Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Are Scientists Crazy?

There’s a pretty vile scam going around. It thrives during periods of college vacations, like spring break, but it goes on constantly. It’s done by cold calls, people sitting in a boiler room picking numbers out of a directory. The call goes out, it’s answered, and the caller says, your son has just been in a horrible accident and he needs immediate medical help.
A lot of people don’t have sons, and the call is terminated as a mistake. However, many do, and some of those that do don’t live with their sons. The caller, like a psychic, gets clues from the ensuing conversation that can be used to entrap the mark, the person being scammed. As the scam continues, it turns out immediate evacuation is needed, and the caller gives the mark the name of a police dispatcher. The police dispatcher, another person in the boiler room, tells the frantic parent there are no helicopters available, and commiserates with the mark. After awhile, the “dispatcher” says, “I shouldn’t be doing this, but I have the name of a private helicopter firm that can do the job for you.” The mark is then given another number to call, someone else in the boiler room. The phone is answered and the mark is told there’s a helicopter available, but it will take a $3,000 deposit in cash to get it off the ground. Western Union is fine.
As the scam plays itself out, the mark wires the money to an address given on the phone, and the money is never seen again. Of course, there’s no accident.
Now let’s play this out a little differently. The mark calls the supposed helicopter company, is told the amount and where to mail the money, and as the mark is about to leave for the Western Union office, the phone rings and it turns out to be the son, who says, hey, I’m fine, I’m sitting on the beach enjoying a drink. The mark then says, well, you go ahead and enjoy yourself, I’ve got to wire some money to a helicopter company so you can be flown to the nearest hospital.
I think we’d all agree, the mark in this case would be certifiable, plumb crazy. When it is known that we have been operating on the basis of incomplete information, in this case, information about the well-being of the son, we are acting recklessly, to say the least, and definitely stupidly.
The ancients identified the four things that made up the world: Earth, water, air and fire. You’d think that they would have included light, but why include something that’s already included. Light obviously was produced by fire, so it was a secondary feature to the four primary features.
Then, during the great period of questioning, the post Copernican scientific world of Baconian quest, the great debate about the nature of light arose: Was light a particle or a wave?
Up until Newton seized the reigns of The Royal Society, Huygens’ view of light as a wave took sway. It’s rather humorous that the ancients had considered light secondary to fire, and here these great thinkers were considering it an artifact of water. Fire is produced by matter, which is akin to earth, while water extinguishes fire, and therefore the light it produces. That’s just wild and crazy, guys, worthy of a Saturday Night Live skit.
Moving right along, though, Newton’s authority prevailed throughout the 18th century until Young’s two-slit experiment, described in earlier entries. After that experiment, light officially became a wave, and “science” set about to demonstrate the existence of the substance whose disturbance produced the wave. After all, a wave doesn’t exist, it's just a distortion of a medium, like water. Science quickly made up aether and called it the medium of light. (During all this, these disconnected thinkers were claiming that, according to Laplace, the Earth had been circling the sun in frictionless space since the beginning of time, the same space they were claiming was filled with this light medium, aether, but, hey, what’s a little inconsistency when you’re wild and crazy.)
When Michelson and Morley attempted to demonstrate the speed and direction of the Earth using its movement through the aether, the experiment failed, fantasy prevailed, but aether sort of disappeared. Fortunately for the deep thinkers about light, Maxwell published his equations on the electromagnetic “spectrum,” which pretty much did away with the need to explain how light could be a wave without a medium. After all, no one basically could understand Maxwell’s equations, so this was enough to keep everyone in awe.
Now, at this point, the scientific community is in the position of the mark who’s gotten information where to send the money to get his son to the hospital, but hasn’t gotten the wakeup call from the son who is sipping drinks on a beach. Science had been led down a primrose path. It had spent the better part of 3 centuries arguing about whether light was a wave or a particle, how the mark should get the son to the hospital, and hadn’t even given a thought to how light was produced, in the mark’s case, whether his son was injured in the first place.
Nobody in their right mind would continue to accept the fruits of an argument that was based on a glaring omission. How could anyone discuss anything about what light is until they discussed how it is produced?
Unfortunately, as the deep thinkers about light mulled over Maxwell’s equations, which is about the same as getting the money for the Western Union transfer, others, primarily Rutherford, were experimenting with those mysterious non-light particles called electrons. By modifying light bulb technology, cathode ray tubes were invented that could shoot the electrons in streams. Rutherford, finding the streams blocked in places, theorized the existence of the atom, and before long, the world was treated to the classic view of the atom, proton in nucleus to keep electron in orbit, neutron in nucleus to give the atom weight, and electron in orbit to interact with other nuclei to form matter.
The deep thinkers about light sat on the sidelines never, for one moment, observing that, wait a minute, we’re using the conclusions of people, people who told us what light is, and these people didn’t even have knowledge about the atom, the matter that produced the light. We’re in la la land here. We’d better start over and figure out first how light is produced, and then figure out what it is.
As they slumbered on the sidelines, Einstein came along and demonstrated that light is a particle with the photoelectric effect, which has light producing an electron in a circuit. There was no photon until that point, but, with the light boys slumbering in their deep chairs, there was no one to say, hey, maybe light is made up of electrons, maybe the light isn’t producing an electron, maybe the light is an electron. Instead, the photon, like aether and everything else in science, was quickly made up to explain the obvious fact that light produced electricity.
It was the photon that was activating the electrons.
All of sudden, the great light sleepers, deep in slumber, started to stir. Light matter, light matter, light matter, matter light. Could there be a connection between the two?
Now we would expect the mark to say, hey son, it’s really you, I don’t have to have you flown to a hospital, do I?
But not a scientist!
Instead of saying, Gee, light is not a wave, it's a particle that interacts with matter, so to understand light, we have to figure out how matter produces light and then figure out what light is, the scientists said, we know light is a wave, we know it’s a particle, all we have to do is figure out how this newly discovered atom produces a light wave and we’ll have the last piece of the puzzle clear in our questing brains.
The quest began, and what a quest it’s been.
No quest at all!
Science’s starting point is what science’s starting point always is: Science is right.
Therefore, science already knew what light was, it was a wave. Being a particle at the same time made it a little more complicated, but since when has science shied away from making things so complex, they’re incomprehensible?
Actually, the particle notion of light combined with the photoelectric effect gave science something to chew on. See, the second thing science knew was that matter was made up of atoms and atoms were composed of a bunch of particles which are encompassed in what’s called the standard model, a sort of international agreement limiting the number of particles scientists could create. The standard model, of course, has the familiar orbiting electron whizzing around the atom. Before the invention of electron microscopes, science stuck by its idea that there were fixed numbers of electrons orbiting an atom’s nucleus in fixed shells although now, representations of the atom supposedly captured by electron microscopes produce a haze around the nucleus, demonstrating a cloud of electrons. This was then, though, and science was sticking by its individual orbiting atoms.
Here’s where it gets difficult for me to remember because it’s sort of like whether electricity flows from positive to negative or negative to positive or wave lengths get longer or shorter from red to blue or blue to red, examples where science has, at one time, believed firmly in one or the other, belief, of course, being consensus agreement like the standard model. There are many issues in science that cast me into the roll of the accountant who sits at his desk, every once in awhile opening the drawer and looking in. Finally, a coworker had to know what was in the drawer, so the accountant opened it for him. Written on the bottom of the drawer was “debits to the left, credits to the right.” Or is it credits to the right, debits to the left? Hmmm.
Anyway, it seems those orbital electrons now have specific characteristics, the basic one being in a ground state. When an orbiting electron is a ground state, it has its lowest energy. Now not only can this electron orbit the nucleus of the atom without science ever once attempting to explain how it can do so, it can absorb energy. Isn’t that just peachy. All of a sudden, the electron has an entirely new property, one that no one ever heard of before, but one that certainly can’t be denied. It is capable of absorbing energy. Here’s the particle that represents a fundament form of energy, and its pliable, it can soak up energy like a sponge. A fundamental energy that can absorb energy. Couldn’t the idiots just give it the property of motion so we’d have to stop asking what’s causing it to move? If it’s going to come up with an exotic energy absorbing property, why not motion?
Oh, well.
When an electron absorbs more energy to the point that it can absorb no more energy, then, boom, it takes off on its own, ionizes as they say in the quiet chambers of serious thinking. But we don’t have to worry about these ionized electrons because they are no longer orbiting and we want to know how matter produces light.
There is a state between ground and ionized, and this state is an excited electron. We all know what an excited electron is, don’t we? Well, maybe not. An excited electron is one that has absorbed energy. If you absorb energy, you get excited, too, right? And when you’re excited, why, you have to get rid of that energy, right? Right.
So how does the electron absorb energy? Why, it absorbs a photon or packet of light. What happens when it gets excited? It jumps to a higher orbit around the nucleus (this is where I go debits or credits, is it higher or lower). It seems that each orbit around a nucleus requires a specific amount of energy, so the orbit the electron jumps to depends on the number of photons it absorbs.
When the electron loses its energy, passes out of its state of excitement, it falls to a lower orbit, and as it does so, it gives up the same number of photons it absorbed to get excited in the first place.
If you don’t believe in this hogwash, just ask a scientist. He’ll have miles and miles of chalkboards covered with squiggles and symbols to categorically prove it all to be as real as the brown clay that gets stuck to your shoes when you run through the farmers field. If you wonder why it’s "he'll have," female quantum scientists are hard to find. After all, one of the basic features of the female mind is practicality and common sense, qualities that aren't evident in this jumble of incomplete and inconsistent ideas.
The creation of quantum mechanics was the act of the mark paying for the helicopter to evacuate the son after the mark finds out the son is sipping drinks on the beach. Science finds out as clearly as it can that light is not a wave, it’s a particle. It realizes that no one has ever sat down and tried to connect light to matter. It has matter with particles and light with particles. It then proceeds to graft its concept of light as a wave, created early in the 19th century, onto an atom created early in the 20th century. It does so by taking a particle, the electron, it made up to explain a phenomena, electricity, it discovered decades after it had cemented its idea of light as a wave, and then goes on to add a property to the electron that says it can absorb and emit light.
In reality, the mark realized he was being conned when he got the call from his son and simply abandoned paying for the helicopter. In reality, science refused to realize its concept of light needed revising and simply forged ahead working on concepts that had clearly been disproved by demonstrating the photoelectric effect.
For the mark to proceed in the manner of science, the mark’s reality would have to conform to the idea that his son was mortally injured. He’d have to injure the son to continue the fantasy. Science doesn’t have any son to kill, and unlike the mark, whose need for money forces reality into the picture, science has nothing that would force it to face reality.
In fact, its reality is the creation of more and more confusing and incomprehensible explanations so it can keep the paychecks popping, the grants giving, the honorariums honoring from the only source of money it has, us, the great unwashed.
It doesn’t matter what tripe they feed us, it just needs to keep the collection plate full. What’s the phrase, crazy like a fox, dumb as a doorknob? One applies to scientists, the other to us.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Are All Scientists Blind?

When it comes to light, which separates the blind from the seeing, science is totally blind, so blind, in fact, that it costs billions of extra dollars to come up with technology dealing with light, and that technology, I’m thinking the blue laser and LED, only occurs when an inventor throws out the scientific view and embarks on the opposite.
There was a time, back before Newton extended his influence to the entire world, that people held a reasonable view of light. While no one knew what light was, and no one even bothered to ask the question, how is light produced, scientists spent their time arguing whether light was a particle or a wave, with Christiaan Huygens holding mental sway through much of the 17th century with his view that light was a wave.
Other than arguing the light particle nature of light, color was taken for granted. Light struck an object and the properties of the object changed the light and therefore changed its color.
I mentioned briefly in my entries on gravity that science is pretty arrogant about light. It continually claims that humans are animals that hold no special place in the universe, that we are an accident of chance, that we adapt to nature. Yet when it comes to light, humans hold a very special position. While all of our thoughts about color are inherited from Newton, a man who lived hundreds of years before the discovery of the range of electromagnetic frequencies, Newton’s thought is stamped on the one portion of the range of frequencies that affect us most, color.
Looking at any frequency chart, we can see the frequencies getting smaller on a regular basis, and as they get smaller, they have different characteristics and are adaptable to different uses. However, when it comes to light, we don’t have a series of frequencies. With light, for some reason, we have a bundled frequency. And, while humans are just an accident of the universe, that bundled frequency just happens to be the one that allows us to see color. It’s as if the universe created a whole range of frequencies, with one special bundled frequency, and we are the ones the universe created the bundled frequency for. Evolutionists could argue, if forced to face the fact that white light is the only frequency in the entire range of electromagnetic frequencies that is many frequencies bundled together, that our eye evolved to see the bundled frequencies. But our eye could only evolve to see the bundled frequencies in their unbundled form, as green leaves, blue sky, brown dirt.
Which brings us to the basic question. Did nature bundle the frequencies, or did we bundle the frequencies?
Using the term bundled is just a substitute for the scientific fiction that white light contains all colors, or to put it another way, all frequency colors are contained in the frequency of white light. I’m certainly no artist, but I do know that there are millions of colors, or at least that’s what my computer monitor claims it can resolve. With white light containing all colors, when white light strikes the surface of a leaf, the leaf absorbs millions of colors and only reflects the green color back (of course, if the leaves are changing, every section of the leaf is absorbing millions of colors and reflecting a different one so we see the symphony of colors that is fall).
This is really a complex thing for nature to develop when all she had to do was alter the frequency of the white light with the nature of the material it was bouncing off. But Newton “proved” that white light contained all colors. He passed light through a prism, which broke white light into the color frequencies, then recombined the color frequencies to come up with white light.
How this proves white light contains all color frequencies escapes my ability to discern the verities of scientific dogma, but the consequences, turning pigment into something that absorbs, rather than reflects, light doesn’t. Instead of matter reflecting light, it is now absorbing all sorts of frequencies and reflecting only the color frequency we see.
Actually, I can go to the color wheel on my computer and disprove Mr. Newton. The color wheel uses the computer's ability to combine color frequencies to produce all sorts of colors, millions of them. What is this thing called color adding? It’s the same thing Newton did when he recombined all color frequencies. He increased the frequency of the reflected light, in Newton’s case back to the white frequency, in my computer's case, any frequency I want.
Frequency adding has produced a very accurate test for color blindness, which shows a deficit of either red or green. As we all know, combining red and green produces yellow, another case of frequency adding. This fact has been incorporated into the anomaloscope, a device that allows a viewer to see half a yellow disk with one eye, and the other half of the disk, which is a combination of red and green, with the other eye. Using a calibrated knob, the viewer adjusts the knob until the adjustable half of the disk is the same yellow color as the yellow half of the disk. The calibration tells the tester what portion of red and green it took to produce the yellow frequency.
The anomaloscope not only works to demonstrate color adding (as well as determine the type of colorblindness involved), it disproves another of Mr. Newton’s unfounded notions, a notion that is taken as gospel today, one that cripples technology. Newton determined that light was lined up the way it came out of the prism. This is the famous Roy G. Biv notion, where we have light emerging in order of red, orange, yellow, blue and so forth (could never figure out what the indigo and violet were doing in there).
On a practical basis, we are only concerned with red, yellow, green and blue. After much hoop-de-do, science decided that red was the longest wave (science still thinks of light in terms of water), with blue the shortest wave. In my lexicon, that would translate into red being the longest frequency, blue the shortest.
How many ways is this wrong?
For starters, any idiot knows that heat translates into frequency. The shorter the frequency, the more it’s going to scramble your cells. Radiation 101. Scientists can simply turn on their Bunsen Burners, assuming the last time they saw one wasn’t in college, and notice the color of the flame. The inner cone is blue, and its temperature is about 500ºC. Proceeding to the outer cone, the red flame is graded from 500ºC to 950ºC, when it starts to turn yellow, where it stays till it reaches 1450C at the peak of the outer cone and turns, what else, white. Blue is clearly the longer frequency, with red the shorter. But according to this, yellow is even shorter than red.
Returning to the anomaloscope, the colorblind viewer sees a yellow half of the disk and something other than yellow, which is adjusted until it is yellow. The adjustment changes the mixture of red and green. If we go back to Roy G. Biv, where does yellow fall in this interpretation of the lineup of frequencies?
It falls between red and green!
If the viewer is deficient in seeing red or green, or both, how is it he can see the yellow side of the disk without any adjustment? And how is it that, after color adding, he can see yellow on both sides of the disk? The simple answer, in fact, the only answer, is that yellow has a higher frequency than either red or green.
Before Newton’s color folly, people sensibly thought that the light moving through the prism was being changed (they didn’t understand what light was, so they didn’t know how it might be changing) by the glass in the prism, with the further the light traveled in the prism, the bigger the change. If we examine light’s path through a prism, we can see clearly that yellow travels the shortest distance. Thus, in modern day lingo, at least in my lingo, the white light’s frequency has been reduced the least at this point. Red and green come out of the prism on either side of yellow, with the red traveling a slightly shorter distance than the green, so this put the frequency lineup yellow, the longest, then red, then green, then, traveling the furthest, blue.
How scientists can’t see what’s right in front of their eyes demonstrates the ideological blindness science operates in. With disciplines fracturing basic scientific knowledge, educated scientists learn the basics by rote, gravity is a property of mass, white light contains all color, light is lined up the way it comes out of the prism, and because these statements are attributed to the scientific deity, Newton, a deity who can never be questioned, scientists go through life parroting this mindless tripe back and forth to each other and out to us, the great unwashed.
Unfortunately, engineers soak this stuff up and, when it comes to searching for technological improvements, are themselves blinded by mindless ideology. Take the laser. The first laser produced red light. If red is the longest frequency, what the heck are the chances that experimental fishing would stumble upon the weakest laser around. It’s simply more logical to conclude, trial and error is going to stumble over the laser that’s the easiest to produce, the laser with the highest energy content. But not to scientists and the engineers (for one, the scientists were too busy attempting to take credit from the engineers).
While a blue laser was sought, the blue LED was much more critical. If light arrays were to be constructed from LEDs, blue would be needed along with red and green, the second laser to be found, in order to produce the millions of colors necessary to realistic viewing. The hunt was on. Billions of dollars was spent looking for something that would produce the shorter wavelength blue LED. After a decade, during which several possible materials were ruled out because they would only produce longer frequencies, a maverick named Shuji Nakamura said the heck with theory, let’s just start working by trial and error on the materials considered to be unworthy of the time. He had a blue LED before anyone else could blink an eye, and, because he was smart, no scientist could touch him.
But that’s not where the blue LED/Laser story ends. As soon as the blue LED was proven, the blue laser followed quickly behind. Perhaps you have purchased a new piece of electronic equipment in the last year or two. I remember when I had a bank of recorders that, when I turned the lights out at night, made the room look like a Christmas tree with all the red indicator lights. I shuddered at the electronic leakage this was producing, along with the cost. While there’s nothing we can do about the cost of indicator lights on equipment that has to stay on, all of a sudden, the color is changing from red to blue. Now when I buy a piece of electronic equipment, at least one that is high end, it has blue LEDs. Why? Because the blue LEDs use less electricity than the red LEDs. Why? Because the blue LEDs are a longer frequency than the red LEDs, and thus take less electricity to produce.
But the real payoff is for the recording industry. Disks recorded with blue lasers hold considerably more information than disks recorded with red lasers. Pretty soon, all of our DVD players will be using blue lasers to read disks. Why does a blue laser, the so-called shorter frequency, access so much more information than the supposedly longer frequency red laser? Because the longer the frequency, the less intrusive it is, and the less intrusive it is, the smaller area of information it can access. That means the blue laser, accessing more information, is less intrusive than the red laser, and therefore a longer frequency than the red laser.
But why stop in the laboratory, or in technological achievement, to see just how blind scientists are? Why not just step out into one of the glorious Pacific sunsets? Ask scientists why the sky is blue, and they’ll respond that the atmosphere is scattering the blue wavelength so that it become visible. The red and yellow, why they pass right through undisturbed because they are longer frequencies.
Does this sound logical? Logical would be if the longest frequency was scattered first. Is there a way to demonstrate this? Simply wait until the light has more atmosphere to pass through. This occurs as the sun sets and the sunlight we see is no longer the shortest distance, straight up, but now passes through many layers of atmosphere as the sun moves lower on the horizon. What happens? If the atmosphere is cloudless, we'll see a yellow sun. The red is being scattered, but it is lost in the darkening sky. However, if the atmosphere has clouds, those clouds will pick up the scattered red light and provide dazzling sunsets, with yellow and red, and every hue in between. If this were happening according to science's color lineup, a little bit of atmosphere couldn't scatter the longer wavelengths, but a lot of atmosphere could. It's not logic, it’s the reverse of logic.
In fact, blue, the longest frequency, scatters first when the sun is overhead, and as the sun sets and has to pass through more layers of atmosphere, it starts to scatter the next shortest, red, then the shortest of all, yellow, producing the incredible, multicolor sunsets we enjoy. What happened to green in all of this? Well, there is an unusual effect called a green flash that has been reported off and on, but it is very rare. Why? In my opinion, the transition from blue to green is subtle, whereas the transition from blue to red is startling.
But let’s assume our scientists, after a day on the links, and an even longer stay at the 19th hole, are too snookered to even see the sunset, and thus can be excused for their blindness. We can always turn to day-to-day life to see if they are aware of anything. While there are probably as many insurance agents as there are scientists, the insurance agents aren’t as blind as the scientists. They do studies of accidents and car colors. Guess what car gets hit the most: A blue car. Guess what car gets hit the least: a yellow car. Wonder if it has something to do with visibility, which couldn't possibly have anything to do with frequency, could it?
Sure it does! When was the last time you saw a blue fire engine? They’re traditionally red. What color are safety experts starting to paint them? Yellow. These fools must know something scientists don’t, but don’t try and tell a scientist that because, by definition, no one knows what a scientist knows.
So we’ll muddle on through our ignorant lives, making improvements to our electronics, increasing our safety, and enjoying our sunsets, in spite of what blind scientists mindlessly repeat as they stumble through life reaping tremendous rewards for providing nothing.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Gravity is . . . Part IV

Scientists, who claim that they go only where the evidence leads them, that nothing is sacred but the truth, are quick to point out that my explanation of inductance is meaningless because it doesn’t conform to the scientific definition of induction. That definition states that inductance is a property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it by a variation of current either in the circuit itself or in a neighboring circuit. What’s an electromotive force? Something that moves or tends to move electricity. What’s electricity? A fundamental form of energy. What is fundamental? When science knows nothing about anything, here energy, it simply classifies like things, here forces that produce work or can be converted to BTUs, and calls them fundamentals.
So let’s see what science knows about what it pretends to know about. A fundamental form of energy, electricity, something science has no idea where it comes from, can come from a property of an electrical circuit doing something to produce the fundamental energy, electricity.
When I was in my mid-twenties, I went out and bought a huge encyclopedia of science about 1,300 pages long, a really big book. I also purchased a stack of 5X8 cards. At the time, I still thought science knew everything it claimed to know and it was my understanding that was falling short. Each morning I’d start the day by excerpting one of the entries, along with its cross references. During the day, whenever I had a free moment, I’d refer to the card, finding out what I understood and what I didn’t understand, using the back of the card to jot down questions I had about the entry.
This went on for several years when I started to realize something. I was going in circles. Every explanation contained in the encyclopedia, other than just those items that categorized things such as the table of elements, referred to other entries for a fuller understanding. Those other entries referred to still other entries. If I followed the path of referrals, I ended up with the referrals being to the original entry that raised my question.
In short, I found that science, at its base, was nothing more than a giant ring of circular references that didn’t explain anything. It was like the actual circular explanation for gravity. What produces gravity? Mass. What is mass? Mass is what produces gravity. No one can get out of the circular pile of non-information once inside it.
With electricity, all the words, property, force, something, fundamental, energy, they’re all meaningless as explanations for anything. We all know how electricity behaves. We can measure how it behaves. It doesn’t add to our knowledge to say a grump stitcher forces ploobars as a result of moving a wire in a zolloback field around the electricity. But neither does saying it’s a property whereby something moves something else to produce electricity.
It’s even worse when the labelers and categorizers of our scientific ignorance claim an electron produces electricity and the definition of an electron is a moving charge, which is what, of course, electricity is. No one explains anything by describing what it is. When something is dynamic, it takes a dynamic explanation, an explanation that actually explains.
One thing is pretty clear about electricity. It is produced by particles that have two properties, one a property of motion, the other, a property of attraction. The property of motion is self-evident. When electricity was first harnessed, it was done so in a battery that had terminals. Thus, using a magnetic analogy, electricity was thought to move from positive to negative (or vice versa depending on the decade and logic).
When inductance was discovered some 30 years later, positive and negative clearly had no application. A circuit, while it has two points, does not create a flow between those two points. By definition, a circuit is circular, so the electricity is not moving from one point to another, it is moving around in a circuit.
The one thing we do know about the electricity, though, is it’s moving, so instead of making up properties and electromotive forces and the elusive “something,” let’s just assign the electron the property of motion, which it obviously has.
Next, the property of attraction is also pretty clear. Once electrons begin moving in a path, they move in unison, so it’s pretty lame to think they haven’t come together in mutual attraction. It's simple logic that if electrons repelled each other, circuits would not exist. The electrons simply wouldn't stay together. Also, it’s only normal that a flow of electrons would attract a circular flow around it simply because at every point in the flow, there are electrons. If those electrons had a property of attraction, they would attract other electrons out of the environment to form the circular flow.
Of course, all this is impossible because by the time inductance was discovered, a whole generation had grown up with the notion of positive and negative and by the time anyone got around to wondering how matter was constructed, another three or four generations of labelers and categorizers had cemented their reputations on the notion, so, like gravity is a property of matter, it simply became a given. Thus, when the atom was constructed with electrons orbiting a nucleus, the only thing that could hold the electrons in orbit, which had become negative by that time, was a positive particle, so a positive particle was made up, put in the nucleus to hold the electrons in orbit, and now that particle is as real as grey clay. In the scientific view, there's no force moving the orbiting electrons, just a minor problem.
The simple fact is, moving a conductor in an inductive flow around a primary flow of electrons will produce a flow of electrons in the conductor if the conductor is itself in a circuit. What easier thing to explain? The physical material of the conductor is capturing the electrons orbiting the primary flow, I prefer to use the image tipping the electrons into the conductor. They in turn become a flow of electrons. The electrons lost in the inductive flow are quickly replaced by electrons in the environment.
And here’s the key, a small point science wishes to ignore, much like it ignores, no, will destroy, a scientist who presses for an answer: What's the force that makes the electron obit the nucleus in the first place? There’s no question if motion is assumed in the electron, but as it is, science has no answer to the question and has no intention of providing one. The key is the movement of electrons in what I call the ambient field.
Science readily acknowledges that an electrical current will ionize atoms. Lightning ionizes atoms in the atmosphere. True to form, science doesn’t bother to explain how this might occur, but does admit that the atom loses “an electron” in the process. Wonders behold, science’s vision of the atom has, in recent years, evolved into one of an amorphous cloud of electrons orbiting the nucleus, rather than fixed numbers in fixed shells. Thus, ionization results in a massive loss of electrons in an atom.
Where do these electrons go? Into the ambient field, which is to say, the atmosphere. What do they do? Chase concentrations of electrons, be that concentration an atom, an electric flow, the clouds that generate lightning, or perhaps as inductive flows around flows of light from the sun.
Which brings us back to Young’s two-slit experiment, where the spheres of expanding light are intersecting and, in the process, recombining. The only way they could be recombining is if the expanding light had inductive flows regulating its expansion. When the light intersects, the light that matches up on the basis of direction and frequency acts like flows of electricity in two electric wires that are brought into proximity with one another. The inductive flows combine the primary flows of light, and this results in the uniform absence of light on the collection screen.
The question is, how do the inductive flows regulate the uniform expansion of the light in the first place?
Picture light expanding on the surface of the sphere. At any point on the sphere, the light, like the light in the two-slit experiment, is overexpanding. Thus, the expanding light on the surface of the sphere is like the light intersecting in the two-slit experiment: Each point is a tiny sphere, and the light in these tiny spheres, light from the same source that has traveled the same distance and is aligned with respect to frequency, intersects and recombines.
What is the physical description of this recombination? Unlike the light in the two-slit experiment, where the light has been grossly overexpanded, the light doesn’t disappear. As soon as it overexpands, the light contracts, not to the point that it was at the time it began to expand, but at the next point further on, the next expanding sphere. It is the consolidation of the light after it overexpands that creates the next expanding sphere (in effect, replaces the next expanding sphere which has itself expanded into the next, and so forth).
Thus, while the flows of light that make up the expanding sphere of light are frequencies, the expanding sphere itself is an oscillation, a sphere the surface of which is constantly expanding and contracting. When the sphere expands, it is moving out into an area available for it to expand. When it contracts, it is consolidating itself.
What effect does this consolidation have?
The consolidation of the overexpanded light by the inductances regulating its expansion produces a mechanism at any point on an expanding sphere of light. The overexpanding spheres are intersecting at every point. Every point of intersection is connected to the expanding sphere by a flow of light. Thus, mathematically, these points are vertices of cones. The surface of an expanding sphere of light is therefore covered with cones that have the pointed end facing away from the expanding sphere. The inductive flows collapse this cone. The mechanism that regulates the uniform expansion of light can be visualized as a cone, with the vertex pointed away from the expanding sphere, collapsing back into the expanding sphere to form a new expanding sphere of light.
However small this mechanism is, it has force, and anything that might be caught in the mechanism would move back toward the source of the emissions. Once a unit of an atom, for instance, was caught in the mechanism, it would move back toward the source of the emissions. As expanding spheres surround the area around a source of emissions, at each point a unit of an atom was pushed back, it would be caught in another mechanism, a point closer to the emissions, and be pushed back once again, only to be caught in the next closer mechanism, and so forth until something intervened to stop the movement.
If we visualize the nuclei of atoms as having units, without attempting to put names to them, we know that these units are held together by some force. Whatever force is holding the units of the nucleus of the atom together would not come into play as long as all the units were being caught up in the mechanisms and being pushed back toward the source of the emissions. Only when something stopped the atom's movement, and the atom came to rest still subject to the mechanisms that were holding it to whatever stopped it, would the force holding the units together come into play. If an attempt were made to move the atom against the mechanisms, then the force holding the units together would require all the units be moved at once. Thus, the more units, the more work it would take to move the atom against the force, and this is exactly what we have when it comes to matter acting in a field of gravity.
As to the measurement of the unit’s force at any point in the expanding sphere, the light is diminishing uniformly with the square of the distance from its source. As the inductive flows are proportional to the primary flows, the inductive flows are also diminishing inversely with the square of the distance from the source of the emissions. As the force of the mechanism equals the force of the inductive flows, the strength of the mechanisms are also diminishing inversely with the square of their distance from the source of the emissions.
This, of course, is the measurement for gravity.
Examining how emissions expand provides a mechanism that describes exactly how matter moves as a result of gravity.
As to the inability to detect magnetic qualities in expanding light, with the inductive flows equaling the expanding primary flows, there is no measurable charge.
The mechanism that produces gravity is associated with a dynamic source of matter doing something, it results in the inverse square acceleration of matter as it diminishes inversely with the square of its distance from the source resulting in objects of different weights falling at the same rate but moving against the mechanisms at different levels of force, and the mechanism itself has, as its primary purpose, the regulation of the expansion of the electromagnetic emission field, which in our example, is represented by light.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Gravity is . . . Part III: Regulating the Expansion of Light

One point that is important to keep in mind is that light, without something regulating its expansion, is going to overexpand. If light overexpands, then its flows will be smaller than had the light expanded normally.
Interestingly enough, Young’s so-called two-slit experiment demonstrates this fact well. I use the term two-slit because that is how the experiment is conducted today, although Young didn’t use what we now consider the classic set-up.
In the experiment, a single source of light, and this, of course, is important because we are dealing with light expanding in an expanding sphere, which means it’s light from a single emitter, hits a screen with two slits in it.
Light passes through the slits. As I pointed out in the last post, light expands and diminishes uniformly in an expanding sphere if there isn’t something blocking its expansion. Here, its expansion is blocked by a screen and only the light that hits the slits is allowed to pass through the slits. The rest is simply no longer a factor in examining the effect that results.
To see what happens when the light passes through the slits, I will digress. I spent a lot of time figuring out how we see what we see. We see what we see because of light. But it’s not just the light that allows us to see what we see. We need information in the light we see if we are going to be able to reconstruct in our mind an accurate picture of external reality.
What information does the light we see contain?
The light our eyes collect contains specific information as to the precise distance, relative to everything else we see, of a specific point. It also contains color information, but that isn’t relevant here.
How can the light contain information about the relative distance of all points we see?
Because, the light is expanding uniformly with the square of the distance from its source. If we turn the light on in a room, the emitted light expands out into the room and reflects off every point of each object in the room. When it arrives at each point, it has traveled a different distance depending on the point's location with respect to the source of the light.
When the light strikes a point on an object, it bounces off. When it bounces off, it begins to re-expand. If we enter a room with the light on, we see light that has bounced off every point of every object in the room. Because each point is a different distance from the source of light, and because the light therefore that is re-expanding off the points we see traveled a different distance before it began re-expanding, the amount of light that is reaching our eye from every point in the room is different from the amount of light from every other point, and we are therefore able to take this information, the distances of all the points in the room, and reconstruct a picture of the points in our mind (or brain or whatever, I don’t want to get into that discussion here, although I have two books available on what the mind is and how it operates).
Over a decade after I theorized how we see what we see, the observation gained credence with a company called Powercast that you’ll be hearing a lot about. If you want to charge your cell phone, you have to plug it into a wall socket. Powercast has developed a charger that is plugged into the wall socket. If you are in range of the charger, it charges your cell phone over the air.
This was an impossible technological dream throughout the 20th century. How did it become possible? Powercast engineers realized that the low frequencies generated at the wall socket were not strong enough to charge anything if they were tapped directly. But, they reasoned, those frequencies were expanding in expanding spheres that were bouncing off every point in the room. Thus, one frequency was becoming thousands of frequencies. All that was needed was to produce a chip that could gather thousands of frequencies rather than just the original generated frequency, and that’s what they accomplished.
Powercast’s technology demonstrates that the electromagnetic range of frequencies that includes light bounce off points that are in the way of their expansion, and in the process, the rate of expansion and thus the frequencies are altered.
When the light passes through the slits in the two-slit experiment, the light is doing the same thing it does when it bounces off an object, only it is doing so because a portion of the light from an expanding sphere has been directed through a slit which gives it a new center of expansion.
There’s another feature to this light that is not present in the light bouncing off all the points in a room. The light passing through each slit, once it begins to re-expand, is identical. At any point in the expansion of the two resulting spheres, the light is the same in each sphere.
And, because the expanding spheres of light are right next to each other, the light from the two expanding spheres is commingling.
Everyone knows the result. The result is collected on a screen that now shows bands of light and no light. What happened to the light that should be, but isn’t, hitting, the collection screen?
Because the light from each sphere has overexpanded, and because the frequencies of the light in each sphere are precisely aligned, the overexpanded light forming the two spheres has, as the spheres expand and intersect, combined. The light hasn’t disappeared. It has simply combined with other light so that when the result hits the screen, the bands of light are the combined light and the bands of no light are the areas out of which the overexpanded light has been combined.
Change the frequencies of the spheres by changing the distance of the slits from the original source of light, and whatever is combining the light will no longer be able to combine it, and the dark bands will disappear from the collection screen.
It’s easy to see why the analogy to water waves is so lame, so lame, in fact, that any scientist, or any novice scientist, that proposes it, is simply not a scientist. Seeing an analogy between the absence of light and the presence of water that is found in the area where the troughs cancel out the crests is simply ignoring reality. Just as science’s watchdogs go for the easy kill when it comes to apostates, ruining their reputations rather than rationally arguing their points, science jumps at the first easy explanation around and turns it into dogma.
After all, who’d expect the beneficiaries of this multi billion-dollar enterprise to give up their international travel, their lavish vacations disguised as conferences, their sizeable grants and plush salaries, and spend a small amount of their time actually using their minds. Science claims the mind doesn’t exists, anyway, so what’s to use? It’s practitioners get the best of both worlds, first, using their non theories to claim credit for the mental sweat of people that produce technology, second, leaching the prosperity that technology produces into their own pockets. No better example exists than the effort of theoretical scientist Charles H. Townes to wrest control of the invention of the laser away from its actual inventor, Gordon Gould, in a decades long battle (and even today, no one knows Gould’s name). See The Inventor, the Nobel Laureate, and the Thirty-Year Patent War, Nick Taylor (Simon & Schuster, 2000).
Seriously, how neat is this for them. In the middle ages, the arbiter of how we view the world, the church, slaughtered people right and left and then said, hey, it’s God’s will. Now, the arbiter of how we view the world, science, is slaughtering us with ignorance, and then says, what they hey, we don’t have minds, we’re not capable of rational thought, we’re just following where the math takes us.
As it’s obvious something is recombining the light in the two-slit experiment, the next question is, what could be recombining the light?
Induction is one of the most important phenomena of electricity, at least for technology. Induction is what produces the motors that drive our prosperity. It’s pretty clear that Joseph Henry discovered the actual effect, a discovery that Faraday, after visiting Henry, turned into an invention that allowed him to claim precedence. After going back and forth on this dispute (it was a dispute in the middle of the last century, it’s never mentioned today), I have, from reading Henry’s comments, concluded that he actually wasn’t aware of the uniqueness nor the possible potential of the effect he was first to observe, but that Faraday, seeing the effect, realized instantly what it’s potential was, and being a member of The Royal Society, knew how to present it so as to gain precedence. For once, I think the old history books were right, it was in effect a joint discovery, although not a simultaneous independent discovery as they implied.
But that said, induction is a fairly straightforward electrical phenomena. Forgetting the fiction of positive and negative, electricity flows in a wire. If it’s direct current, it flows in a single direction. If we take the thumb of our right hand and point it in the direction of the flow, and then curl our fingers, we will see the inductive flow around the primary electrical flow in the curl. An inductive flow surrounds the primary flow and moves at right angles to that flow.
If we increase the primary flow, we find the inductive flow has increased. Thus, the inductive flow is proportional to the primary flow.
If we take two current carrying wires, each of them is producing an inductive flow. If we place the two wires in proximity, the inductive flows will combine the wires because, in essence, the inductive flows, in combining, will bring the two wires together to form a primary flow.
It’s the efficient result of the physical effect.
But, light is not electricity, so how can we analogize inductance to flows of light?
We generate the electric flows ourselves and as a result, we concentrate the particles responsible for the electricity in the flow.
The light, on the other hand, has expanded to a point that it is miniscule compared to the generated electrical flows. Go back to the battery charger using multiple frequencies. The amount of electricity in a cell phone is small, but it is huge when compared to the radio frequencies being tapped to charge the cell phone. Thus, thousands of frequencies are needed to produce enough electricity to charge a single phone.
But wait, how can frequencies even charge the phone? Well, high frequency chargers have been around for decades, it’s just a matter of degree. Science keeps seeing effects that demonstrate that light and electricity are interchangeable, and continues to bury its head simply because the guardians of the scientific dogma don’t pay attention to the incremental technological advances that warm our homes (even though science claims its dogmas produced the light bulb, and thus, all the technology we have at our fingertips).
Remember, our esteemed elders of scientific protection, with modern knowledge of frequencies at their fingertips, still follow Newton's idiotic claim that white light is made up of all colors of the spectrum while at the same time saying there is nothing to distinguish humans from rocks. They then claim that nature created a small portion of the range of electromagnetic frequencies, light, different from the rest, for the benefit of our eyes. This small range, white light, travels in a unique packet of all the other frequencies that make up light even though this peculiar situation exists nowhere else on the range of electromagnetic frequencies. Just one more dogmatic statement science uses to hide its own abundant ignorance (and perpetuate ours).
Just suppose that the light passing through the two slits in Young’s experiment is intermingling at the same frequency, and the fact that the frequencies are identical allows inductive flows, miniscule flows of particles, the same particles that produce electricity, to form around the flows.
That’s not only precisely what it would take to recombine the flows, it is the only possible explanation for the fact that there are areas on the collection screen where the light has simply vanished.