Another mystery is concerned with a rope. If I needed only one end, I would cut off the other. Even when this was done I found that the rope had two ends. If a strip of paper is given a half-twist and the ends are then joined, there results a surface having only one side. Since the original strip had two sides, where did the other side go?
As a matter of fact, in the case of belt-driven machinery, one may find a half-twist in the belt. Since the belt then has only one side, heating and wear are much more uniformly distributed so that the useful life of the belt may be greatly extended.
One classic example of the art of leg-pulling is my proposal for the development of the space jet. The jet engine is based upon the principle of reacting on the atmosphere, of which there is a plentiful supply. Basically, the idea is to scoop up the air in front of the plane, and jet it out the rear to drive the plane forward. This differs from the rocket engine in the fact that there is no necessity to carry along the total mass of the air to react against. I conceived the idea of the space jet based on the same principle.
Any country boy knows that in order to get anyplace, you've got to put space behind you. Then why not create a space jet for star travel? The only necessity is a mechanism which will scoop up space in front of the ship, react upon it to produce thrust, and jet it out the rear.
The danger of being facetious is that someone is bound to take you seriously. Not only that, someone usually develops a mechanism that actually operates on the principle that was proposed as a joke. I wonder if in some remote future, the space jet will actually be developed and used.
Among the many brilliant ideas that I have generated in my lifetime is that of dehydrated water. If you want a drink, one spoonful in a glass is sufficient. When the glass is filled from any available tap, the water is reconstituted. This would be an advantage on desert journeys since there would be no need to carry any great weight of water on the trip.
The foregoing tidbits are no more absurd than many of the concepts and many of the proposals found in the field of science. It is to be wondered if the tongue-in-cheek approach has been used. As one example. consider the concept of the exchange force. If we are convinced that everything depends on quanta, and no continuous fields exist, what carries the force acting between objects? The question is answered by postulating a particle. The reasoning is simple: Since the existence of a continuous field is a violation of the quantum concept, all forces between objects must be of the nature of exchange forces.
Consider the following: Proton-proton repulsion in the nucleus is overcome and the nucleus is rendered stable by the act of mesons shuttling back and forth between nuclear particles. One standard text used the analogy of two card players held together by their common interest in the game as the cards passed back and forth between them.
Now consider the facts: The meson has momentum which must be overcome and reversed by the nuclear particle at the end of each trip. The net reaction is that of repulsion instead of attraction. For anyone who can bring himself to believe that a nucleus is stabilized in this manner, I have a bridge for sale. It is located in Brooklyn and may be some trouble to move, but you can rest assured that you will be getting a bargain.
At the present time we have quarks of various colors. Gravitons and gravitinos, gluons and gluinos, and a whole slew of particles unmentioned and unmentionable. None of these is pertinent to anything other than the ego of the investigator who proposed it.
If the tongue-in-cheek approach to physical theory is used, there is a danger to be considered. The only way that the tongue can be in the cheek is that it is between the teeth. A good jolt or reality may result in a badly bitten tongue.
One description of quantum theory is that everything goes steady by jerks. The original controversy goes back to the argument between Einstein and Bohr as to the proper description of creation As in most arguments, they were both right and both wrong. The description is rendered incomplete if either view is rejected. Since quanta depend on wave resonances and waves depend on a continuous medium for their propagation, the rejection of either view is in error.
There is a very definite connection between the mouth and the mind. If the mouth is open, the mind is closed. This renders all arguments futile before they are begun. The present View of particle exchange as a carrier of forces is the ultimate in nonsense.
Nowhere is the superficiality of human understanding more evident than that concerning the simplest of all the particles. the electron. This particle represents the pac-man of space, gobbling up photons all over the place. Since the photon is a mass entity, as far as theory is concerned, it can only be affected by a gravitational field. It is assumed that the gravitational field of the electron is too weak to be measured. The mystery of the electron capture of a photon must then be explained.
It is certain that the gravitational constant invoked in the creation of the electron is far in excess of that applying to aggregate mass For rest, we must assume a saturation of internal forces to apply in which the gravitational force is balanced by centrifugal force in such a way that no external effect is felt. For a condition of motion, the reduction of the internal energy of the particles permits an external manifestation of this gravitational mass force which is active in photon capture. Since all matter is composed of electrons and positrons in various states of motion, the resulting residual gravitational constant is that which is applicable to aggregate matter. Then we state: The observed universal gravitational constant is a result of a condition of less-then-saturation brought about by particle motion within the structure of matter.
It follows that the universal gravitational constant may be universal, but may not be necessarily constant. Not only may it vary with different materials, but it also may vary with time as the conditions of motion change within a system These changes are necessarily Very minor in magnitude, but can be expected to be within the limits of measurement. The basic energy law as applied to the creation of matter in the aggregate is that the sum of the internal energy, plus the gravitational energy in the field is a constant equal to the original mass energy. The high gravitational mass energy at the surface of the earth reduces the internal energy of matter at this point. The velocity of light in this region is reduced to correspond. It follows that the velocity of light is Variable in the field.
We must assume that there exists a condition of reciprocity. Then we state: In any field that manifests a gradient in the Velocity of light a corresponding gravitational gradient must exist.
It is interesting to note that Einstein flubbed up in the field of mechanics at the same point that Newton did. He assumed that the inertial force does no work. Because he allowed for a mass variation, he came up with a mass increase with velocity in a moving object. It was quite fortuitous that the mass increase was found to be applicable for particles accelerated by time varying fields. It is not true for static fields.
If you happen to be a baseball player, one in three is not bad. Even though he completely missed the other two mass transformations, Einstein could claim a batting average of over three hundred. For a man supposed to be a genius, it is nothing to brag about. The interesting fact is that even though the calculation was based upon erroneous principles, he came out of it smelling like a rose. Sometimes it seems that nature conspires to obscure the truth.
We have stated that in a positron-electron group such as that of the neutron, the mass manifestation is not at all sufficient to account for the total energy involved. If this is the case. mass and energy are not equivalent. The estimate of the radius of the neutron varies, with an average measured value of about 1.45 x 10-13 centimeters. Since the mass energy radius of the electron is of the order of 10 -11 centimeters and there are 1860 positrons and electrons in the group, then we observe that the positron and electrons are in a highly compressed state.
As a matter of simplicity, let us consider a single electron at rest. Further, its energy is properly described by the product of Planck's constant times frequency. Also the internal circulation velocity is given as the Velocity of light. If the radius of the unit is reduced by the factor N, the frequency is multiplied by the same factor. If the energy is given as specified, this single particle now has N times its original energy just by the fact of contraction. But there are N of these particles in the group. The group energy is the N2 times the original energy and not just N times the original energy. Then we find that the use of Planck's quantum energy forms verifies the charge energy form that was originally used. It follows that mass and energy are not equivalent.
The worst error of quantum theory is the assumption that radiation can occur only in quantum steps. If we consider a mass object in free fall in a gravitational field, a continuous energy adjustment takes place as the object falls. The only way that the object can preserve its original energy is to gain energy and lose energy at the same rate. If the object under free fall is brought into an orbit, it must radiate energy as an adjustment to orbital conditions. Since the entire field structure is changed in a continuous manner during the process, this field adjustment did not take place in quantum steps.
A popular concept in science at the present time is that of free energy. There is supposed to be a lot of that floating around waiting for someone to tap into it. At a meeting in Toronto a few years ago, a man living in a California commune was talking of his electric motor that tapped into the magnetic field of space to provide energy at one hundred and fifty percent efficiency. He was sorry not to be able to demonstrate it, but the commune had confiscated the device.
There are vague references to a Neutrino Sea in space, and to Tachyons that travel at velocities in excess of light and carry more energy than you can shake a stick at. All we need is an interceptor of some sort to catch the particles and make the energy available. A Frenchman describes the tremendous energy in a vacuum and makes plans to tap into it.
The energy of a Vacuum depends on where the vacuum is located. We have mentioned the energy distribution in a gravitational field, but we have given no particular measure of it. Since gravitation is a mass effect, we may assign a mass density as well as an energy density to the gravitational field. Calculation shows that the mass density of the gravitational space at the surface of the earth is one third the average mass density of the earth itself.
There are certain points to be considered. One may very well be: If we are walking around in such a condition, why is our progress not impeded? The answer to that is the absolute lack of viscosity in the medium. That brings up the speculative action of the perfect medium, but for now we are interested in tapping into the medium as an energy source. We conclude that all we have to do is to release the energy is to destroy the earth. This does not seem to be a viable solution.
The perfect medium is one in which no viscosity applies. Also, it is uncompressible so that the velocity of propagation of effects is infinite. It also has a mass density. It follows that the gravitational space of the earth has all of the necessary characteristics to qualify except for that of the finite velocity of light.
There is another point to be considered. If a cavity is created within a perfect medium, that cavity takes on certain characteristics. If it is put into motion it tends to remain in motion in a straight line until it is acted upon by external forces. If a force is applied to it, the cavity accelerates with a rate of change of motion that is proportional to the force applied.
If the above paragraph sounds familiar, it should. We have been describing in detail Newton's laws of motion as applied to a mass object. The fact that the cavity contains no mass of its own is obscured by the action of the medium.
It seems impossible to turn around without running into another erroneous conclusion. The cavity acts as if it had inertia, but it certainly has no mass. Then we are forced to conclude that mass and inertia are not equivalent. Also, at least in part, Mach's contention that inertia depends upon the presence of other mass objects is confirmed. Further confirmation depends upon the inability to define either velocity or acceleration in the absence of a reference frame.
The velocity of response of the medium is the velocity of light instead of infinity as it would be in the case of a perfect medium Then if we consider the cavity as the acceleration continues to increase its velocity. The inability of the medium to respond may very well distort the cavity as a compressional effect in the direction of motion. At the same time, more of the total mass of the medium is affected since it can't get out of the way of the motion. Then we have an apparent mass increase in the cavity although it still has no mass of its own. We conclude that the limitations imposed by the theory of relativity are field effects only, and have no validity in the absence of a field.
Whatever civilization may be, it is certain that it floats on a sea of oil. When that sea dries up, so does civilization. The oil shortage of the seventies should have been a warning, but nobody got the signal I never saw a Stanley Steamer, but it had certain characteristics that can't be forgotten. My one memory of the Stanley Steamer is the claim that it could go seventy miles an hour in reverse.
When the gasoline shortage was at its worst, there were several infinities of proposals concerned with alternate fuels. I had my own solution to the problem all worked out. It was based on the use of West Virginia coal and the revival of the Stanley Steamer. My proposal was that the Government should immediately start developing a quarter sized race of humans to be used as stokers. Can't you imagine, dear reader, the driver of a Stanley Steamer backing down the highway at seventy miles an hour, while a little guy under the hood shovels coal into the firebox like mad?
The basic trouble with an oil field is that is tends to run dry. If it takes thirty million years for nature to form an oil field and thirty years to pump it dry the odds are a million to one against humanity. The process is that of exploiting the past and thereby destroying the future.
Every gallon of oil burned is another gallon of raw material for manufacture that is denied future generations.
The worst feature of the fossil fuel is the incredible volume required. Since this volume must be shipped overlong distances and then spread to every customer, it is almost a miracle that the entire volume is not used in the process of transportation with nothing left over at the pump. As sources become more remote and the volume required increases, we have all of the elements of a self-defeating system.
We are inclined to wonder if the gift of fire was a blessing or a curse. In any case, if there is blame to be cast, we can always blame Prometheus. It was he who stole fire from the gods and gave it to the human race. The poor idiots have been in the process of burning everything in sight ever since.
The author himself takes an optimistic view of the future. This may be summed up by the statement: Within the next ten thousand generations, intelligent life will appear upon this planet. Whether or not humanity will survive that long is another question.
The church projected itself into the field of science long before the advent of Bishop Berkeley. The concept of Good and Evil is a part of the human heritage. We associate the word Good with God. while Evil and Devil are closely allied. Beyond this point the concept becomes a bit vague. If we were required to give examples and definitions of either Good or Evil that were not open to question, we could find it more than a bit difficult.
The Lord Christ delineated the difference in terms of the statement: "By their fruits ye shall know them." If this is the criterion, those things which appear to be good in the beginning may not be so in the final analysis. My own criterion is that anything that limits man in his development as a responsible individual capable of doing his own thinking is evil.
It follows that evil is not a person or a thing, but rather that which the human race chooses to make it. As a case in point, if the teachings of Christ are used as a justification for the continued ignorance of the human race, that is an evil.
In the present day it is assumed that there exists a conflict between science and religion. Galileo was dragged before the church tribunal and forced to recant his supposed heresy that the earth revolved around the sun. Strange to say, but neither the sun nor the earth was affected by the verdict. They both went about their business doing what comes naturally.
The teachings of Darwin concerning the process of evolution is supposed to be in conflict with the "Creationist" View of the present time. Any attempt to resolve the conflict is just as futile as the churchmen of the middle ages arguing over the number of angels that could be seated on the head of a pin. This is the place to throw in a little humor and ask how many angels "got the point?"
If the church fathers really have a crow to pick with science they are picking the wrong bird. There cannot be any development in science more evil than the theory of relativity. If creation is based on the principle of relativity, then the Lord God must have the brains of a Mongolian idiot. Yet, every preacher who ever mentioned Einstein in the course of a sermon used the "Golly Gee" approach.
"Golly Gee! Just imagine what a great mind this man had to come up with so many contradictions and paradoxes, all in one theory. Golly Gee! He is so smart that he produced a theory that even he can't understand!"
The evil is not in Einstein. The evil is in the fact that his work is taken as the final authority. In this case there is no room for any advance in science. Then that which was considered such a great advance in the beginning has become a barrier to further progress.
The present state of the nuclear energy program can be used as an example. The nuclear age was supposed to usher in the era of electricity so cheap that there would be no point in going to the expense of installing meters. At present. nuclear power plants have become so complicated and so expensive as to bankrupt any company that builds one. Further, with a construction time stretching out as much as fifteen years, they are obsolete before they are put on line.
"Cheer up! The worst is yet to come!'- In his book of essays titled "Out of My Later Years" Einstein mourned the decay of morality and order that he had observed during his own lifetime. Apparently he never realized that the "Flaming Liberals" had adopted the catchword "Relativity" to justify any action on the basis of expedience. In speaking of the atomic bomb, he "saw the shadow of a Great Evil." It is to be wondered if he felt any responsibility for that evil.
Now it becomes a question: Will the holocaust come as a nuclear war, or as a sequence of nuclear accidents such as that of Chernobyl? At the present time there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. If a light appears, it may be only the glow from the meltdown of a nuclear reactor.
|
| (573) 470-5806 | spiritguidedhealer@gmail.com |
Home | Reiki Healing | Herbs | Articles |
SouthernPRIDE | Links
---> Nature's Healing Elixir <---