding Atomagnetism (topology effects) and believing in Gravity, scientists subsequently don’t know how to measure time accurately, and their inaccurate assumptions about atomic structure and Gravity have caused them to derive incorrect conclusions from the results of comparing when clocks that have been out of the Earth’s Atomagnetic field (what is called the Gravity Field or Well) to those that have not left said field. 186

In fact, a detailed knowledge of the methods they used, combined with the particular Atomagnetic properties of the parts, would provide invaluable insights into field effects for said parts.

Additional information about Time and Einstein are discussed elsewhere in this commentary relating to the “Flyby Anomaly.”

Biology / Life / Cancer

How/Why do cells differentiate? 187

Although the biological aspects of DNA and the “Why” aspects are beyond this, the essential elements are: An undifferentiated cell arrives at its new location. Through a process similar to what we now call quantum entanglement, the field and frequency of the new atoms and molecules in the cell “matches” the field/frequency of the overwhelming number of cells around it. It now can complete the encoding and grow into a fully functional “whatever” cell.

Credit: GE Healthcare Life Sciences

Before cells differentiate, they are highly susceptible to their surroundings, causing great difficulties for researchers working with them.

An article from GE (General Electric), titled: “This Discovery Could Help Us Regenerate Body Parts One Day”, talks about some of the problems and a GE solution.

“It hasn’t been easy. Stem cells are delicate things that need pitch-perfect conditions to remain ‘blank’ and keep dividing. Even the slightest disturbance can set them off on an 188 irreversible journey to becoming, say, an eye. Worse, vibrations or changes in their environment can easily kill them.” (50)

“Like a school of sardines, they also clump together. If they lose contact with one another or even the bottom of a petri dish, they’ll die unless pre-treated with a protein that inhibits cell death.” (50)

Elsewhere in this commentary, it is discussed that a clumping effect was also noted by NASA in microGravity experiments. The clumping effect would be natural in the field World of HEW.

This field concept also explains some other interesting questions in biology. In this image, which is a from a fruit fly embryo, we can see cells being stretched and pulled and generally being “forced” into some type of shape. (The Field of Life)

Credit: Thomas Gregor and Eric Wieschaus, Princeton University

“To make complex morphogenetic decisions, our cells must constantly communicate with each other. Much of the intercellular communication is through chemical signals, but growing evidence suggests that physical mechanisms provide significant control as well.” (51)

These physical mechanisms they refer to originate all the way down to the sub-atomic level, but the key is fields. Examples can be found at the molecular level, and may even include clues as to the anti-matter discussion previously. In research, a large group of chemists from several institutions have identified a new mechanism that makes some biomolecules attach or become 189 attracted to each other.

“The researchers were very surprised when the data indicated that the small biomolecules were drawn to each other even though they had the same electrical charge. Nevertheless, the results were later confirmed by experiments. ‘We were very surprised. These biomolecules have a high electrical charge, and the expectation was therefore that this would make them push each other away,’ says Mikael Lund. Instead, the biomolecules in this study demonstrated apparently paradoxical behaviour. And the explanation for this lies at the atomic level. More specifically, it is about how certain atoms bind together at the ends of the molecular chain. The researchers' study can be described as atomic level detective work, which involves mapping the exact structure of all the atoms of the molecule.” (52)

That is correct.

The physical shapes have various phrases to refer to them like topology and also geometry, as research from the University of Pennsylvania discusses:

“The most exciting thing we found is that geometry really matters when it comes to cell behaviors, I think it’s something that has been somewhat overlooked compared to stiffness and other important environmental factors.” (53)

“The reorganization is very striking. We think of it as the cells doing calculus; the cells sense and respond to the underlying curvature. Apparently, curvature is a cue that is playing a very strong role both in the organization of the cell itself and of the microstructure within the cell.” (53)

“The researchers have also shown that, at the most basic level, they can pattern the internal structure of the cell. The patterns in those structures have important implications in downstream cell behaviors like migration and proliferation. The ability of these cells to divide and migrate quickly may be influenced by geometry and curvature.” (53) 190

Curvature or shape or topology or geometry definitely plays a “role” and other research has shown:

“…stem cells were grown on microscopic glass balls immobilized in a gel medium. Unlike the well-spread stem cells grown on a two-dimensional surface, the stem cells on the glass balls were almost uniformly spindle-shaped . More interestingly, this surface-curvature-induced-restriction in cell spreading also induced the differentiation of the stem cells.” (54)

“This means that surface curvatures of a substrate could potentially be designed and optimized to achieve or change a specific cell shape and function.” (54)

In another study Dr. Michael Levin and colleagues at Tufts University have found out while researching bioelectricity (and in this case the eyes) in frogs:

“If you ask the question, ‘Where does the eye come from in the first place?’ you look in the embryo, and you can see that there’s a particular bioelectric pattern that sets up the endogenous eye field.” Levin explains, “Now if I set up that same pattern somewhere else, will I get an eye? The answer, as we know, is yes.” (55)

In other words, they can make an eye grow wherever they want.

“The endgame of this field,” Levin says, “is to complete specifications of shape. You’d be able to sit down on a computer, like in Photoshop, and draw what you want, and out it comes. If you said, ‘I want a triangular frog with seven legs, and the eyes should be over here,’ I don’t see any reason you couldn’t do that.” (55)

In fact, Dr. Levin and his researchers at Tufts are onto some amazing things that will only become more amazing once scientists like them realize the implications of this document to their particular areas of research. (it IS a theory of Everything, and so, tends to relate to… well, Everything.)

191 In May, 2017, an article discussing some of their recent work was titled: “Researchers reveal bioelectric patterns guiding worms’ regenerative body plan after injury,” and in it Dr. Levin says:

“With this work, we now know that bioelectric properties can permanently override the default body shape called for by a genome, that regenerative target morphology can be edited to diverge from the current anatomy, and that bioelectric networks can be a control point for investigating cryptic, previously-unobservable phenotypes,” (56)

Regarding where the information for cells was “stored” – their knowledge of what to be and do:

“The research showed that the altered target morphology – the shape to which the worms regenerate upon damage – was encoded not in their histology, molecular marker expression, or stem cell distribution, but rather in a bioelectric pattern that instructs one of two possible anatomical outcomes after subsequent damage.” (56)

Body Memory / Cell Memory

“Body memory (BM) is a hypothesis that the body itself is capable of storing memories, as opposed to only the brain. Cellular Memory (CM) is a parallel hypothesis to BM positing that memories can be stored outside the brain in all cells.” (2)

Body Memory is considered relevant in treatment of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and can also be associated with the concept of “phantom pain” in part or parts of the body.

Directly related to the thoughts above is an article in Medical Daily from 2013 - “Can An Organ Transplant Change A Recipient’s Personality? Cell Memory Theory Affirms ‘Yes’” (105) In the article, they say:

“The behaviors and emotions acquired by the recipient from the original donor are due to the combinatorial memories store in the neurons of the organ donated.” (105)

In a real-life example, they recount an interesting case: 192

“In a recent case of possible cell memory, Australian girl Demo-Lee Brennan’s blood group was changed after receiving a liver transplant from her donor. Nine months after the initial transplant, doctors discovered that Brennan had changed blood types and she acquired the immune system of the donor due to the stem cells of her new liver transferring over to her bone marrow. ‘In effect she had had a bone marrow transplant. The majority of her immune system had also switched over to that of the donor.’” (105)

Why do wounds stop healing? (related to the question above)

This question is one that most people just avoid. Why does a cut or other visible injury “stop” healing, even if you can’t see it because it’s covered? Do the cells excrete some type of fluid? How do they know when to do that? Why don’t different organs, when injured (cut into or opened in some way), grow into the other parts of the body?

As every atom has a field and frequency and every combination of atoms (molecules, etc.) have a field and frequency, and so on. Eventually, you arrive at chemicals and fluids and organs, each with their own unique fields and frequencies. (This fact will also lead to revolutionary changes in the detection and treatment of cancer and all types of infections and diseases.)

Your skin cells have a field/frequency, your vein cells have a field/frequency, your heart cells have a field/frequency… and those fields/frequencies also combine (remember 1+1=3?) to make fields/frequencies for their entire systems, such as organs.

So, an internal organ “knows” what it is by its’ very field.

“More subtly, living tissues are remarkably sensitive to the mechanical cues provided by their surroundings. Stem cells grown on soft surfaces are primed to differentiate and

form correspondingly soft tissues such as fat or nervous tissue, whereas cells grown on harder surfaces differentiate to form bone cells.” (51)

193 Fields/Frequency

All of those various frequencies ultimately combine in your unique field/frequency. Each of us are billions of fields/frequencies with one eventual overall field/frequency.

HEW affects how you think about things. Chemical interactions, heat or cold that happens therein; biological interactions and topics such as the shape of DNA, and wound healing and cell differentiation, are just a few that quickly come to mind.

Think of this: every atom has a field and associated frequency. Every molecule and combination has a field/frequency. Every cell has a field/frequency. That means that the frequency for a cancer cell, for example, can be determined.

 A future scan for cancer would literally be down to the atomic level – because the scan would show the frequency of any individual cells of a certain type of cancer. Obviously a catalog can be developed with all known frequencies.

 Instead of scanning people at the airport for their temperature to see if they’ve been exposed to a virus or more importantly, are currently spreading it around – we can scan them for that (and any other) virus or biological agent we desire. Each of those things will have their own frequency.

 Your very organs have their own fields/frequencies too, so to imagine future medical scanning – it’s best to look at Star Trek and other science fiction representations as they are the most accurate. Whole body scans, yet detailed down to the atomic level.

Since people don’t understand the relationship between the electromagnetic spectrum and their very atoms, Cancer will continue to increase. On TV, I watched two different shows dated

almost one year apart, where they were discussing that “Early Onset Cancer” rates were exploding and that they expected a 50% increase in the next 10 or so years – and had absolutely no explanation as to how that could be possible.

Since, in the recent years, wireless communication has been exploding, with higher and higher 194 frequencies of the devices, there has been more cellular/molecular/atomic/sub-atomic damage caused by all of our various devices. The use of sensor technologies that scan for objects and the new autonomous vehicles will bring vast new numbers.

In that same sense, recent computer technological “breakthroughs” are pushing the terahertz range for Wi-Fi transmission, and that will kindof officially be the end for Man, as those ranges are starting to directly interfere or “bang into” the mechanisms of the quarks that make up our atoms. Damaged structures and systems such as that are the root cause of all “Cancer” and many other diseases or illnesses.

Already, people living in the U.S. have the highest rate of Cancer and no one knows why. What’s really interesting is that people who move to the U.S. from areas that have low Cancer rates end up with the same incidence as life-long U.S. citizens, so it must be something in the environment. The only problem is that no research can figure out what it could be. (spoiler alert: it’s the constant wash of electromagnetic waves that cover Americans all day long)

Some new work that relates to this document, for example, is that researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine have developed a “Lab on a Chip” that only costs 1 (one) US Cent to make. This inexpensive device has the potential to revolutionize medical diagnostic abilities everywhere – from Third-World countries to highly developed ones. The idea of how it works should make sense to HEW readers:

“…the chip separates cells based on their intrinsic electrical properties: When an electric potential is applied across the inkjet-printed strip, cells loaded into the microfluidic chamber get pulled in different directions depending on their “polarizability” in a process called dielectropheoresis.” (57)

The various molecules or cells respond differently based on their overall topology or structure and the related fields, which each have a dipole like structure at their foundation, giving them the ability to have polarity in the first place.

195

So, why is knowing about fields/frequencies important?

“…the lab on a chip has the potential to diagnose cancer early by detecting tumor cells that circulate in the bloodstream.” (57)

“The technology (lab on a chip) has the potential to not only advance health care, but also to accelerate basic and applied research. It would allow scientists and clinicians to potentially analyze more cells in shorter time periods, manipulate stem cells to achieve efficient gene transfer and develop cost-effective ways to diagnose diseases.” (57)

Other researchers have developed a technique that actually combines several other techniques to detect various molecules in gas by their frequency.

“University of Michigan researchers have developed a laser-based method that could be used to detect chemicals such as explosives and dangerous gases quickly and accurately. Eventually, this method could be used in systems placed in airports, for the environmental monitoring of pollutants or even in battlefields.” (58)

The basic concepts involved make complete sense:

“Many important molecules have a very rich spectra for certain colors of light – although the ‘colors’ may actually be in the infrared, so not visible to the human eye – which makes them easily identifiable.” (58)

Their results, using frequency combs, were more accurate than the individual techniques and led to fantastic results:

“The frequency difference between absorption lines for the two isotopes is too small to be observed using traditional approaches to MDCS, but by using combs, Lamsadze and Cundiff were able to resolve these lines and assign the spectra of the isotopes based on how the energy levels were coupled to each other. Their method is general and can be used to identify chemicals in a mixture without previously knowing the makeup of the 196 mixture.” (58)

Remember, fields start at the sub-atomic (at least), and go to the atomic, the molecular, and all the biological systems thereof. Fields extend beyond individuals into couples, families, communities, societies, and beyond.

Currently, we already have groups like the therapeutic and healing touch programs and others who believe in the power of touch, as well as religions that strongly believe in the “laying on of hands” (one life field trying some entangling with another).

Unfortunately, because of the strong bias in the medical and other scientific communities towards healing via chemicals and various cutting instruments, the idea of biological fields is overlooked. This bias is caused by a variety of factors; some are related to society and situations involving large groups of Humans, some are related to religious issues, and for many, due to the influences of the last several thousand years, there is a “spooky” or “weird” factor, based on a disbelief ultimately put in place by various institutions to protect their vested interests.

But even today, regarding cancer - Dr. Michael Levin and colleagues have gained fame by reversing cancerous tumors in frogs using light to alter bioelectric signaling.

Other cancer researchers have recently used “electrochemical imaging” to look at the distribution and characteristics of bio-molecules in tissue.

Normal techniques use various chemical agents to interact with various cells and produce markers, whereas this new technique uses the body’s own natural endogenous electrochemical markers. In the article “Targeting cancer cells by measuring electric currents” they point out:

“Electrochemical imaging can also monitor the redox state of cancer cells, which is quite different from that of normal cells. It can therefore reveal if there are a large number of cancer cells and where they are located.” (59)

Professor Hubert Girault, manager of the Laboratory of Physical and Analytical Electrochemistry 197 sees a potential future using this technology even during surgery.

“He envisions a device with interconnected microelectrodes capable of producing an image that will test for tumors and then electrochemically destroying any cancerous cells found by applying a burst of voltage.” (59)

Simply put, by understanding fields and frequencies and how they apply to biology, various diseases, such as Cancer, will be easy (or easier) to detect and also to cure or eliminate.

People will be able to have their own organs (starting from their own undifferentiated stem cells) grown in their exact field/frequency, so they will be perfect replacements. Because of perfect organ replacements, and also because of the increased understanding and treatment of various diseases and Cancers, people will be able to live several hundred years, at the least. As more knowledge is acquired, and the tie-in of pure energy and life becomes apparent, that span will extend even further, but may do so in different ways and different directions, so to speak.

And that’s just talking about replacing the existing parts and pieces of your body.

Remember, Dr. Levin predicts that, regarding biological parts, eventually:

“You’d be able to sit down on a computer, like in Photoshop, and draw what you want, and out it comes.” (55)

Quantum Entanglement and You

198 Quantum Entanglement

You may have already heard about “Quantum Entanglement.” If not, it’s just two particles, after spending some time together, become “entangled.” That means that even after they are separated by distance, they still “know” what is going on with the other, or what the other is doing, so to speak.

Scientists think of Quantum Entanglement as something that only happens to particles, because they often forget that everything is always the same. They talk about how two atoms, or particles, when near each other become entangled, and the longer they are together, the stronger the entanglement. Sometimes they forget to look around to remember that almost all atoms or particles are near other atoms or particles - even those that comprise the very machines they are using to study entanglement.

Quantum Entanglement, according to Wikipedia, is:

“a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.” (2)

Further, when measuring spin, momentum, position, polarization, etc.,

“It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair ‘knows’ what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.” (2)

Or, as one guide to quantum entanglement said:

“Similarly, in all known cases the correlations between an EPR pair must be imprinted when its members are close together, though of course they can survive subsequent separation, as though they had memories.” (60)

The “mystery” of quantum entanglement is simply that the longer two objects are near enough 199 for their fields to interact, the closer the frequency – or harmonic – that they will have. This entanglement extends to the sub-atomic and sub-sub-atomic levels (quarks and below), and thus, by definition, includes frequencies where “light speed” (or the speed of a thrown electron) is a low speed, giving them the seeming ability to communicate instantly, or “be aware” of the actions performed on the other.

Extending beyond a single pair of atoms, researchers have entangled groups of atoms with as many as 2,900, and using “photons” and crystals, researchers at the University of Geneva have demonstrated entangling 16 Million “atoms”:

“In this way, the researchers succeeded in showing the entanglement of 16 million atoms when previous observations had a ceiling of a few thousand. In a parallel work, scientists at University of Calgary, Canada, demonstrated entanglement between many large groups of atoms.” (61)

Quantum entanglement isn’t a mystery, as it has the same mechanical roots as everything, and extends from sub-sub-atomic, to sub-atomic, to atomic, to molecular, and to all systems from there up – including societal, planetary, and beyond.

At the biological level, for example, an article titled: “Experiment demonstrates quantum mechanical effects from a biological system” discusses research showing “quantum entanglement” at the biological system level, rather than at the atomic levels.

“Nearly 75 years ago, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Erwin Schrodinger wondered if the mysterious world of quantum mechanics played a role in biology. A recent finding by Northwestern University’s Prem Kumar adds further evidence that the answer might be yes.” (62)

“Kumar and his team have, for the first time, created quantum entanglement from a biological system. This finding could advance scientists’ fundamental understanding of biology and potentially open doors to exploit biological tools to enable new functions by harnessing quantum mechanics.” (62)

200 They used green fluorescent proteins from Escherichia coli, which are what we ordinarily think of as producing bioluminescence, and are frequently used in biomedical research.

“Now that they have demonstrated that it’s possible to create quantum entanglement from biological particles, next Kumar and his team plan to make a biological substrate of entangled particles, which could be used to build a quantum machine.” (62)

YOU

Have you ever had a loved one die, like a family member - spouse or parent or sibling or child? Have you ever had a close relationship end?

I don’t know about you, but everyone I’ve ever known will tell you how it hurts inside, like physical pain, emanating from… they don’t know where necessarily, but they know they aren’t right – that something’s “wrong.”

So… little tiny atomic particles become entangled when they are around other particles for a period of time, the longer the time period – the stronger and longer the entanglement.

Hmmm. Little things and big things. Everything the same.

Again, scientists often talk about entanglement of atoms and quarks and molecules and seem to forget that those objects comprise everything they know, including their own body and their family and their friends and their associates at work and their community and their nation and their World and on and on and on.

They seem to think that the only things that become entangled or that are entangled are the little bits they have in their mechanisms designed to study atoms.

EVERY atom and every group of atoms becomes “entangled” with others.

Throughout history, people have been regaled with, or personally experienced, things such as a 201 Mother who somehow “felt” that something had happened to a Child, or certain feelings when they are around someone – whether negative or positive.

We experience strange events or common events at strange times that suddenly make sense. Sometimes they are inexplicable events, at least to our limited perception.

For example, I remember once calling my old best friend, who I hadn’t spoken to since childhood (about age 12) after 13 years. I got his phone number and called him. He answered the phone, although I didn’t recognize the deep-voiced individual who had picked up. I asked for my friend and he told me it was him. I said: “You’ll never guess who this is.”, and he said immediately: “Is this David John? I was just thinking about you today, David.” This was before caller-ID or anything like it existed.

Let’s re-iterate: I was 25 and hadn’t spoken with or written a word to him in over 13 years the day I called him - the same day that he happened earlier to think about me.

We all have stories like that.

In fact, in one study, it was shown that people exhibited telepathy in relation to telephone calls, text messages, and emails with people whom they have strong bonds or emotional connections, with statistically higher than chance results in multiple tests performed by multiple researchers. (8)

Most people generally like to tell others that they are a “good judge of character” for whatever reason. Experience, perceptions, feelings, and just the “look in their eye” is what we all combine to create our judgment.

We, as families, as friends, as colleagues and associates, as communities, as cultures, as races, and as a species… are entangled.

For example, think of the physical pain a person feels when they lose someone close to them. Everyone who’s experienced that knows it’s not just mental – it’s in your very body.

202 Internal GPS / Jet Lag Even on a physical body level, there is entanglement with the Earth.

In April, 2011, the journal PLoS ONE reported on a study that had an interesting result:

“This means our perception of Gravity may be based less on visual cues of Gravity’s real direction and more rooted in the orientation of the body.” (63)

This article from BBC Future about astronauts getting the “space stupids” discusses the odd effects: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141007-why-astronauts-get-space-stupid

Some of the effects include feeling they are tumbling or being upside down, when in their local environment of being inside a capsule, they are not. This may be related to the field theory discussed in this commentary, in addition to other aspects mentioned in the article.

In fact, the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to John O’Keefe, May-Britt Moser and Edward I. Moser, “for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain.” (64)

An interesting note from the announcement for hexagon fans: “Here, certain cells were activated when the rat passed multiple locations arranged in a hexagonal grid. Each of these cells was activated in a unique spatial pattern and collectively these ‘grid cells’ constitute a coordinate system that allows for spatial navigation.” (64)

The committee went on to say: “The discovery of the brain’s positioning system represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of how ensembles of specialized cells work together to execute higher cognitive functions. It has opened new avenues for understanding other cognitive processes, such as memory, thinking and planning.” (64)

In the language of HEW, your field is aware when its’ orientation to other fields changes. Perhaps that’s why, for example, when you fly somewhere even during the middle of the day, you feel extra tired after traveling. People try to attribute the effects to dehydration and stress, but real travelers know there’s something more going on that you just can’t quite figure out.

203

Teacher I had a teacher in Jr. High who had a gift – she could see an “aura” around people. One day we got her to tell us about it, which she didn’t do often. She said she could see different colors emanating from people. There are different theories about this ability as a noticeable percentage of women have it – and one recent study showed they had an additional cone in their eyes compared to “regular” people.

Mother and Child Many people are familiar with, or have heard of, mothers (and other family members) who “Have a bad feeling”, or “Can sense” when something happens in the life of someone else, even if that someone is at a great distance. Sometimes it happens immediately, and sometimes it may come in a dream or by some other feeling.

Twins Studies have been done, and everyone has also heard of Twins and their unique similarities, and ability to “know” or “feel” what the other is experiencing, even at great distances. Re-reading the second sentence of this chapter is generally good now…

Paranormal Studies, Ghosts Since everything is unresolved torque in free space, and ghost sightings generally relate to individuals with powerful stories that include some form of unresolved issues (torque), it is logical to conclude there is something worth further scientific investigation, with an understanding of fields and frequencies.

A fun, real-life example would be that of the Greenbrier Ghost. It represents the first legal case in The United States in which the testimony of the ghost of a murdered woman told her Mother how she was murdered, which was subsequently proven to be true after her exhumation. The story has been told on the TV Show: Mysteries at the Monument, and a Wikipedia page can be 204 found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenbrier_Ghost

Another example from The Travel Channel’s Mysteries at the Museum was about a man, James Chaffin, who died and had left a secret will. No one knew about this for years until his ghost appeared to one of his sons with information that led to the will. It’s a fascinating story, with a link from the Winston-Salem Journal – the newspaper from the county in which the incident occurred, here: http://www.journalnow.com/journal_west/news/travel-channel-explores-story-of-ghostly- message-to-heir-in/article_47736a01-a8f2-5d0e-bcc9-35b3b6164068.html

Another article about it can be found here: http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Ghosts-and- Phantoms/Ghostly-Beings-Spirits-of-the-dead.html

Sixth Sense “I knew something was up – you could just feel it in the air.” Detective: “I can tell when someone is lying – it’s like a sixth sense I have”

From personal experience selling motorcycles: “Wow! Did you talk to that guy? I spent an hour with him – he is W E I R D! Just a freaky dude! Creepy…” (I later found out he was a murderer who was planning the murder at the time I met him – he was looking for a getaway vehicle!)

Kirlian Photography When I was younger, my Father and I did an experiment doing Kirlian photography. In this type of “forced” electron photography, you zap yourself and photograph the field going out of your body. In our case, we used our fingertips. When you do this, you can see the “electrical” discharges going out of your body. When you consider that you just hit yourself with a load of electrons looking for a home, it doesn’t surprise me now.

However, the phenomenon is still quite interesting and available to the layman for further research and investigation.

Motivational Speakers 205 Any motivational speaker will tell you something like:

“Visualize your success.” “Picture yourself doing thus and such successfully.” “See yourself succeeding.”

In the language of HEW, that would be something like setting your field with your unresolved torque (for success or whatever).

In English, it’s called Hope for the future.

Hope… Hope is Unresolved Torque in Free Space.

Everything is Unresolved Torque in Free Space.

If you’re still following along, then we could say that:

Hope is Everything.

Hope for our children, hope for a better world, hope for … well, I could go on and on and on here, but we’d run out of paper trying to list people’s “hopes.”

I hope you are learning that you not only are NOT alone… you technically CAN’T be.

It doesn’t even matter if you WANT to be alone – you never will be.

If God, or whatever term you like to use, wasn’t driving your atoms – you wouldn’t even exist.

And talk of Gods doesn’t even include your direct “quantum entanglement” with your family, friends, co-workers, and people you run into on any given day.

You CAN’T be alone… ever.

206

Everything the Same

207 Various experiments that have been carried out on weak, strong, and other forces have all been done on the Earth – in its Atomagnetic field, so results are just for those effects in the field of what we refer to as an M-class, or Earth-type planet.

Nothing in this book or theory argues with any scientific data/results ever obtained. Arguing about the conclusions reached about said data or results, however, is a different story. Consider the obviousness of Gravity. It’s so obvious it hurts. But it doesn’t exist in any way. Perhaps it’s time to re-think obvious things.

For example, there aren’t multiple forces, like Gravity, weak, and strong – they are all just scaled manifestations of the same force. Our measurement abilities and therefore research into the topics have been affected by our lack of knowledge/belief of Atomagnetism, and reliance on effects and side-effects that can be observed using ferro-magnetism.

Electromagnetism isn’t a different force, just typically perceived as an Amped up (literally) version of regular, everyday Atomagnetism.

Observation is the tool of science, and has been used for thousands of years.

If you observe and document every car to ever go down a ¼ mile racetrack, you will have an incredible knowledge about the cars, weather, track conditions, tire sizes, engine noise, number of exhaust tubes visible, whether the car has belts and pulleys protruding through the hood (what those are for is still under scientific research), colors of the fastest cars – and colors of the slowest, in short… tons and tons of observational data.

You still will have no idea of what powers the cars, but there are theories… (some people think it’s more of those tubes that stick out or noise or something)

On the other hand, if you do like we do at HEW – you take the car apart until there isn’t a single nut or bolt you haven’t disassembled and examined thoroughly. You then construct HOW it could have been possible for that arrangement to do what it did?

Every part. 208

Every piece.

Every thing.

Until there is nothing left.

No “creation” allowed, only examination as to how.

Again, one thing I often say when describing various scientific studies or research or whatever, is: “It’s all right (correct), but it’s all wrong!”

Everything is the same.

Just like it ought to be.

No fantasies about relativistic planes and warping time and bending space and wormholes and multiple dimensions and all the other things that should have remained as science fiction – not somehow twisted into science “fact.”

Here’s a graphic to give a more accurate perspective:

209

Credit: David Woodrow John

Most of these people are considered to be great science fiction authors. The difference among them is that one in particular didn’t inspire new thoughts and new ideas.

It has caused millions of the brightest of Human minds to waste their entire lives… going down a made-up “wormhole” and insisting, cult-like, that it’s real. Sad. It’s actually funny to me much of the time, but other than that - terribly, terribly saddening. :^(

Closing Thoughts

210 In 2012, I was just like most people and believed in Gravity. As I mentioned, I had spent most of my adult life thinking in my spare time about how to make power from the force of Gravity. If you had said to me back then that Gravity wasn’t real, I would have laughed in your face. “That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard a person say out loud!” would probably have been my response.

However, along the way of looking for power from Gravity, I learned it was really about making power from force, which could be Gravity or buoyancy or acceleration or deceleration or even magnetic forces, which of course can “attract” or “repel.”

That led to an investigation, which led to research, which led to some understanding.

We think of Gravity as being a force that keeps us together, keeping us on the planet, and holding the very planet (and stars) together.

The reality is that the concept of “Gravity” has kept us apart, making us think we are somehow separate and not connected to each other and to the Earth.

Think of Gravity – a cold, impersonal, unchanging force that “holds us down.” - or - Think of the reality – we’re all connected to each other, and to everything.

Beyond that simple idea – everything is connected to everything… from universes to our current level of study – quarks and neutrinos.

They are powered the same way. They operate the same way.

They are exactly like they’re supposed to be in a system that could be constructed from almost nothing into something. Simple. Elegant.

For example, a Cell is no different than a Person or a City or a Planet. They all have energy production facilities, waste handling facilities, repair and maintenance facilities, sensors, and 211 internal and external communications facilities, and on and on. (Is an Atom different from those things? It shouldn’t be, but it’s very, very small.)

Everything’s the same.

Powered, or caused, by some(one’s?) Unresolved Torque in Free Space…

So get out there and exchange some electrons!

Remember:

Credit: David Woodrow John

SIMPLIFIED!

Notes: The largest object has the lowest overall frequency, but is constructed of the smallest objects with the highest frequencies.

Fission is where the frequency of the object(s) becomes disrupted enough to cause the overall structure 212 of the system to “break.” As with anything, depending on how it breaks, the result may be spectacular, or the resultant parts may simply seem to stop working.

Fusion is where two or more systems are forced by ambient conditions to join together, creating a new system or systems. As with anything, depending on how it joins, the result may be spectacular, or the resultant parts may simply seem to start working.

A Ultramassive Black Hole (Center of our Universe) is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Quarks, or possibly - PerhapsSmallerThanWDHN (PSTWDHN?) (and smaller) Fission Examples: Big Bang / New Universe Fusion Examples: New Systems of Quarks/WDHN/PSTWDHN

A Supermassive Black Hole (Center of Clusters of Galaxies) is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Quarks, or possibly - WeDontHaveaName(WDHN?) (and smaller) Fission Examples: Supernovae Fusion Examples: New Systems of Quarks/WDHN

A Black Hole (Center of a Galaxy) is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Quarks (and smaller) Fission Examples: Supernovae Fusion Examples: New Systems of Quarks

A Neutron Star is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Neutrons and Protons (and smaller) Fission Examples: Hydrogen Bomb (?), Novae Fusion Examples: New Systems of Neutrons

A Star/Sun is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Atoms (and smaller) Fission Examples: Atomic Bomb, Novae Fusion Examples: New Systems of Atoms

A Planet is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Molecules (and smaller) Fission Examples: Fire, Explosives Fusion Examples: New Systems of Molecules From Stars to People… Let’s keep going…

A Cell is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Molecules (and smaller) Fission Examples: Death Fusion Examples: New Systems of Molecules

An Organism is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Cells (and smaller) 213 Fission Examples: Death Fusion Examples: New Systems of Cells

A Family/Relationship/Community is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Organisms (and smaller) Fission Examples: Divorce, Politics Fusion Examples: Marriage, Politics, Religion, New Systems of Organisms

A Society/Country is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Families/Communities (and smaller) Fission Examples: War, Genocide, Politics, Religion Fusion Examples: New Systems of Families/Communities

A Globe/Planet is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Societies/Countries (and smaller) Fission Examples: World War, Politics, Religion Fusion Examples: New Countries, Re-Drawn Borders, New Systems of Societies/Countries

A Federation :^) is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Globes/Planets (and smaller) Fission Examples: Planetary War, Politics, Religion Fusion Examples: New Systems of Globes/Planets

A Galactic Unity Organization is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Federations (and smaller) Fission Examples: Galactic War, Politics Fusion Examples: New Systems of Federations

A Universal Unity Organization is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Galactic Unity Organizations (and smaller) Fission Examples: War, Politics Fusion Examples: New Systems of Galactic Unity Organizations

A MultiVerse Unity Organization is a body comprised of co-operating Systems of Universal Unity Organizations (and smaller) Fission Examples: War, Politics Fusion Examples: New Systems of Universal Unity Organizations

214

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Predictions

215 People don’t classify a theory as anything unless it includes predictions.

I hadn’t really bothered with any, because a Theory of Everything relates to EVERYTHING so I suppose one could predict and predict and predict until the end of time and would not have covered everything.

Regardless, I decided to go ahead and start putting some down some thoughts and in some cases, predictions, in no particular order of import. In some cases, experiments are discussed.

► Anyone can break the “laws of physics” inexpensively and at will.

Experiment: Any College, University, Scientific Research Organization, or individual can easily construct their own “John Device” simply by watching the videos available on youtube and including the following information for analysis:

The lumber used is: standard U.S. plywood sheet in 4 foot x 6 foot sheets, with corner supports made out of standard 2x4’s nailed together and cut to approximately 5 feet in length. I don’t have the device available as it is in a barn, but the hole on top is approximately 12 inches in diameter.

The support arms, etc. are made out of regular plumbing pipe in various lengths, and there are no bearings. The system simply grinds down on the “ground” or base support.

The wheel at the top of the rotating arm (plane) rotates in a circle in a simple design. In actual systems, the wheel at the top of the rotating arm follows a hypocycloidal path, not describing a circle, but rather a geometric shape.

I am approximately 6 feet 2 inches tall.

The Impossible Video to replicate (or exceed): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_saRaWSl_Cw

216

► The problem with “classical” physics and thermodynamics is that they think everything is a closed system. It’s not, so technically no definitions of thermo apply, as they all begin with “In a closed system…”

Remember that the field concept doesn’t necessarily “start” at the center of our universe. (even if it does, the field still applies) As such, our universe would simply be one of billions of universes, all rotating about an object, of which there may then be billions of, rotating around other objects, of which there may be billions of, and on, and on.

Or not. The principles of HEW show that the Universe as we know it can be “spun” using only the energy of the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) or ZPE (Zero Point Energy) and the resultant fields of Black Holes, and therefore, beyond that small amount of energy, no additional Universes are required to fit this model. But in that case, someone or something has their “hand on the wheel” at the center of our Universe.

Or not. People DO love the universe is a hologram idea currently. I don’t, but of course the ideas and constructs could be extended using the concepts of HEW and the advantages provided by the CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology/principle.

Experiment: I suppose the Chinese using the “reactionless” thrusters on their new satellites, as well as potential NASA testing, will be a harbinger of doom for “classic” physics and thermodynamics, and could be considered a type of experiment for this point. The John Device is another experiment that absolutely, physically, proves that you have not, in fact, been taught everything. What it does is considered “impossible” which tells you that what you know from books doesn’t match what you can do with your own two hands.

► Black Holes – Stellar, Supermassive, and Ultramassive.

Every circular or spinning Galaxy will be found to have a “Black Hole,” or perhaps another star 217 about to become a black hole, at its center. Other clumped Galaxies would have had one once and it would have exploded, leaving the now formed stars.

Furthermore, groups/collections of Galaxies will be found to be orbiting successively larger black holes, currently described as Supermassive or Ultramassive black holes, such as that found at the center of our Universe.

In fact, the recent discoveries of the Ultramassive black holes is yet another problem for physics. They simply couldn’t have formed using current physics. There’s “not enough gas and not enough time” for them to have formed. It proves to physicists that there must be some other mechanism at play. Some other unknown mechanism. Well, it used to be. :^)

Experiment: Read Physics and Astronomy Articles. They all back this up, and as more observations are made, the “current” model will have to go away.

► Dark Matter will never be detected on the Earth. As discussed, dark (or unorganized) matter simply cannot exist or “be” on or around the surface of a Planet like the Earth. The field of the Earth organizes matter, as well as the field of the Sun, Etc. In fact, no dark matter should be found in any Solar System. Perhaps at the edges you have pieces that are falling apart and re-joining because of the weakness of the field, but that would be far beyond the asteroid belt, most probably the edge of the Oort cloud.

Experiment: There is none, other than to point out that Mankind has looked for over 30 years using Billions and Billions of Dollars of the most sophisticated things they can imagine to find dark matter and has found none. Zero. Not one single particle. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars and Thousands of the brightest minds on the Planet. Wasted. Oh, and plans to keep wasting, far into the future!

It just occurred to me – dark matter is like the movie “Money Pit.” :^)

► Space and Time don’t “bend.” 218

Restated: Space and Time don’t “bend” or “change” or whatever word you like.

Experiment: See the Thought Experiment on Bending Space in the section on Relativity in this commentary. Also, see research regarding classical interpretations as opposed to SR,GR.

► Our Solar System, and any others in our group, will be moving into orientation with the plane of the Milky Way Galaxy, and that is aligning with the plane of the Universe.

Experiment: Observations are already showing the twisting on the edges of the Milky Way. Further observations (and all current) will simply validate this prediction.

► The Allais Effect will be “stronger” if the Poles are aligned, than if the Moon is “sideways.”

This is also discussed further in the section on the Allais Effect in Appendix A of this commentary.

Experiment: This has been tested and could have been tested extensively and inexpensively in August of 2017, as an almost perfect eclipse crossed a major swath of the North American continent, and particularly directly across vast areas of the United States. Any research organization, College, University, or interested party could have set up their own test equipment and done their own measurements, independently verifying this prediction/fact. I doubt any did. Remember, anything that might disprove Einstein is frowned upon and won’t have any financing or support.

► Nothing can ever reach “absolute zero” in nature, or for any lengthy period of time (like a second) in any laboratory experiment.

219 Note: It requires an expenditure of energy, like laser cooling, to attempt to stop spin and will continuously require input to maintain “absolute zero.”

Relating to laser cooling, when they “hit” the object they are “cooling” by stopping its’ spin, they actually do achieve “absolute zero” during that moment when the forward momentum and inertia has been halted by the strike from the electron (that they call a photon) from the laser. It’s just an incredibly, incredibly small period of time until the atom or PHUN begins its spin again – due to the CMBR/ZPE if nothing else, and various black holes, suns, and planets if those are also in the experiment.

Experiment: “Laser Cooling” has been tested and done at labs all over the World on many occasions. They keep “getting closer” to absolute zero due to their increased accuracy and proficiency with the mechanical aspects of aiming the laser and striking individual atoms at the correct particular angles. (which kindof tells you it’s a mechanical system) But, again, they actually have gotten there with the latest most advanced setups, they just don’t know it. (because it’s hard to figure out what goes on in like a trillionth of a billionth of a second, and when you don’t know how it’s working in the first place… :^)

► As more wireless things enter into society, the higher frequencies that will be used for data transmission will cause increases in the cancer rate, which is already higher in civilized countries, where people are exposed to more electric and other items producing frequencies.

Note: atom frequencies tend to start in the terahertz range, and we are proudly now pushing that barrier in labs and preparing for the upcoming, superfast phones and everything else.

Everything else also includes incredible cancer rates if people don’t begin to understand what’s really going on with electricity and fields and life.

Experiment: The biological aspects of quarks/atoms extending all the way up to us, and the work by many scientists, some discussed elsewhere in this commentary, will bring about a 220 clearer understanding of the causation of cancer. (Radiation – or high frequency electrons – striking the atomic/sub-atomic structure and “damaging” it so that it runs, but at the wrong frequency.)

► Tied in with frequencies and cancer is Autonomous vehicles.

Depending on their sensor arrangements, and the frequencies they are projecting, they have the potential to cause quite noticeable increases of cancers in populations in large cities, especially because of the reflections of the various frequencies off all the glass and concrete.

Of course the levels of cancer would be in direct relation to the level of exposure to the vehicles, so it’s not just people who live in “big cities” that will be affected.

Experiment: Watch the cancer rates in the next 25 years. Sorry. :^(

► Surgery will be essentially scar free. Clean cuts, such as surgery and others, with proper debridement of tissue at the micro level, will be able to be healed with almost no scar.

The field frequency of healthy skin for that individual will be generated by a patch or machine that will assist in healthy re-growth at optimum speed. Sometimes people associate the idea of re-growing tissue with the idea of speeding up that re-growth. While accelerated re-growing may well be possible, the problem of stopping said accelerated growth is then seen as the problem.

(for advanced thought – since the field would be generated by a bandage or covering on the wound, if it did accelerate growth, it would, of course, be removed at some point, and so the

field that is perhaps aiding in that accelerated growth is also removed, and therefore the problem of stopping the accelerated re-growth may be naturally solved)

Experiment: The work of Dr. Michael Levin at Tufts University and others show effects from stimulating flatworms and frogs to grow additional limbs and eyes and re-grow parts. 221 Their research could surely be extended into finding the frequencies of human skin and making devices to be placed on wounds of study participants and have re-growth times closely monitored and measured.

► Replacement organs can be grown from your own stem cells and raised in the exact field conditions necessary for that particular organ in your particular body, so they will literally match your existing organs, because they are you, in every respect that can be measured.

Experiment: Start locating your stem cells.

► People will have greatly extended life spans because of the ability to have replacement organs grown. Combined with scar free surgeries, it will be possible, for example, for people to routinely plan on having their “filters” (lungs, kidneys, liver) replaced, and other parts as necessary, say at the age of 50 - and every 50 years or so thereafter.

Experiment: Start saving your stem cells in a bucket or something and wait for scientists to begin to understand what’s going on around them.

► Immediate detection of viruses, bacteria, diseases, potential public health concerns, and other things – like bombs, chemicals, etc.

Experiment: Many detectors already use variations and cousins of the concepts taught in this commentary. Obviously, large research or health organizations could immediately begin looking into this information and the effect it will have on their work.

► There is no such thing as a Monopole. It can’t exist, so of course it never will be found. 222

- Dipole, Baby.

Experiment: None required. But physicists are welcome to continue to look for them. Why not? It gives them something to play with.

► No particle or mechanism will ever be found or provided for the concept of an omni-directional force that exists for no reason which is currently called “Gravity.”

Experiment: CERN built the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) originally with one of the major goals being to find the Graviton, the imaginary particle that would prove and enable Gravity in the currently perceived quantum world… They didn’t find it. CERN then upgraded the LHC to higher frequency ranges, still hoping to find the Graviton… They didn’t find it. No experiment to date has ever found a particle or mechanism for Gravity, and none will be, so there really is no “experiment” to perform. (remember, they’ve looked and tried for a 100+ years)

► Because Gravity doesn’t exist as previously imagined, what is currently called “Anti- Gravity” or “Anti-Gravitation” will become possible, since it’s actually Anti-Field.

In one example, an object has a field, with opposite polarity to the field of the Earth projected around it, with varying strength for control, to allow levitation or flight or whatever.

In another example, an object has a field projected around it – but the field being projected is not the frequency of the Earth or the object, but the field of perhaps an element. Imagine a large object with the field of a hydrogen atom projected around it, so it “weighs” as much as a single hydrogen atom, or virtually nothing.

223 Experiment: Many experiments can be done with these effects, and in fact, many people attempt to levitate things and show this on videos on the Internet. Most of those people are using variations of sound frequencies, etc. to get the objects to levitate. The correlation with the ideas presented here are too obvious to discuss at length.

► Understanding fields will also have great impact on space exploration, not only in the propulsion arena, but understanding that our very atoms change when we leave the field of the Earth, so future astronauts will have to have capsules with a field projected around the living areas of the ship resembling the field of the Earth.

Experiment: NASA is already seeing strange effects on astronauts and also strange effects of viruses, bacteria, and even basic elements. More research is needed.

► Because of the long life ascribed to protons, and that they are composed of three quarks: The quarks that make up the proton must NOT be exactly equal in size. In other words: the up and down quarks cannot be the same “size.” The word size is used loosely, because it relates to whatever measurement technique used. We currently equate higher frequencies and higher energies to what we call “sizes.”

Experiment: Studies have been done and continue to be done on quark sizes. So far, no experiments show that the up and down quarks are the same “size.”

► On the topic of protons – the proton and the “anti-proton” will have identical characteristics – the same “mass”, again depending on measurements technique. They have the same characteristics because they are the same thing, but with one inverted.

224 Experiment: Studies have shown that the proton and anti-proton have identical characteristics.

► ANTI-MATTER - The topic and concept of the “anti-proton” relates to all “anti” matter and particles: “Anti” just means upside down and of course, spinning backwards. In other words for this prediction, all “anti” particles will have the exact same characteristics as their regular particles. (Our scientist’s current model requires them to be little different from each other to make the “math” work. oops)

Experiment: All studies have shown that various “anti” particles have identical characteristics to their “regular” counterparts.

► An “electron” that is accelerated to the same speed as a photon will have identical properties. (they must, because they’re the same thing) Remember, it’s just terminology, as we call an electron that orbits an atom an Electron. We call an electron that has been thrown from an atom a Photon.

Experiment: No “experiment” is needed as it’s just terminology.

► More astronomical groups will be found like our Andromeda system with orbits and connections that cannot be explained using current thoughts with Gravity and relativity, but can be explained with knowledge of Fields. These systems will always be connected by fields, and thus, their orientation, and the orientations they are all moving towards, is that of a flat plane – which again, cannot be explained currently.

Experiment: Studies have already confirmed that our Universe is in a flat plane and that objects within it are moving towards that plane. Continued research and studies will continue to verify this prediction, as most experiments have only become available in the last 20 years due to the increased imaging capabilities of NASA, ESA, and others.

225

► “Reproducibility”: Certain molecular reactions will occur at different “speeds” due to their altitude on the Earth and also due to the local environment.

The altitude aspect is a molecular example of the same issue that affects atoms clocks when people attempt to “verify” Einstein’s work by showing variations of clocks in orbit. As you move away from the surface of the Earth, the field strength is changing that effects the various atoms in whatever device is being used to measure whatever you’re measuring. Even as we’ve moved to atomic clocks, you can see that even they are effected, because the influence goes down to atoms and their constituent parts.

The local environment factors extend far beyond just the “petri dish” so to speak. Local environment factors that are incredibly important (besides straight altitude) would be the local gravimetric actual reading, and the area around the experiment. For example, in one setting, a reaction might be studied in a dish in a room with plain walls and no other equipment. The same reaction might be studied in another situation where there is a large variety of high-powered laboratory equipment putting off all kinds of frequencies, as well as different types of reflective surfaces to continue spreading electrons and frequency waves. Even if the chemicals and a host of other basal factors (temperature, humidity, etc.) are considered, without examining the overall local environment, the results may well differ.

Experiment: Reproducibility issues apparently plague scientists World-wide, and have for some time. If they understood the field aspects instead of the simple gloss of Gravity, they would see the effects that the TOTAL ENVIRONMENT has on any experiment. Not only do you need to consider altitude, you need to consider every environmental issue – even extending to things beyond the simple relatively closed space that one considers the “experiment.” Other things in

the vicinity have an effect too. Everything from the building construction to other devices, to the area and community needs to be evaluated if you are truly considering “reproducibility.”

226

► Many Scientific Fields Will Change.

The number of problems in physics goes on pretty much forever. By understanding fields, there will be tremendous new insight into topics like Turbulence and Granular Materials, just to name a couple.

Experiment: Watch as people learn.

► Everything.

The principles in this commentary apply to everything. Atoms, Relationships, Solar Systems, Political Parties, Galaxies, Religions, and on and on and on. If you can think it, then it relates.

Experiment: Read various articles that have words like “Impossible,” “Anomalies,” “New Physics,” and “Strange Behavior,” or “Impossible Galaxy Alignment” and realize that it all makes sense to you now.

APPENDIX B - Gravity and Other Anomalies and Oddities

227 As I never had any inclination to write a “Theory of Everything”, I would have to say that the various anomalies of science and observation were what interested me. How can you have a theory about something that has been shown to be wrong, or violates the other rules you adhere to, without blinking an eye? (and yet this is our World, today)

Technically, when a “system” is proposed, such as Einstein’s theories of relativity and others, if a single basic part of the system is shown or proven to be wrong, then the entire system is “wrong” in some respect. It may be foundationally wrong, affecting every part of the theory, or just a “tactical” error, involving some end result and therefore not necessarily being fatal to the entire cause.

Regardless, the number of “anomalies” regarding Gravity eventually gets to the point where you realize either everything is an anomaly… (keep thinking, because that’s sortof impossible…) or the idea of Gravity is the anomaly.

Something’s got to give.

Muon Magnetic Moment

In 2004, scientists studied the magnetic moment of the Muon with surprising results:

“The latest result from an international collaboration of scientists investigating how the spin of a muon is affected as this type of subatomic particle moves through a magnetic field deviates further than previous measurements from theoretical predictions. The result strengthens the challenge this experiment, known as muon g-2, first posed to the so-called Standard Model of particle physics in February 2001 (based on data collected in 1999), and then backed with a more precise result in July 2002 (based on data collected in 2000).” (69)

“Boston University physicist Lee Roberts, spokesperson for the muon g-2 experiment, said, ‘The measurement of this property, the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, is a very sensitive test of the validity of the Standard Model, and is also sensitive to new physics beyond the Standard Model.’ The Standard Model seeks to describe the effects 228 of three of the four known forces on all subatomic particles. ‘The fact that our measurement continues to deviate from what that theory predicts may be an indication that we are seeing new physics beyond the Standard Model’” (69)

While this research was done in 2004, it was so stunning to physicists that they have now spent more than a decade re-designing and re-building the experiment to higher levels and more precise measurements, with results expected in late 2017 or 2018.

The new results will echo all of the previous studies, showing Physicists that there is “something” out there “acting on” muons. They already suspect that with electrons, but decided to use the Muons because they were bigger and closer to the central core of the atom.

Simply put: the Muon Magnetic Moment is yet another thing that helps bring the current models of physics crashing down.

Planet 9

This is my favorite new “anomaly” because we’ve observed things that don’t “match the model!” and so have had to think up what new thing we could imagine that would cost fantastic sums of money and take years to prove or disprove… hopefully.

This “planet”, like dark energy, was “created” in a mathematical formula - and NOWHERE else. It was “formed” from the minds of physicists who were unable to account for newly discovered objects called Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNO), which orbit not on the normal plane we expect, but somewhat more towards “vertical” alignment.

To those of us who think of real life instead of fantasy for solutions, the orbit of these Trans- Neptunian Objects (TNOs) could be explained in several ways. Without further investigation

and data, these objects may in fact be inclined in relation to our nearest black hole, which may be at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. I don’t have the information to accurately tell what they are oriented to, or if this is a natural inclination possible with a dipole situation. Unlike the “scientists” in their Government and University and Think Tank funded centers, I don’t have any research abilities except in my mind and online. 229

Gravity in General

As discussed, Gravity fails in a number of known areas of science.

Ask a “scientist” to tell you the mechanism behind Gravity – you know, what makes it work? (they won’t have any answer – remember, they never found the Graviton)

Then ask them what mechanism would provide for an omni-directional force? (they won’t have any answer because there are none other than Gravity itself)

Then use an Internet search engine and type something like: Gravity anomalies, or Problems with Gravity, and you will get many, many links. I recommend that you the reader, if not familiar with this idea, perform such a search.

You will find thousands and thousands of articles, some written by highly knowledgeable and educated people arguing against the tenets of Gravity, and also against Einstein’s work if you look for that too.

Simply put: The scientific community is extremely familiar with the “problems” associated with Gravity.

The Lunar Eclipse Gravity Problem / Allais Effect

When a lunar eclipse occurs and the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun, a change in Gravity occurs. This has been called the Allais Effect, and has subsequently been documented by a number of different scientists and organizations using a variety of instruments.

This graph is from the 1997 Mohe total Solar eclipse: 230

Credit: Xin-She Yang, Middlesex University, UK

“Gravitational Shielding” and other explanations all fail, in some methodology, to explain the effect and stay within the realms of relativity. (of course having to stay “within the realms of relativity” is its’ own problem:^)

In fact, according to Maurice Allais, in a memoir to NASA:

“…it is found that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.” (70)

What Allais says, relating to this effect and also the anisotropy of space is important:

“The eclipse effect is only a very particular case of a much more general phenomenon: the existence at each instant of a direction of anisotropy of space.” (70)

“The variations over time of the anisotropy of space are determined by the movements 231 of celestial bodies, and in particular by the relative movements of the Sun and the Moon. In particular, the tandem action of the Moon and the Sun on the direction of anisotropy of space causes periodic variations in the azimuth of the plane of oscillation.” (70)

When you understand fields, you can visualize that the field strength will jump to the closer object (the Moon) during the time that its field is “in the way”. The initial (1st contact) and ending (4th contact) “flickering” appear as the fields “decide” whether or not to jump (although they won’t have a choice as time goes on), before settling in the new combined field arrangement. It is stronger at the end because the field has settled in and it takes more effort to fully pull away because of the newly established link, more field area available to the Sun after the field was established, and field theory.

Some observations suggest that the effect is greater if the Moon is “pole oriented.” In other words, if the poles of the Moon and Earth are close in angle, the effect is greater.

If the Moon is tilted so the poles aren’t near alignment, the Gravity drops – but not as much.

Again, if you understand the field concept, this immediately becomes clear. The effects of course, will be much greater if the poles of the Moon are aligned with our poles during an eclipse. The poles are a gathering point for field forces, as those in a spherical magnet.

A related concept is when the Sun, Earth and Moon are in alignment, but not in a total eclipse. Allais states:

“One may well ask oneself why, when it occurs, the near alignment of the Moon and the Sun does not generate the same effects as a total eclipse.” (70)

Using fields in your thinking processes, it becomes obvious why the effect would be less when the Moon is on the other side of the Earth from the parent Sun. Simply use the idea of regular magnetism, and let your mind wander. (or buy some magnets and experiment)

However, as Allais takes effort to point out, repeatedly, the Allais Effect, as far as just relating to 232 the Sun, Moon, and Earth during eclipses, is just part of what’s going on.

“Although it may be very spectacular, the eclipse effect is much less significant than the effects of the anisotropy of space.” (70)

“Indeed, the effects of the eclipse are spectacular and cannot be explained in the framework of currently accepted theories, but they can give only a very partial amount of information. By contrast, the continuous experiments with the anisotropic and isotropic supports give anytime results which cannot be explained according to current theory.” (70)

In other words, for a layperson, scientists could easily replicate the experiments of Maurice Allais, but are wont to do so, for it would surely spell the end of the omni-directional, physics- defying concept of “Gravity.”

In fact, in August of 2017, a full eclipse will be crossing the United States in one of the most perfect setups for observation and measurement that has ever happened. Again, any College, University, or any of a thousand others COULD study this event, cheaply and finally. But, those are two words that shoot shocks of fear and cause cold sweats to physicists. Incredibly expensive with no real outcomes (other than the usual Einstein stroke) and no end-dates are words more to their taste.

As Allais himself nicely sums up, regarding his research: (remember, this is a Nobel-prize winning scientist)

“Due to the incredible dogmatism of scientific circles at the time, science has lost at least forty years. Not only were my experiments not followed up, but they were successfully hidden.” (70)

The Pioneer Anomaly / The Flyby Anomaly

The Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft were launched by NASA to probe the outer reaches of our Solar System and then designed to keep going. 233

“During the 1970s when the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes were launched, visiting Jupiter and Saturn before heading off towards the edge of the Solar System, these probes both experienced something strange as they passed between 20 to 70 AU (Uranus to the Kuiper Belt) from the Sun. Basically, the probes were both 386,000 km (240,000 mi) farther from where existing models predicted they would be. This came to be known as the “Pioneer anomaly“, which became common lore within the space physics community.” (71)

“The “flyby anomaly” is a problem in astrodynamics discovered by a JPL’s team of researchers lead by John Anderson in the early 90s. When they tried to fit the whole trajectory of the Galileo spacecraft as it approached the Earth on December, 8th, 1990, they found that this only can be done by considering that the ingoing and outgoing pieces of the trajectory correspond to asymptotic velocities that differ in 3.92 mm/s from what is expected in theory.” (71)

“The effect appears both in the Doppler data and in the ranging data, so it is not a consequence of the measurement technique. Later on, it has also been found in several flybys performed by Galileo again in 1992, the NEAR [Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous mission] in 1998, Cassini in 1999 or Rosetta and Messenger in 2005. The largest discrepancy was found for the NEAR (around 13 mm/s) and this is attributed to the very close distance of 532 Km to the surface of the Earth at the perigee.” (71)

The anomaly has been going on for almost half a century now – and it is that the Pioneer spacecraft are “not where they should be” according to the Standard Model. NASA has studied this extensively and no one has found an answer.

There have been recent new speculations about “solar pressure” and other perceived errors as potentially providing an answer, but these speculations are not generally accepted, as the

factors had already been examined in detail, by NASA and many, many others for more than 50 years. However, as of this writing, recent indications are that physicists, with nowhere else to turn, have given up and decided that solar pressure is the answer. (note: It’s not.)

In fact, the article quoted above is titled: “Juno Isn’t Exactly Where it’s Supposed To Be. 234 The Flyby Anomaly is Back, But Why Does it Happen?”

From Wikipedia: “The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth- flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X- Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of up to 13 mm/s during flybys.” (2)

In the article, which is interesting to a HEW reader, but not surprising, they found that the Juno probe also shows anomalies in orbits. The Juno probe had many pole-to-pole orbits and these gave valuable information in relation to orbits closer to the center of Jupiter.

“In the end, they determined that an anomaly could also be present during the Juno flybys of Jupiter. They also noted a significant radial component in this anomaly, one which decayed the farther the probe got from the center of Jupiter.” (71)

The anomaly is that their location was calculated using the Standard Model and Gravity. As with many “anomalies” discussed, it is not an anomaly, just more data to be catalogued and examined regarding field strengths and interactions.

As explained, Gravity has been used in formulas to calculate these flybys and therefore they are necessarily somewhat incorrect. Since the spacecraft is going through a field of varying intensities, and has its own field, there will be “anomalies”, when compared to the standard model of Gravity. The reality, however, is that any data obtained is not indicative of an anomaly – it is just data to aid in future scientific endeavors. Needless to say, flyby anomalies undoubtedly are much more intense depending on the orbit of the spacecraft. For example, if it is in an orbit that goes over the poles it will automatically be in a high probability of “not being compatible with Gravity models.” The Galaxy Rotation Problem

From Wikipedia: “The galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between observed galaxy rotation curves and the theoretical prediction, assuming a centrally dominated mass associated with the observed luminous material. When mass profiles of galaxies are calculated from the luminosity profiles and mass-to-light ratios in the stellar disks, then they do not match with the masses derived from the observed rotation curves and 235 the law of Gravity.” (2)

This problem is really not a problem – just a problem if you think of Gravity. The omnidirectional pull of Gravity is always a problem.

It’s certainly not a “law” because it doesn’t even exist.

The rotation of a galaxy is consequently similar to the rotation of an atom. How do you think they (galaxies) get the force to “spin” in the first place? Everything is the same.

As stated elsewhere, it is technically caused (driven) by the Combined Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)/Zero Point Energy (ZPE)/Higgs Field and fields from your nearest Black Hole and Solar mass, enabled through the Higgs particle (the Torque Shaft or Torque Shaft Driving Mechanism) in the atomic world.

More current information relating to the Galaxy Rotation Problem can be found in the Section on MoND in this commentary.

The galaxy rotation problem is also related to the question of the accelerating expansion of the Universe.

The “Accelerating” Universe

This problem is closely related to the problem galaxy rotation and cosmological constant problems, as an accelerating universe implies a non-zero cosmological constant.

Of course the cosmological constant is not zero – or you and I wouldn’t even exist because our very atoms and their constituent parts would collapse into essentially nothing.

However, the Universe may well still be expanding, before the eventual crash back into the central black hole. Some measurements about the “expansion” may just be related to spinning arms and galaxies that are being misinterpreted. 236

Regardless of other expansion thoughts, the Universe should be growing, in the extent that the field of the black hole at the center of our Universe is continually absorbing and eating matter from objects (think of entire galaxies). These new, continual additions would make the field get larger and larger with each object “swallowed.”

In fact, recent research has shown that not only is the Universe expanding, but that the expansion is faster than thought causing the need for some type of new physics because it can be explained using the old models. :^)

“Astronomers have used NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to make the most precise measurements of the expansion rate of the universe since it was first calculated nearly a century ago. Intriguingly, the results are forcing astronomers to consider that they may be seeing evidence of something unexpected at work in the universe.“ (72)

“That's because the latest Hubble finding confirms a nagging discrepancy showing the universe to be expanding faster now than was expected from its trajectory seen shortly after the big bang. Researchers suggest that there may be new physics to explain the inconsistency.” (72)

“‘The community is really grappling with understanding the meaning of this discrepancy,’ said lead researcher and Nobel Laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, Maryland.” (72)

“Planck's result predicted that the Hubble constant value should now be 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec (3.3 million light-years), and could be no higher than 69 kilometers per second per megaparsec. This means that for every 3.3 million light-years farther away a galaxy is from us, it is moving 67 kilometers per second faster.” (72)

“But Riess's team measured a value of 73 kilometers per second per megaparsec, indicating galaxies are moving at a faster rate than implied by observations of the early universe.” (72)

The Hubble data are so precise that astronomers cannot dismiss the gap between the two results as errors in any single measurement or method. ‘Both results have been 237 tested multiple ways, so barring a series of unrelated mistakes,’ Riess explained, ‘it is increasingly likely that this is not a bug but a feature of the universe.’” (72)

In the article, they discuss a variety of potential solutions to the problem, to no avail.

“Any of these scenarios would change the contents of the early universe, leading to inconsistencies in theoretical models. These inconsistencies would result in an incorrect value for the Hubble constant, inferred from observations of the young cosmos. This value would then be at odds with the number derived from the Hubble observations.” (72)

In other words – what they think doesn’t work and they don’t even have a direction to look because of their insistence on continuing the thoughts of Einstein.

The Cosmological Constant Problem

According to wikipedia:

“A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no theory exists that supports this assumption, arguments can be made in its favor.” (2)

“Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the Universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck

scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of . As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120.

This discrepancy has been called ‘the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!’” (2)

“Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny 238 cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.” (2)

This “problem” is not a problem at all when you understand the power of the tilted or canted “torque shaft” as highlighted by CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology shown by The John Device.

A very small amount of power can rotate a mass of virtually any size – it just has to have a slight imbalance in the system. The more balanced (such as a Proton/Neutron set) the mass, the less force needed to spin it and maintain the spin.

In other words, the Cosmological Constant IS equal to the quantum vacuum, as many scientists believe it should be. It just takes an understanding of The John Device CVRP technology, Atomagnetism, and the Higgs mechanism to make it work.

Flat Universe, Galaxy, and Solar System Why are these things (and others) in a plane, or flat? (or anisotropic)

Credit: NASA

The concept of Gravity applies equally in all directions, so there is no reason for anything to form in a flat or plane-type structure.

The Schrodinger cloud structure and the associated Heisenberg uncertainty principle relate to things moving all around an atom – not in a plane, as they actually are. (the visual image of 239 electrons zooming in all directions around an atomic nucleus is a common one)

All types of “explanations” have been offered, none of which match any real physical model – they simply “match” their own predictions, based on their own calculations, which, again, use Gravity as a factor in their formula. These include Total Angular Momentum and accretion disks and the like.

Maurice Allais said something regarding solar eclipses which has a direct relation to this concept of a plane, flatness, or anisotropy:

“The eclipse effect is only a very particular case of a much more general phenomenon: the existence at each instant of a direction of anisotropy of space, variable over time, to which the plane of oscillation of the pendulum tends to approach during each elementary experiment of 14 minutes. During a total solar eclipse, the direction of anisotropy of space becomes coincident with the Earth – Moon – Sun line.” (70)

“The experimental procedure of mobile correlations made it possible to demonstrate an average direction of anisotropy of space quite close to the East-West direction.” (70)

As discussed in the section on “Dark Matter,” recent observations have shown both objects within the “local group” and also objects in other galaxies are orbiting in planes. Again, this cannot be accounted for in a Gravitational-based model.

In an article titled: “Action Dynamics of the Local Supercluster” researchers modeled the movement of various objects like Stars and noticed they are all moving into an alignment – towards a plane.

Interestingly enough, besides noting everything moving into a plane, they note:

“The apex of the dipole in the cosmic microwave background temperature map is in the same direction.” (73)

These same researchers also made a video, available on Youtube which shows the movement 240 of the various bodies. For a particularly good view of the plane, start watching at about 1:26 into the video.

As far as other galaxies - to re-iterate a quote from the Dark Matter section of this document:

The Kuiper “Cliff”

At the edge of our normally considered Solar System, there is a collection of objects, mostly considered to be made out of light hydrogens, helium, and ices, known as the Kuiper Belt. Why this region exists in the first place is a mystery, and why it “stops” is a greater one.

The question is why does the number of objects in the Solar System's Kuiper belt fall off rapidly and unexpectedly beyond a radius of 50 astronomic units?

241

Credit: NASA

From Wikipedia:

“Based on estimations of the primordial mass required to form Uranus and Neptune, as well as bodies as large as Pluto (see below), earlier models of the Kuiper belt had suggested that the number of large objects would increase by a factor of two beyond 50 AU, so this sudden drastic falloff, known as the "Kuiper cliff", was completely unexpected, and its cause, to date, is unknown. In 2003, Bernstein and Trilling et al. found evidence that the rapid decline in objects of 100 km or more in radius beyond 50 AU is real, and not due to observational bias.” (2)

When you understand fields, it is apparent that the various planets are in their positions with their compositions partly in relationship to their fields.

The inner planets are heavy metals, Earth and Mars – a mixture, and then the outer gas giants.

The closer in you are, the heavier the elements will be, eventually concluding far out with the minimal atomic constructs like Hydrogen and some Helium. (remember, Hydrogen, and unbalanced construct, is anxious to join up with a friend and become Helium, since Helium is a balanced 242 construct)

Fields are stronger the closer they are to their source, so we eventually reach a place (the Kuiper cliff) at which the field is at the weakest point able to hold objects of a specific size. (The faintest effects of this field have been theorized with the Oort cloud, discussed elsewhere in this document.)

NASA MicroGravity Experiments – Repeatable Clumping of Solid Particles in MicroGravity

In 2003, NASA performed experiments where different substances such as salt, sugar, and coffee grounds were suspended in liquid, shaken up, and then observed.

As the astronauts noted in a paper:

“The most important result of these experiments is that the mm-sized solid particles coalesced into 1-5 cm fractal-like clumps within a few seconds.”10 (74)

These 1-5 cm sizes are considered the sizes needed for the beginning of astrophysical bodies, so the fact that these particles not only clumped together, but so quickly, was particularly astounding.

Other unusual and unpredictable things happened. Not only did the atoms clump together, but sometimes they rotated their orientation to each other before clumping.

The very re-orientation of the atoms and molecules is impossible in a Gravity-based system, as particles this size would not simply attract each other so quickly, and would have no reason or ability to “flip” their orientation in the process.

They further noted: 243

“Although these experiments lacked formal controls to identify the precise clumping mechanism, it is apparently electrostatic.” (74)

When you understand Atomagnetism and HEW, the observed effects are expected, not unusual or unexpected. In fact, had they mixed the components before shaking them, they would have noticed that particles with a similar molecular structure would be more likely to clump with others sharing the same field/frequency, but would also have the ability to gather together with other dissimilar molecules.

The tendency of atoms or molecules to clump together, and moreso with “compatible” fields/frequencies, is also directly related to geology and the question of why various substances run in “veins” and “layers” when there is no other known explanation.

“Odd” effects are seen in space in other ways. In an article titled: “Bacteria get dangerously weird in space” Cheryl Nickerson, a microbiologist at Arizona State University, and her team, worked with bacteria brought back from space and observed strange effects:

“It has been known for decades that something happens to microbes that leave planet Earth. Sometimes they grow faster and get better at causing disease. Just as often they do the opposite; slowing down and becoming less harmful. The biggest risk, experts say, is that the behavior is unpredictable. And when you send people to space – people who are teeming with microbes – there’s little room for surprise.” (75)

The Strong CP Problem

The entire strong CP problem relates to how much influence (surprisingly to researchers) the “weak force” has. It is a breakdown on understanding the topics of the different forces vs. fields.

Scientists are going to be examining “neutrino oscillations” further to find more CP-Violations. Remember, CP-Violations relate to expected results vs. actual observations.

Neutrinos undoubtedly do “oscillate”, but in the standard Atomagnetic field way… not in some silly multi-dimensional vibrating oscillating realm. 244

The Horizon Problem

The horizon problem is also called the homogeneity problem. Simply put: using the conventional Standard Model, different regions of the Universe could not have the same temperature and other properties. This is because of the large distances between them and the supposed limit of the speed of light regarding exchange of anything – information, energy, heat, or any other terms.

Since the “speed of light” is E=mc2, or an atomic level formula (because it’s squared instead of a higher value), it really isn’t a problem for sub-atomic particles to exceed this speed and exchange said items.

Hot Corona

From Wikipedia:

“The coronal heating problem in solar physics relates to the question of why the temperature of the Sun's corona is millions of kelvin higher than that of the surface. The high temperatures require energy to be carried from the solar interior to the corona by non-thermal processes, because the second law of thermodynamics prevents heat from flowing directly from the solar photosphere, or surface, at about 5800 K, to the much hotter corona at about 1 to 3 MK (parts of the corona can even reach 10 MK).

The thin region of temperature increase from the chromosphere to the corona is known as the transition region and can range from tens to hundreds of kilometers thick. An analogy of this would be a light bulb heating the air surrounding it hotter than its glass surface. The second law of thermodynamics would be broken.

Many coronal heating theories have been proposed, but two theories have remained as the most likely candidates: wave heating and magnetic reconnection (or nanoflares). Through most of the past 50 years, neither theory has been able to account for the extreme coronal temperatures.” (2)

Sound waves and solar tornadoes have been proposed recently as the cause, but are 245 considered unlikely.

The potential causes proposed consist of several thoughts.

1) The Sun is a massive object with an enormous Atomagnetic field, which is obvious since it includes our entire Solar system. This field draws everything towards it (the field shape, etc. is not relevant for this discussion) and this includes vast amounts of “raw fuel” to be striking the corona. This is somewhat analogous to a planet that has an atmosphere – except in this case the object (Sun) is actively destroying the atmosphere through its own processes. This thin “atmosphere” would allow for the corona to be much like the flame of a candle, where it’s hotter at the end of the flames than the inside. This candle and atmosphere idea is related and expressed in the next section.

2) When compared to other, inner areas of the Sun, the area of the Corona could also be thought of as an area that interfaces high electron areas with low electron areas. In the Corona, the individual atoms have room to “wobble”, whereas inside the Sun, they are compacted tightly by the overall Atomagnetic field. Therefore, when they exchange electrons and wobble, they don’t have “room” or space to wobble, and for their frequencies to propagate around them. This is shown below (poorly):

246

Higher and more frequencies are what we call heat and energy. Therefore, it is possible that the simple fact that the outer atoms have the ability to “express” their frequency, combined with the incredibly high frequencies that would occur around an object with, at the least, an atomic fusion center, would allow for greater “heat” or “temperature” at the edge than that found in the inner (compressed) areas.

An interesting side note to this phenomenon may relate to the concept of Surface Tension. In describing causes of surface tension, Wikipedia points out: “Another way to view surface tension is in terms of energy. A molecule in contact with a neighbor is in a lower state of energy than if it were alone (not in contact with a neighbor). The interior molecules have as many neighbors as they can possibly have, but the boundary molecules are missing neighbors (compared to interior molecules) and therefore have a higher energy.” (2)

Why is the D/H Ratio Interesting?

This is actually not a baseball statistic, but the Deuterium/Hydrogen Ratio. In short – water can have different “flavors,” depending on what astrophysical-type body it is from. Water from another astrophysical body is slightly “different” than ours, for example.

We have been studying asteroids hoping to find the source of water on the Earth. Did it all come from elsewhere? The recent news is that in comparing the flavor of the water on a comet, they determined it was different than the flavor of the water on Earth.

The simple fact of the different “flavors” of water from different planets is almost comically 247 amusing to someone who understands HEW. (and, like everything turns out to be – just more proof of HEW) To those physicists in the old world of Gravity and relativity… well – it must be quite confusing to them. But what isn’t? OF COURSE the atoms and hence the molecules can have slightly different arrangements, depending on the atom/combination and the field of the object they were formed and exist in.

Why does water have a “structure” and how does it form?

Why do water molecules form transient networks with a structure in bulk water?

All atoms and combinations thereof have a field and a frequency. This Atomagnetic field frequency will have a greater effect on like elements that share the frequency.

The fields are what naturally cause the water molecules (H2O) to combine and align with each other. The fields are dipole, so are therefore directional to aid in construction.

This formation is not unusual – rather it is to be expected. It is similar in concept and practice to the NASA clumping experiment, which is similar to planet formation (or the formation of anything - such as “veins” in geologic formations).

APPENDIX C - Relativity

Some people say that Nikola Tesla is something of a “Father” of the modern age of electricity and many of the principles of devices all around us that we use every day. 248

The accepted tests of the theory of relativity are interesting, not so much because of what they’ve shown, but because of the automatic conclusions drawn from their results.

It is very important to note, however, that because our current models of physics are based on at least many years – if not hundreds or thousands of years – of observations, and many of these observations have been conducted with the highest level of scientific precision, the results are essentially irrefutable and correct.

249 Again, observing something doesn’t explain how it actually happens or works.

In November, 2020 an international research study was published by the American Astronomical Society in their Astrophysical Journal, titled: “Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle: Detection of the External Field Effect in Rotationally Supported Galaxies.”(92) In the research, they point out that:

“The Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) distinguishes General Relativity (GR) from other viable theories of gravity. The SEP demands that the internal dynamics of a self- gravitating system under freefall in an external gravitational field should not depend on the external field strength.” (92)

They used data from SPARC (Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves) together with estimates of the large-scale external gravitational field from an all-sky galaxy catalog. They found a number of things, but it can be summed up as follows:

“In this paper we provide observational evidence for the existence of the External Field Effect (or a phenomenon akin to it)… Our results suggest a breakdown of the Strong Equivalence Principle, supporting modified gravity theories beyond General Relativity… the internal dynamics of a gravitational system in freefall IS affected by a uniform external gravitational field.” (92)

Here are some of the currently accepted “tests” of relativity, which in all cases can be explained using the principles of How Everything Works – Occam’s Shaving Kit.

Perihelion precession of Mercury Gravity doesn’t exist, so this test of relativity is simply data regarding field strengths, frequencies, and compositions of the Sun and Mercury. It is considered a test because the actual observations don’t match the expected results using classic Newtonian physics, which 250 also include Gravity. Also, increasingly precise measurements have shown a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, far beyond the margin of error.

Deflection of light by the Sun, Gravitational redshift of light, and Gravitational lensing (Visual Doppler) These visual effects, while interesting, simply show the apparently correct measurements for the field strength and frequency relating to our Sun, and also to the particular celestial objects, ranging from atomic particles to larger bodies, “in the way”, and thus causing the bending of frequencies, including those of visible light, using known field theories, such as Interference (relating to wave propagation).

Interference is described as: “…a phenomenon in which two waves superpose to form a resultant wave of greater, lower, or the same amplitude.”

…and: “Interference effects can be observed with all types of waves, for example, light, radio, acoustic, surface water waves or matter waves.” (2)

…which is entirely understandable, given that the examples in the quote above, are all related to each other – just passing electrons – like everything.

Light travel time delay This test of relativity has been supposedly verified by different experiments. One that was met with great interest was the Cassini mission.

In brief, the spacecraft beamed a radio signal to Earth, and the signal “bent” around the Sun on the way.

Again, the bending of the signal simply provides more data about the field strength, etc. of the Sun and the interaction with 251 the frequency used for the radio signal.

This deflection and bending is related to “Bremsstrahlung,” or braking radiation, but using a different range of frequencies than visible light – radio.

Credit: NASA

The Equivalence Principle and other tests The concept that a falling body will follow a certain trajectory if it is small enough to not disturb the environment or is affected by tidal forces is most certainly true. Measurements have been conducted to prove the equivalence and other principles.

One important concept when considering various tests and experiments that confirm various theories is that, in most cases, they were carried out on the Earth - inside of the Earth’s Atomagnetic field.

In other words, a test that has been done to prove “Gravity” often really provides nothing more than local or regional data for the particular materials (fields/frequencies) involved. A classic example is the Cavendish experiment. If only Cavendish had told us specifically what the metals were in the orbs – then we’d have some valuable data. Just telling us they were globs of some type of metal is technically not very valuable.

Also, the new research quoted at the start of this section should give you pause.

Gravitational redshift / GPS Gravitational redshift should simply be re-named Visual Doppler, or keeping with the theme of this commentary - Atomagnetic redshift.

Some scientists claim that the 39,000 nanosecond correction made to GPS satellites prove 252 relativity, and others claim that since the correction only needs to be made once per day, with no other relativistic corrections, it is proof that relativity is wrong. I leave it up to the reader to investigate further.

Regardless, with fields and frequencies and no Gravity, this becomes clear, especially depending on the specific orbit of the satellite, its composition and altitude, etc.

Direct detection of Gravity waves No “Gravity” waves have ever been detected, regardless of the recent announcement. (they won’t be because they don’t exist) Now more detectors are being put into place to detect them, at a cost of Billions of dollars.

For more information, see the section “Gravitational Waves” in this commentary.

Note on Gravity and Atomagnetism: While there is no such thing as Gravity, the Atomagnetic field effect is, obviously, quite similar – since we have exhaustive physical/empirical evidence as to the effects – and the results comparing the two would be somewhat analogous to conducting a modern day full site Gravity test - taking into account specific densities and mass/volume calculations for effective or apparent Gravity instead of the generic “g” for Gravity. (FYI - this is the first thing done when architects and engineers are designing a very large building such as a skyscraper – they have to do a detailed “actual” Gravity study for their specific location, because they know it varies everywhere on the Earth.)

Since field studies will be in their infancy for some time, the observed values and variations for what we currently call Gravity will necessarily be continued in use, and in most cases, more than acceptable – as they have been for our history.

The Information Paradox “The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete 253 information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time.” (2)

This is not a test of relativity, but a major problem. According to some scientists, information cannot simply vanish. With the old viewpoint of a black hole being some type of hole in space, you can’t get around it. When you understand a black hole is not a hole at all, the “Information Paradox” becomes nothing but an old concept.

Quantum Entanglement with Black holes What happens to a particle that is in a state of quantum entanglement with another particle that has “fallen” into a black hole, from which nothing can escape?

This “problem” is again, no problem, as nothing has fallen into any “hole”, in the classic sense of the term. See the section on black holes for more information.

Bell’s Theorem / Bell Inequality Physicists will use the Bell Inequalities as a simple “out” when even considering what they refer to as a classical mechanical system. In its simplest form, it states:

“No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.” (76)

Simply put, they postulate that no mechanical system could ever account for “quantum entanglement.” Oops.

Some of the key words are “physical” and “local.”

Physical, in the meaning of a physicist, refer to traditional Gravity-based objects that are ordinarily not thought of as being things that interact, or communicate with each other. Two rocks might be thought of as an example.

Magnets would throw a slight scare into some, but they would quickly work out the math for 254 them and so they would be forgotten. Remember folks, only atoms that are next to other atoms other get “entangled” with each other, which is, like, every atom. (but scientists don’t want you to think about that at certain times :^)

Local, in the meaning of a physicist, refers to the Principle of Locality, which states: “…that an object is only directly influenced by its immediate surroundings.” (2)

This description of locality ties in many things covered in this commentary:

“The concept of locality is that, for an action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the space between the points, such as a field, must mediate the action. To exert an influence, something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the two points, to carry the influence.” (2)

As with things that some would think might disprove a theory such as this, the concepts of the Bell theorems, and also the Leggett-Garg Inequalities, simply re-enforce the ideas presented herein.

Everything spins and everything therefore has a frequency and an associated field. This includes the sub-atomic, and so includes things “faster than the speed of light” or what people now colloquialize as Quantum Tunneling or Quantum Entanglement. See all chapters herein for reference.

On a fun sidenote, Lawrence Berkeley particle physicist Henry Stapp declared:

“Bell’s theorem is the most profound discovery of science.” (77)

It is rather amazing that a theorem that has: saved no lives, led to no more energy production, not helped with food production or the water supply problems, and hasn’t led to any new

scientific discoveries of any kind in any way is considered by a physicist to be the most profound discovery of science. It IS Absolutely AMAzing.

So how could it be such a great “discovery?” Oh… that’s right. It’s a quick “panacea” to anyone proposing anything other than their nonsense in any area of study. 255

That’s why they think it’s great – it theoretically supports their religious, err… scientific belief system.

In fact, in a recent study which included researchers from the University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences, scientists addressed a loophole in tests of Bell’s inequality using light from stars. They said this in conclusion:

“We find answers consistent with quantum mechanics to an enormously strong degree, and enormously out of whack with an Einstein-like prediction.” (78)

In other words, a MECHANICAL solution works, but Einstein’s fantasy world falls apart.

SU PRIZE :^)

Simple “Thought Experiment” About Bending Space and Time

In the enormous area covered around the Sun, space itself has “bent” according to Einstein.

That means that One cubic yard of nothingness in deep space will not be One cubic yard of 256 nothingness when it’s near the Sun or Earth (or within their influence). Again, it will have “squished” or “bent.”

In other words, space near mass is technically non-Euclidian, which is one problem a lot of physicists have with the ‘stein man, anyway.

Assuming that Einstein is correct, then account for this:

How can a computer, with nanometer (billionths of an inch) sized components such as memory and processor chips, designed and constructed on the Earth – deep within “bent” or “squished” space – still function when they have moved to an area with little or no “bend” or “squish” such as deep space?

They were designed and built in a place where one cubic yard is supposedly much different in shape than the one cubic yard they would encounter in outer (deep) space. (i.e. 1 inch won’t equal 1 inch)

Even regular old macro-scale mechanical items like hoses and fittings and such would be “unbent” and would have leakages and may not even work. Windows that were “round” would find that they weren’t perfectly round when space itself changed.

To imagine that the effect of the Sun and the Earth combined on this “bent” space was so little that a computer chip with millions of incredibly small components and connections was unaffected, would tell you that the “bending” effect of whatever Einstein was trying to say was incredibly small.

Physicists way “out” for this is to say that space bends around mass, so the mass would be unaffected. That’s not really worthy of any comment. Foolhardiness, to be polite. If 1 square inch of highly dense matter occupies of course 1 square inch of space, and that 1 square inch of

space is “bent” so it’s no longer 1 square inch of space, then either the matter “bent” with the space, or it’s quite literally “sticking out” of the now bent space.

I realize people like to have a mental image of an object in deep space and “visualize” the space bending around it, but just go back a sentence to re-think that. 257

Now, imagine the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, launched in 1973 and 1974, or the Voyager probes, launched in 1977.

Both sets of missions have now entered Interstellar Space.

They are in the Interstellar Medium (ISM), a region of deep space beyond the influence of the Solar System (according to Wikipedia, and also NASA).

However, they were constructed in “bent” space, with some components requiring Billionths of an Inch tolerance in manufacturing in order to function (such as logic gates, memory arrays, and processors on computer chips), and numerous other components requiring incredibly specific tolerances of Tens or Hundreds of Thousandths of an Inch (such as hoses) or they might fail – possibly leading to an explosion, on the micro or macro level.

Then they traveled to where Space isn’t bent anymore. (i.e. What used to be a cubic yard isn’t a cubic yard anymore.)

Also, according to Einstein, Time bends with Gravity effects. (i.e. They were designed and constructed in ‘bent’ time – so :01 Seconds to them isn’t :01 Seconds anymore.)

Again, the computers in systems require timing to Billionths of seconds, so to have gone from a “bent” time area to a non-bent time area would ensure the failure of the computer chips and systems, over time if nothing else.

The Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft still work.

Wake Up: Space Doesn’t Bend, and Neither Does Time.

APPENDIX D - Gravitational Waves

This section has been added due to the announcement indicating that our scientific community 258 has conclusively found and proven that Gravity exists by finding the ripples or waves caused by two black holes merging.

When discussing if the waves detected by LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) were those of “Gravity,” the lead researcher states: “…and we’ve convinced ourselves that is the case.”

The youtube link to the announcement is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEPIwEJmZyE

For the layperson reading this commentary, finding some type of proof of the existence of what we call Gravity is extremely important because scientists have been searching for it and have never found it. (they can’t because it doesn’t exist, but that’s covered elsewhere)

Without going into more lengthy boring details, if the scientific community didn’t “find” Gravity, then it ultimately means that they have wasted their entire computational and creative lives essentially for nothing – chasing a rabbit down a rabbit-hole. That’s why I always think of Alice in Wonderland when I think of the theoretical physics community.

When watching the announcement, remember that the scientist speaking as well as all his colleagues have a direct and vested interest in the outcome. They have jobs that pay them for their current belief system and their ability to navigate the nuances of the formulae and constants and fine-tuning of said system – which constantly conflicts with observations.

They have degrees, often Doctorates, that they received from others similarly schooled in the system, and are often beholden to them for their advancement, professionally or personally.

As a Tolstoy quote on one of my websites discusses, these very scientists who have looked down on others for not understanding how space and time “bend” and all the other fantastical creations designed to bend a broken concept to fit what we can now see. They have written

papers and given lectures, spent hours belittling students, and preparing their speeches for cameras and the media, as well as having Champagne readily available for their discoveries. - By the way, people who truly discover new things NEVER, EVER even vaguely think in any way about having Champagne available for when they find/learn something… but physicists always seem have it on hand to toast their “discoveries.” 259

So, if they said they didn’t find Gravity waves, then they would lose their jobs, their professional respect, perhaps family and other personal relationships, and the intelligent ones would lose their self-worth for never having questioned anything in their education.

Or, they could: “convince themselves that is the case” and go on with their lives, enjoy the media blitz and semi-fame, and get even more continued funding.

It does not take a “genius” or a “rocket-scientist” to tell you what they would find, when you really know what was on the line, at least as far as they were concerned.

However, those scientists forgot that our continued observations negate their statement, and as we continue with more observations, they will be completely forgotten as a false claim, somewhat like other gravitational wave or Gravity announcements in the past like BICEP2.

The first problems popped up almost immediately as Gamma Ray Bursts were detected coming from the same location as where the two colliding black holes caused the “Gravity waves.” Gamma Ray Bursts can’t be caused by two holes in space colliding, as we know that it takes a huge amount of matter to create them. Articles about these Gamma Ray Bursts can be found here: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=12216 http://www.hngn.com/articles/197364/20160419/gamma-ray-bursts-gravitational-waves-newly- detected-x-rays-ligo-black-hole-merger.htm

Additional research is needed, because this was only the first observation of the two events together. Additional research is also needed, because under the current model, a great amount

of what they would call physical mass has to interact to create a Gamma Ray Burst, and since they think that a black hole is a hole… it just doesn’t work. In short, conclusions will have to be made that the data is false or their model is.

I just read an article about the sigma rating and that this research has only a 0.22% chance of 260 NOT being accurate – or 1 out of 454. The author said that means scientifically that it is essentially false. I wonder what his degree is in? Oh, that’s right, it must be physics, because it couldn’t be math, or statistics, or accounting, or engineering, or any other discipline. THEY would advise you that if the odds that something is right are 99.78%, then you should probably go with that. Sounds pretty good. Especially when the other guy is telling you that since he has a Zero Point two two (0.22%) chance of being right, you should listen to him because he MUST be right. It’s rather comical, in a way... then, rather sad.

Here’s the article link where he says that NASA’s Fermi group is probably wrong because the data only says they only have a 99.78% of being right. To say “It’s Rich” would be a wonderful understatement. Get ready to smile: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/19/99-8-wrong-how-nasas-fermi- scientists-are-fooling-themselves-about-gamma-rays-from-black-holes/#78d22a6c428e

Amusingly enough, as mentioned in this commentary, NASA believes the Universe is flat, with only a 0.4% chance of being wrong, and every single scientist - and I do mean every single one, jumped on the boat so fast it hurt. But – if something comes along with a higher probability that conflicts with their thoughts – well, it must be garbage and fantasy and data error. Funny stuff, except when you remember they get paid actual money.

Additionally, visible light has been detected coming out of black holes. In the traditional model, this is impossible. See the article here: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/06/visible-light-black-holes-detected-for-first- time-v404-cygni

Again, each new observation will simply show that they observed a wave – not a “gravitational” wave, and that such a wave would be completely expected in the model discussed in this commentary. Since a black hole is simply a sub-atomic mass (similar to a neutron star) it of

course does have great mass and is easily able to create the Gamma Rays discovered, as well as the other ones throughout the Universes.

In fact, a binary black hole system is just about as good as it gets for making Gamma Ray Bursts. Actually, binary neutron stars or various collapsed dwarfs would have similar effects as 261 far as “Gravity wave” researchers are concerned. Since many know the metaphor that if you are a hammer, the World looks like a nail – these researchers will be thrilled sometimes, and disconcerted at others, when they find “Gravity” waves and emanations all the time. They’ll be happy when these observations confirm their “hammer,” and unhappy when either they don’t, or other simultaneous observations negate them completely.

Regardless, researchers and scientists who were so gleeful to announce they had found Gravity waves would still have to tell you (if they thought about it) that by “discovering” “proof” of “Gravity” they are exactly where they were before.

Remember, they already believed in Gravity. This would simply prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are lost, as any physicist can elaborate on the problems that Gravity causes in virtually everything they do.

They offer no new science – no new math or formulae. All that has technically changed is their own personal belief system. (unfortunately now, because of their fervor for self-gratification and the media blitz, they have polluted additional millions of minds)

Simply put: All the problems and anomalies in science caused by Gravity are unchanged by their “revelations” and still exist to their full and irritating effect(s).

I laugh, because it is analogous to having someone wandering around lost in the woods and dropping down to them from a helicopter with an official license that says “Lost” and handing it to them before being pulled up and away by the ‘copter. Thank you for the official card. Now that lost person KNOWS they’re lost. Before that moment, they just suspected it strongly. Thank goodness for the scientific community pitching in to get that card to them. (quick – turn it over… maybe there’s a map on the back…no? Oh. Still lost.)

In fact, here’s a recent update:

“It was hailed as an elegant confirmation of Einstein’s general theory of relativity – but ironically the discovery of gravitational waves earlier this year could herald the first evidence that the theory breaks down at the edge of black holes. Physicists have analyzed the publicly released data from the Laser Interferometer 262 Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), and claim to have found ‘echoes’ of the waves that seem to contradict general relativity’s predictions.” (79)

APPENDIX E – Gravity:Emergent Phenomenon

263 After the “Gravitational Waves” fake out, (coinciding with nothing new found at CERN) physicists have continued to search for some explanation for the effect referred to as “Gravity.”

In his theory, discussed in “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”, Erik Verlinde states that:

“Gravity has given many hints of being an emergent phenomenon, yet up to this day it is still seen as a fundamental force. The similarities with other known emergent phenomena, such as thermodynamics and hydrodynamics, have been mostly regarded as just suggestive analogies. It is time we not only notice the analogy, and talk about the similarity, but finally do away with gravity as a fundamental force.” (80)

Verlinde’s work is excellent, but the underlying assumptions have no supporting mechanism or reason for their behavior. He uses the holographic universe idea as a framework to explain the emergence of gravity, but just indicates this is because of “an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies.” (80)

In many regards, his ideas are accurate, when consideration of topology in atoms and molecules are kept in mind – as they could be considered relatives. Speaking of that word, that’s where Verlinde tends to fail, because of the traditional need to placate Relativity.

Hence, Verlinde’s theory becomes fully compatible, as he says, with String theory. The problem is that String theory is also fundamentally incorrect – so being compatible or working with it is irrelevant.

However, the idea of Gravity being an “emergent phenomenon” which is considered something that is a result of micro level interactions working together to “create” macro level interactions is of great value – since that’s exactly what is taught here.

264 Simply put: Gravity is just the combination of charge effects of individual quarks, atoms, molecules, and systems.

Again, the formula for Gravity and that of Electromagnetism is the same.

APPENDIX F - MoND

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) is a theory also known as modified gravity. It assumes there are errors in our assumptions about gravity, and came about at the same approximate 265 time as Dark Matter as another explanation for the Galaxy Rotation problems.

Like pure Newtonian and Einsteinian thought, it depends on the Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP). In an International study published in 2020, a team of researchers tested the SEP by looking at the kinematics of Galaxies. They used the Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves (SPARC) and other data in their research. Below are some quotes directly from their work: “Our results point to a breakdown of the Strong Equivalence Principle, supporting modified gravity theories beyond General Relativity.”

“In this paper we provide observational evidence for the existence of the EFE (or a phenomenon akin to it)”

Now, to be honest, they who wrote that paper are technically defending the MoND point of view, but that point of view is not accepted by many physicists for a variety of reasons. One example can be found in an International study published in 2019 also looking at Galaxy Rotation.

They found that the largest Galaxies spin more than twice as fast as the Milky Way Galaxy – in fact almost three times as fast. The problem with that is:

“…MoND cannot account for the observed rotational speeds of super spirals, which suggests no non-Newtonian dynamics are required.” (92)

“What’s more, the team found that super spirals and rotational speed vastly exceeded the mass of their constituent stars, gas, and dust. This…would suggest that dark matter is responsible.” (93)

Another team of researchers looked for the effects the dark matter from the path of a dwarf galaxy called Sagittarius, which merged or fell into our galaxy more than 3 billion years ago. As they found:

“This would in fact support the cold, dark matter models of galaxy formation and 266 rule out MoND” (96)

In another study, looking for Dark Matter in the Milky Way, they found no need to have a Dark Matter component, which is mentioned in that section of this commentary. But for this section, it’s important to note:

“Yet while the research may show a lack of our understanding of dark matter, the team also notes that it is even more devastating for dark matter’s largest rival. While dark matter may yet hide within the error bars in this study, the findings directly contradict the predictions of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). This hypothesis predicts the apparent gain of mass due to a scaling effect on gravity itself and would have required that the supposed mass at the scales observed be 60% higher than indicated by this study.” (95)

APPENDIX G – Reactionless Drive

267 There has been great excitement and argument about what is referred to (incorrectly) as a reactionless drive. The basic idea is that you use electricity to create thrust in outer space.

Credit: Ray Shawyer

However, since our current ideas of physics expect a certain amount of mass or matter to be “burnt up” or used in a chemical-type reaction, the thought of simple electrons going out the back of something seems counterintuitive.

When you actually understand what’s going on, you see that the current methodology of “burning” or chemical reaction is exactly the same thing, just on a much grander scale. (with lots and lots of liberated electrons available)

Of course shooting electrons out the back of something “propels” it, with the electrons pushing against whatever the medium(s) may be.

Exactly the same thing happens with the reactionless drive – it shoots electrons and causes a very, very small amount of propulsion.

Less electrons shooting out the back equals less propulsion, for the engineers out there.

268 It’s rather simple, and surprising that the “scientific” community shows any disbelief and amazement at all, let alone their fear of the total collapse of their old ideas. (Which is coming one way or the other:^)

Again, ACTUAL scientists, not having a primary goal of placating their predecessors, and instead having the goal of learning, would instead be fascinated by it and pursue research… just like the Chinese did. I understand the Chinese currently have a fleet of satellites using the technology for position keeping and other low thrust needs, not to mention the quantum communications. (in general, you’ll find Eastern minds clearer than Western minds, especially relating to anything Einsteinian)

APPENDIX H - Perpetual Motion

Sometimes, when many people (and physicists) look at and consider the ideas and concepts 269 represented by The John Device, they say: “So, you’re saying this can make more power than it uses? That’s impossible – that’s perpetual motion, and we know you can’t do that.”

I also find it interesting that major scientific organizations are currently spending Billions and Billions of Dollars PER YEAR working on Fusion powered systems. You know – closed systems that will purportedly make more power than they use, which violates EVERY known law of physics. In fact, I usually point out that physicists could lecture for days about the fact that you can never get more power out of a closed system than you put in. In English, that says a physicist could lecture for days about the fact that fusion power can NOT work as a power solution. Period.

That’s good to know.

So, people believe open systems like an Atom or The John Device, which SPECIFICALLY interact with their environment can’t make power; but, closed systems that don’t interact with their environment -like a fusion reactor- can?

I used to think that a Windmill, for example, actually produced power, and didn’t consume a huge amount of power in the process.

Oh, that’s right, it does.

It’s powered by the Wind – a force.

But you can’t even see the Wind – so how could it power something?

So you mean to tell me that something I can’t see put pressure on the blades somehow and makes them turn, which can then be connected to a generator to make power?

The real problem isn’t using force to make something turn or rotate.

The problem is related to extracting power from linear, non-oscillating force, and that’s where CVRP, or Continuously Variable Rotating Plane, technology comes in.

270 As discussed in this commentary and also on websites, the CVRP tech allows one to rotate whatever amount of “mass” for almost no power. If you attempt to do that with a straight shaft, like a flywheel, you will need the standard, easily calculable amount of power to do so. Beyond that, the various definitions of “Perpetual Motion” are examined below:

From Merriam-Webster:

“: a device inherently impossible under the law of conservation of energy that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from external sources. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.”

From thefreedictionary.com:

“n. The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source.”

From Wikipedia: “Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source.”

- The John Device is an open system and requires two sustaining energy sources.

A) It is driven by a motor (or it will come to a stop), and B) Only works in a “Gravity” well, which is one part of the potential energy available. (the other part is the amount of mass rotating)

Classification

One classification of perpetual motion machines refers to the particular law of thermodynamics the machines purport to violate:

• “A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of 271 energy.” (2)

- Discussed above.

• “A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.” (2)

• “A perpetual motion machine of the third kind is usually (but not always) defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). (Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics.) It is impossible to make such a machine, as dissipation can never be completely eliminated in a mechanical system, no matter how close a system gets to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section).” (2)

- Neither of these laws apply.

In the case of the second law – people often use the 2nd law as an overriding statement regarding “perpetual motion” machines, which technically – as it says – only relates to machines converting thermal energy. (or excess electrons)

In the case of the third law – no attempts have been made to reduce any friction in the Proof Of Concept model of The John Device. The system has no bearings or any sophisticated (or even simple) methodology to reduce friction. In fact, if it was run for an extended period of time, the metal of the torque shaft would eventually grind its’ way through the metal base it’s sitting on. 272

Even so, as shown on The Impossible Video (and others), the system is able to rotate mass with far less Wattage than can be ordinarily calculated.

If it was finely built with a magnetic floating base and magnetic “gears” it would be able to rotate the masses shown for a fraction of the already incredibly low amount of Watts required. (Similar to how Atoms work.)

The CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) and the frame architecture allows for this ability, which is remarkably similar to the operation of atomic, astrophysical, and other objects.

Entropy

The Merriam Webster 2a definition is a simple one without the physics terms:

“The degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.”

That won’t be happening. Sorry.

The Universe is a DRIVEN system.

Just like The John Device and its’ children.

Entropy is also funny, because if you look around, you might see things that grow.

Oops.

Things would never “grow” if Entropy was in play.

The Universe is expanding – and that’s just one example of the failure of “Entropy.”

It’s really become a term people use to try and dissuade others from actual research. 273

Laws of Thermodynamics

First Law

From Wikipedia:

“The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.” (2)

This “law” has the same flaw as many of the topics regarding perpetual motion in that it assumes that the Universe is a closed system.

By the principles of HEW, the Black Hole at the center of the known universe must be “powered” by what is the universal equivalent of what we call the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), but at the increasingly higher frequencies associated with sub-atomic and sub-sub- atomic (and beyond) particles.

The Universe, and also our galaxy, solar system, and planet, are not part of a “closed system” and are not slowing down to a uniform state.

Therefore, this law, and also the law regarding the conservation of energy are irrelevant.

However, to discuss the Law of conservation of energy:

The law of conservation of energy is one of the basic laws of physics and therefore governs the microscopic motion of individual atoms in a chemical reaction. 274 The law of conservation energy states:

“In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total energy of the system is conserved.“ (81)

The John Device is not in a “closed” system, isolated from its surroundings.

Quite the opposite, in fact, as it specifically does interact with its “surroundings,” with the examples shown using what is traditionally referred to as the force of Gravity providing the force for the interaction.

Second Law

From Wikipedia:

“The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.” (2)

This “law” has the same flaws stated above regarding a closed system. Also, if the reader uses an Internet search engine and looks up “Physics 2nd law violations” and other terms like that, they will find numerous articles and research indicating that the Second Law can in fact be “broken.”

This “law” also relates to proof of the arrow of time. As stated in HEW, time flows and is immutable. It doesn’t “change” or “bend” in the “presence of mass.” It is. Period.

Since all particles in the Universes are going ‘round and ‘round, there’s no way to “go back” to an earlier state. If you time-traveled back, all the miscellaneous things that construct “you” 275 wouldn’t even be in you. Food you ate, things you drank, life experiences, all changing your field – and all coming from disparate sources located all over the World, and you receive electrons and neutrinos by the billions every second from the Sun and who knows what else…

There’s no going “back.”

Third Law

From Wikipedia:

“The third law of thermodynamics is sometimes stated as follows, regarding the properties of systems in equilibrium at absolute zero temperature: The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly equal to zero.” (2)

And also from Wikipedia:

“In simple terms, the third law states that the entropy of a perfect crystal of a pure substance approaches zero as the temperature approaches zero. The alignment of a perfect crystal leaves no ambiguity as to the location and orientation of each part of the crystal. As the energy of the crystal is reduced, the vibrations of the individual atoms are reduced to nothing, and the crystal becomes the same everywhere.” (2)

This “law” is full of confusion.

Nothing can ever naturally reach absolute zero.

It requires an expenditure of energy, like laser cooling, to attempt to stop spin by continually “hitting” an electron as it goes around with a carefully pulsed light (or electron).

Just think of The John Device going around and you keep hitting one of the weights to stop it. It will stop if you hit it right. But, since it is a DRIVEN system, it will shortly begin rotating again. 276 This happens to be EXACTLY what is going on when scientists laser-cool atoms.

They have to continuously hit the electrons, because they just start spinning again. Again, that’s why in various scientific articles, you’ll see different groups of scientists getting closer to “absolute zero” but just not quite getting there for an appreciable amount of time.

Actually, they are “getting there” for however many trillionths of a second that the weight, or electron is fully “stopped” before starting its’ journey “downhill” again – they just don’t know it.

Technically, this relates to Everything, but there is other research that also directly relates to these various laws. An article discussing this research is entitled: “Test of zero-point energy emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities”(86) and the abstract from the article is quite interesting:

“A recently issued patent describes a method by which vacuum energy is extracted from gas flowing through a Casimir cavity. According to stochastic electrodynamics, the electronic orbitals in atoms are supported by the ambient zero-point (ZP) field. When the gas atoms are pumped into a Casimir cavity, where long-wavelength ZP field modes are excluded, the electrons spin down into lower energy orbitals and release energy in the process. This energy is collected in a local absorber. When the electrons exit the Casimir cavity they are re-energized to their original orbitals by the ambient ZP fields. The process is repeated to produce continuous power. In this way, the device functions like a heat pump for ZP energy, extracting it globally from the electromagnetic quantum vacuum and collecting it in a local absorber. This energy can be used for heating, or converted to electric power.“ (82)

To summarize the research:

- They have a tube full of gas. - They circulate the gas around the tube. - At one point in the tube, they have a device that “extracts” electrons from the gas. - The gas exits the “electron absorber” and travels around the remaining diameter of the tube, which has no such absorber. 277 - When the gas atoms have circulated around and re-enter the electron absorber, they, for some reason :^), are “re-charged” and now have electrons available for the absorber.

The reason is directly related to Zero Point Energy, the CMBR, The John Device, CVRP, and How Everything Works, in case you don’t know it by now.

Angular Momentum – Conservation of Angular Momentum

Conservation follows mathematically from isotropy, or continuous directional symmetry of space, that is, no direction in space is any different from any other direction.

Conservation is on a closed system concept, which requires that no external influence, in the form of a torque, acts upon it.

The Universe, as discussed is Anisotropic and also shows Isotropy in some respects.

The Universe is not, as discussed, a closed system.

The exact same concepts that spin Galaxies and Atoms spin The John Device.

References

1. David W. John, The Impossible Video, as of this writing, this information may be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_saRaWSl_Cw

Above video and Other youtube videos about The John Device, as of this writing, this information may be 278 found at: https://www.youtube.com/user/davidwjohn/videos

The John Device website, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://www.TheJohnDevice.com

Torque-Incorporated website, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://www.Torque-Incorporated.com

2. Various Wikipedia resources available on the Internet at www.wikipedia.com.

("Earth precession" by NASA, Mysid - Vectorized by Mysid in Inkscape after a NASA Earth Observatory image in Milutin Milankovitch Precession.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_precession.svg#/media/File:Earth_precession.svg)

("Präzession2" by Yamavu (talk) - Own work. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pr%C3%A4zession2.png#/media/File:Pr%C3%A4zession2.png)

"Paperclip floating on water (with 'contour lines')" by © Robert D. Anderson - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - as of this writing, this information may be found at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paperclip_floating_on_water_(with_%27contour_lines%27).jpg#/ media/File:Paperclip_floating_on_water_(with_%27contour_lines%27).jpg

3. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Feynman, Leighton, Sands, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/, presented by Caltech's Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy and The Feynman Lectures Website

4. “Cargo Cult Science”, Feynman, R.P., Caltech Commencement Address, 1974, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

5. “New Map Shows the Motion of all the Galaxies in Our Supercluster”, 2017, UniverseToday online, Williams, M., as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.universetoday.com/138055/new-map-shows-motion-galaxies-supercluster/amp/ And also at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster.html 279

6. “On a Dynamical Top, for exhibiting the phenomena of the motion of a system of invariable form about a fixed point, with some suggestions as to the Earth’s motion”, read April 20, 1857, Maxwell, J. C., From the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. XXI. Part IV, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5192/5192- pdf.pdf?session_id=05633359591b6353978ef2f714abe37ad85004ca

7. “’It’s back to the drawing board…’ Innocent axions found not guilty of dark matter crimes”, November 16, 2017, Quach, K., The Register UK, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/16/dark_matter_axions/

8. CERN Home Website: https://home.cern/

9. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I, Ch. 7: The Theory of Gravitation, as of this writing, this information can be found in numerous locations, but also is available at: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_07.html

10. “Precision Measurement of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant Using Cold Atoms”, December 26, 2014, Rosi, G., Sorrentino, F., Cacciapuoti, L., Prevedelli, M., Tino, G.M., as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7954

11. “Lawbreaking Particles May Point to a Previously Unknown Force in the Universe”, July 17, 2017, Dunietz, J., Scientific American, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lawbreaking-particles-may-point-to-a-previously-unknown- force-in-the-universe/

12. HYPERPHYSICS, Hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/waal.html

13. UC Davis Chemwiki, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Intermolecular_Forces/Lo ndon_Dispersion_Interactions

14. “Molecular Structure Description – The Electrotopological State”, Kier, L., Hall, L., 1999, Academic Press, London, UK. 280

15. The 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2016/

16. “Van der Waals force re-measured: Physicists verify nonlinear increase with growing molecular size”, November 26, 2014, Juelich, F., as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2014-11-van-der-waals-re-measured-physicists.html

17. “SOLAR ECLIPSE ANOMALIES AND WAVE REFRACTION”, MacLeod, A., University of the Highlands and Islands, Lewis Castle College, UK, as of this writing, this information may be found at: [email protected].

18. “In the quantum world, identity is a hazy concept”, February 27, 2017, O’Connell, C., as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/in-the-quantum- world-identity-is-a-hazy-concept

19. “There are many ways to spin a photon: Half-quantization of total optical angular momentum", Ballantine, K.E., Donegan, J.F., Eastham, P.R., ScienceAdvances, (April, 2016), 2, doi:10.1126/scieadv.1501748

20. “QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter”, Feynman, R., 1988, Princeton University Press.

21. “Light drives single-molecule 3-wheelers”, November 4, 2016, Rice University, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-single-molecule-wheelers.html

22. “Topologically enabled optical nanomotors”, June 30, 2017, Science Advances, Ilic, O., Kaminer, I., Zhen, B., Miller, O., Buljan, H., Solja, M., as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1602738

23. “What exactly is the ‘spin’ of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons? Does it have any physical significance, analogous to the spin of a planet?”, Scientific American, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/

24. “Spinning electrons open the door to future hybrid electronics”, June 20, 2017, Phys.org, as or this writing, this information can be found at:: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-electrons-door-future-hybrid- 281 electronics.html

25. “A sea of spinning electrons: Discovery could spawn a wave of new electronic devices”, October 2, 2017, Phys.org, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-sea- electrons-discovery-spawn-electronic.html

26. “Spin current detection in quantum materials unlocks potential for alternative electronics”, October 13, 2017, Phys.org, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10- current-quantum-materials-potential-alternative.html

27. “Direct Experimental Evidence of the Subtle Changes in Electron Orbitals”, February 14, 2014, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://scitechdaily.com/direct-experimental-evidence-suble- changes-electron-orbitals/

28. “Scientists Ponder Universe’s Missing Antimatter”, Roach, J., National Geographic News, July 6, 2005, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0706_050706_antimatter.html

29. “CERN experiment takes us one step closer to discovering where all the antimatter went”, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, June 6, 2014, 2016, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/06/cern-experiment-takes-us-one-step-closer-to-discovering- where-all-the-antimatter-went

30. “CERN Observes The First Ever Detailed Light Spectrum Of Anti-Hydrogen, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, June 6, 2014, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/12/alpha-observes-light-spectrum-antimatter-first-time

31. “A Universe Of Antimatter”, Koberlein, B., November 24, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://briankoberlein.com/2017/11/24/a-universe-of-antimatter/

32. “Antimatter Angst: The Universe Shouldn’t Exist”, AstroEngine, O’neill, I., October 24, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://astroengine.com/2017/10/24/antimatter-angst-the- universe-shouldnt-exist/

33. “BURNING RINGS OF FIRE”, Polchinski, J., Scientific American, April, 2015, p. 37-41. 282 34. “First Evidence Black Holes Regulate Star Formation in Massive Galaxies”, SciTechDaily, January 31, 2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://scitechdaily.com/first-evidence-black- holes-regulate-star-formation-in-massive-galaxies/

35. Science Daily, January, 2013, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130103113846.htm

36. “Dark Matter and Dark Energy Might Not Exist – Potentially Forcing a Rethink of Our Understanding of the Entire Universe.”, December 1, 2017, Yahoo News, originally published on The Conversation, Pimbblet, K., as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/dark- matter-dark-energy-might-131803089.html

37. “MYSTERY OF THE HIDDEN COSMOS”, Dobrescu, B.A., Lincoln, D., Scientific American, July, 2015, p. 34

38. “Rotating Galaxies Could Prove Dark Matter Wrong”, Forbes, Forbes.com, Koberlein, B., September 23, 2016, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/09/23/rotating-galaxies-could-prove-dark-matter- wrong/#1b612b212037

39. “Satellite galaxies of Centaurus A defy dark-matter model”, Physicsworld, Wogan, T., February 1, 2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2018/feb/01/satellite-galaxies-of-centaurus-a-defy-dark-matter- model

40. “Distant galaxy group contradicts common cosmological models, simulations”, Phys.org, February 1, 2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-distant-galaxy- group-contradicts-common.html

41. “How crashing neutron stars killed off some of our best ideas about what ‘dark energy’ is”, Phys.org, December 13, 2017, Kitching, T., as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-neutron-stars-ideas-dark-energy.html

42. “Do dark matter and dark energy exist?”, November 23, 2017, Phys.org, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-energy.html 283

43. “Dancing Dwarf Galaxies Deepen Dark Matter Mystery”, Stirione, J., Scientific American, February 1, 2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dancing-dwarf-galaxies-deepen-dark-matter-mystery/

44. “The neutrino turns 60”, Symmetry magazine, June, 2016, as of this writing, this information may be found at:http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-neutrino-turns-60

45. The Nobel Prize in Physics, 2015, as of this writing, this information may be found at: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/press.html

46. “Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges”, Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P., Loeb, A., February 1, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic- inflation-theory-faces-challenges/

47. “Pop Goes The Universe Discussion”, Princeton, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://physics.princeton.edu/~cosmo/sciam/index.html#faq

48. NASA, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-s-hubble-finds-giant-halo-around-the-andromeda-galaxy

49. “Clock Time Is Absolute and Universal”, August, 2015, Shen, X., NAC Geographic Products, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297528348_Clock_Time_Is_Absolute_and_Universal

50. “This Discovery Could Help Us Regenerate Body Parts One Day”, September 9, 2016, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://www.gereports.com/this-discovery-could-help-us- regenerate-body-parts-one-day/

51. “ENERGETICS AND FORCES IN LIVING CELLS”, Dunn, A.R., Price, A., Physics Today 68, 2, 27 (2015), as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2686

52. “Highly charged molecules behave paradoxically”, Lund University, November 23, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171123095322.htm

53. “Geometry plays an important role in how cells behave, researchers report”, Sundermier, A., Lerner, 284 E., Phys.org, October 25, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-geometry-important-role-cells.html

54. “Curved substrates restrict spreading and induce differentiation of stem cells”, Lowenstein, A., Florida Institute of Technology, September 6, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-substrates-restrict-differentiation-stem-cells.html#nRlv

55. “The Body Electrician”, Piore, A., Popular Science, Jan/Feb, 2017, p.64-68, 92.

56. “Researchers reveal bioelectric patterns guiding worms’ regenerative body plan after injury”, Tufts University, May 23, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/tu-rrb051717.php

57. “Scientists develop ‘lab on a chip’ that costs one cent to make”, February 6, 2017, Phys.org, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-scientists-lab-chip-cent.html It is also referenced as being found at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1621318114

58. “Researchers develop technique that could detect explosives, dangerous gases rapidly and remotely”, September 29, 2017, Sherburne, M., University of Michigan, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/print425887032.html

59. “Targeting cancer cells by measuring electric currents”, December 8, 2017, Phys.org, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/print431943411.html

60. Wired Magazine, May, 2015, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://www.wired.com/2016/05/simple-yes-simpe-guide-quantum-entanglement

61. “A single photon reveals quantum entanglement of 16 million atoms”, University of Geneva, October 13, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-photon- reveals-quantum-entanglement-million.html

62. “Experiment demonstrates quantum mechanical effects from biological system”, December 5, 2017, Northwestern University, as of this writing this information can be found at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171205130106.htm

63. HUMAN PERCEPTION OF GRAVITY. April, 2011, PLoS ONE. 285 64. The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2014/

65. “A watershed moment in understanding how H2O conducts electricity, December 1, 2016, Shelton, J., Yale News, as of this writing this information can be found at: http://news.yale.edu/2016/12/01/watershed-moment-understanding-how-h2o-conducts-electricity

66. “Researchers develop magnetic switch to turn on and off a strange quantum property”, May 25, 2017, Phys.org/NIST, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/print414929010.html This article can be found on the NIST website:https://www.nist.gov/news- events/news/2017/05/researchers-develop-magnetic-switch-turn-and-strange-quantum-property

67. “The Glue That Binds Us”, Ent, R., Ulrich, T., Venugopalan, R., Scientific American, May, 2015, as of this writing, this information can be found on the Brookhaven National Laboratory website at: https://www.bnl.gov/physics/NTG/linkable_files/pdf/SciAm-Glue-Final.pdf

68. “With laser light, scientists create first X-ray holographic images of viruses”, Solliday, A., Phys.org, March 8, 2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-laser- scientists-x-ray-holographic-images.html

69. “New g-2 Measurement Deviates Further From Standard Model”, Brookhaven National Laboratory, January 8, 2004, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2004/bnlpr010804.htm

70. “THE ‘ALLAIS EFFECT’ AND MY EXPERIMENTS WITH THE PARACONICAL PENDULUM”, Allais, M., 1954-1960, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

71. “Juno Isn’t Exactly Where it’s Supposed To Be. The Flyby Anomaly is Back, But Why Does it Happen?”, Williams, M., Universe Today, December 1, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.universetoday.com/137984/juno-isnt-exactly-supposed-flyby-anomaly-back-happen/

72. “Improved Hubble yardstick gives fresh evidence for new physics in the universe”, Weaver, D., NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Phys.org, February 22, 2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hubble-yardstick-fresh-evidence-physics.html

73. “ACTION DYNAMICS OF THE LOCAL SUPERCLUSTER”, Shaya, E.J., Tully, R.B., Hoffman, Y., 286 Pomarede, D., Phys.org, October 27, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08935

74. FAST, REPEATABLE CLUMPING OF SOLID PARTICLES IN MICROGRAVITY. S. G. Love and D. R. Pettit, Mail Code CB, NASA – Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Road 1, Houston, TX 77058, [email protected], [email protected].

75. “Bacteria get dangerously weird in space”, Love, S., The Washington Post, October 25, 2016, as of this writing, this information may be found at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your- health/wp/2016/10/25/bacteria-get-dangerously-weird-in-space/?utm_term=.b7cfbc234028

76. C.B. Parker (1994) McGraw-Hill Enclyclopedia of Physics (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, P. 542, ISBN 0-07- 051400-3.

77. “Bells Theorem and World Process”, Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 29B, No. 2, P. 270 (1975).

78. “Physicists address loophole in tests of Bell’s inequality using 600-year-old starlight”, Chu, J., February 7, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02- physicists-loophole-bell-inequality-year-old.html

79. “LIGO black hole echoes hint at general-relativity breakdown”, Merali, Z., Nature News, December 9, 2016, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://www.nature.com/news/ligo-black-hole- echoes-hint-at-general-relativity-breakdown-1.21135

80. “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”, Verlinde, E., arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010, as of this writing, this information may be found at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785.pdf

81. “Mark Tuckerman Physics Lectures”, Tuckerman, M., Drakos, N., Moore, R., as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node4.html

82. “Test of zero-point energy emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities”, Dmitriyeva, O., Moddel, G., Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 8 – 17, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf

83. “Scientists bake gluten-free bread using a revolutionary technology”, Forschung & Bildung, Phys.org, October 24, 2019, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2019-10- 287 scientists-gluten-free-bread-revolutionary-technology.html The scientific article referenced in the above article, as of this writing, can be found at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11947-019-02324-9

84. “The wobbling shadow of the M87* black hole”, Kotary, N.W., September 23, 2020, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://news.mit.edu/2020/wobbling-shadow-m87-black-hole-0923 A National Science Foundation article can be found at: https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=301287

85. “Researchers develop way to control speed of light, send it backward”, University of Central Florida, April 4, 2019, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2019-04- researchers-develop-way-to-control.html

86. “New research shows that laser spectral linewidth is classical-physics phenomenon”, University of Surrey, July 10, 2020, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2020-07- laser-spectral-linewidth-classical-physics-phenomenon.html

87. “New Huble data suggests there is an ingredient missing from current dark matter theories”, ESA/Hubble Information Centre, September 10, 2020, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2020-09-hubble-ingredient-current-dark-theories.html

88. “Photographs capture the moment atoms bond for the first time”, Berkeley Lab News Release, May 30, 2013, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/05/30/atom- by-atom/

89. “First images of chemical bond differences captured”, Grossman, L., New Scientist, September 13, 2012, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22269- first-images-of-chemical-bond-differences-captured/

90. “Intramolecular Imaging at Room Temperature”, Zandvliet, H.J.W., MESA+ Institute for Nanotechnology and University of Twente, August 3, 2015, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/76#

91. “Photons emitted by quantum dots can be made indistinguishable through quantum frequency conversion”, National Institute of Standards and Technology, December 20, 2012, as of this writing, this 288 information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2012-12-photons-emitted-quantum-dots- indistinguishable.html

92. “Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle: Detection of the External Field Effect in Rotationally Supported Galaxies”, Chae, Kyu-Hyun, Lelli, Federico, Desmond, Harry, McGaugh, Stacy S., Li, Pengfei, Schombert, James M., The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 904, Number 1, November 20, 2020, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11525

93. “The Most Massive Galaxies Spin More Than Twice as Fast as the Milky Way”, Williams, M., Universe Today, October 19, 2019, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.universetoday.com/143784/the-most-massive-galaxies-spin-more-than-twice-as-fast-as-the- milky-way/

94. “A Break in Spiral Galaxy Scaling Relations at the Upper Limit of Galaxy Mass”, Ogle, P.M., Jarrett, T, Lanz, L., Cluver, M., Alatalo, K., Appleton, P.N., Mazzarella, J.M., The Astrophysical Journal Letters, October 10, 2019, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab459e/pdf

95. “Missing Milky Way Dark Matter”, Voisey, J., Universe Today, November 8, 2010, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.universetoday.com/77662/missing-milky-way-dark-matter/

96. “Milky Way’s drk matter ‘turned on its side’, Courtland, R., NewScientist, January 6, 2010, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18344-milky-ways-dark- matter-turned-on-its-side/

97. “First demonstration of antimatter wave interferometry”, Sala, S., Ariga, A., Ereditato, A., Ferragut, R., Giammarchi, M., Leone, M., Pistillo, C., Scampoli, P., Science Advances, 2019, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaav7610

98. “Antimatter keeps with quantum theory. It’s both particle and wave”, ScienceNews, Temming, M., May 3, 2019, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/antimatter-quantum-theory-particle-wave-double-slit-experiment

99. “Discovery of quantum behavior in insulators suggests possible new particle”, Garlinghouse, T., Princeton University, January 12, 2021, as of this writing, this information can be found at: 289 https://phys.org/news/2021-01-discovery-quantum-behavior-insulators-particle.html

100. “After decades of effort, scientists are finally seeing black holes – or are they?”, Cho, A., AAAS ScienceMag, January 7, 2021, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/after-decades-effort-scientists-are-finally-seeing-black-holes- or-are-they

101. “Hole’s on First?: New Evidence Shows Black Hole Growth Preceding Galactic Formation”, Matson, J., Scientific American, January 9, 2011, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.scientficamerican.com/article/dwarf-galaxy-black-hole/

102. “Do black holes help stars form?”, Royal Astronomical Society, February 2, 2012, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202094328.htm

103. “Supermassive black holes give birth to stars, astronomers discover”, Mortillaro, N., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), March 28, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/supermassive-black-hole-birth-stars-1.4042363

104. “The black hole that helps baby stars grow instead of destroying them”, Strickland, A., CNN, November 27, 2019, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/world/black-hole-baby-stars-scn/index.html

105. “Can An Organ Transplant Change A Recipient’s Personality? Cell Memory Theory Affirms ‘Yes’”, Borrelli, L., Medical Daily, July 9, 2013, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.medicaldaily.com/can-organ-transplant-change-recipients-personality-cell-memory-theory- affirms-yes-247498

106. “Does the Milky Way move like a spinning top?”, Instituto de Astofisica de Canarias, May 25, 2021, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2021-05-milky.html

Other References (Previously 4) UC Davis Chemwiki, as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/01._Waves_and_Particles/Case_S tudy%3A_Photoelectric_Effect

(Previously 8) “TELEPATHY IN CONNECTION WITH TELEPHONE CALLS, TEXT MESSAGES AND 290 EMAILS”, Sheldrake, Rupert, Journal of International Society of Life Information Science (ISLIS), Vol. 32, No. 1, March, 2014.

CVRP – Continuously Variable Rotating Plane

291

One of Einstein’s Best Quotes

292

Credit: Internet/Unknown

Once upon a time, they had two paths. The first was with Maxwell and field concepts, but that led to math that was impossible to do at the time, and is still an incredible challenge today. The second was when Einstein and his team took the known answers, made a math story to fit, and then came up with the radical concept (at the time) of visual Doppler, or what is called redshift. Throw in an observation that “verified” the ideas, and the “scientific community” was off to the races. Since then, because belief in Einstein’s Universe is essentially faith-based, in that one must “believe” that space and time “bend”, and that endless problems with the ideas must simply be “patched” and “fine-tuned” - what were once referred to as scientists have become mere “Keepers of the Faith.” Of course that type of person doesn’t seek any truth that conflicts with their faith, just re-affirmation of their technically insane concepts.

SEEK THE TRUTH – CHANGE WHEN YOU’RE WRONG – NEVER STOP LEARNING

GIANTS “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” - Sir Isaac Newton

“If I have seen further, it is because I was born and raised, encouraged as needed, and punished when necessary, by giants - my parents 293 Dr. Martha A. and Dr. Floyd I. John” - David Woodrow John

Dr. Martha A. John, Dr. Floyd I. John, Ed.D. - Stanford, Education Ph.D. - Purdue, Mathematics Professor, Department Head, Professor, Department Head, Division Head, Vice Chancellor, Principle Scientist, Analyst, Fulbright Professor Dual Fulbright Professor