Gravity Wars





Edward E. Rochon




Shakespir EDITION



  • * * * *




Edward E. Rochon on Shakespir



Gravity Wars

Copyright © 2017 by Edward E. Rochon




Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.


Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.






Some Other Works by the Author


[Axioms & Theorems: An Essay
Cubics: A Numbers Essay
EMF Banding Model
Ethereal Mea Culpa
Global Warming: An Essay
God & Square Roots
God & Square Roots II
Holographic TV: An Essay
The JU Engine
Pest Control: An Essay
Pollution Solution: An Essay
Pollution Soup Cook: An Essay
Polygon Calculus
Super Intelligence: An Essay]



Reading Material



  • * * * *





Table of Contents

Title Page


Chapter 1: Newton

Chapter 2: Deus ex Machina

Chapter 3: Ether Motion


About the Author





A veil of ignorance, superstition, hangs over science, a dark polluted cloud, instigated by Isaac Newton, perpetuated and darkened still more malignantly by Albert Einstein and others. We have gone from the superstitious attractive force at a distance without a shred of evidence to back it up, other than it makes Newton’s numbers work out more or less, compounded by the even more egregious corruption of Einstein. Space shrinks, bends, folds into nothing. The absence of relative velocity with respect to light, that for some reason pops up only with light in a vacuum, and that is demonstrably false by simple geometric construction of the problem has become conventional wisdom. The further corruption of science by the more general so called theory of relativity continues to pollute the vistas of modern science. The stupid, cowardly, student bodies that must accept this drivel to gain admittance to tenured clubs, to be published in pseudo-scientific drivel, peer reviewed journals, in order not to perish through the publish or perish dictum, compound the matter.

The question of light being beams of particles or not, that at least had some logical merit in the time of Newton, worked best without an ether to interfere with particle transmission. René Descartes suggested (sic) that vortexes (vortices) of substance moved the planets about. His particular notion did not hold up to analysis. The contemptible Newton used this to completely exclude ether from the picture, simply because one hypothesis did not work out well. During Newton’s time and since, more evidence accumulated that light was a wave. Later on, this radiation was shown to operate in increments and at a simple trigger point emission energy state. That waves can be emitted in spurts, that trigger points can reach a critical level for various frequencies, in no way excludes light as a wave. A small blip of light waves emitted in spurts would look like a speck of light in a bubble chamber, yet still be a wave. Very small releases of energy would look fixed, the variance between no release and do release wave incremental variances difficult to detect with the most sensitive of equipment.

An experiment by Michelson and Morley did not indicate motion of the Earth through an ether detectable by interference patterns in an interferometer experiment. We have the possibilities that the physical properties of the arms of the interferometer shrink in the direction of motion by ether pressure, (Note how the face of the test pilot compresses when accelerated on his rocket sled.), or that the ether is being carried along with the motion of the earth and moon and sun in such a way that can be reconciled with Kepler’s Laws. There is no immutable law that says only Descartes’ supposition is the only correct supposition for ethereal influence upon the motion of planets. There are other views on how gravitation might work without recourse to mystical attractive forces and vacuums in space.

Finally, we must attack and question the motives of those who would suppress research into viable alternatives to Newton, to magnetism as attractive force, to casting utter contempt on Newton’s notions that we should not look too deeply into anything that might make Newton look bad. This child of man that likened himself to a boy walking down the beach picking up shells of interest among a vast ocean of knowledge was a spoiled brat to the extreme degree, a very disagreeable, vainglorious and unreasonable man. I have no problem attacking his character, as those who do not study matters in detail, are free to question the ethics of those who do, and who offer ridiculous notions to buffer their pet theories from criticism. It is not certain that Isaac Newton ever walked upon an ocean beach, not much of a sojourner in life (perhaps a pond shore or riverbank, doubtless, yes, to that). The author has spent more time at the ocean beach and has a better metaphorical perspective than Newton. Well, twisting metaphors always leads to questionable conclusions, I will admit. Before the great ocean, we ask: what ways can it be used to advantage? what extracted, how crossed with ease and safety, what knowledge to be garnered? As for its great size: so what? Oceans have their size, men theirs. Oceans are mindless, the mind of man vaster than that void of thought, at least. Let us compare our minds to God’s wisdom. Back to Table of Content



Chapter 1: Newton

[Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in night;
God said “Let Newton be” and all was light.]

Alexander Pope: (intended Newton Epitaph)

The truth is that all became night. The enlightenment should be more properly called the benightedness. The course of science was corrupted by this wretched attempt to remove God from nature without evidence, to attack faith itself as superstitious without evidence. The proper study of man is God, not man. The goal is perfection of character, omniscience, and omnipotence. I have just described the transcendent God of the Bible.

[I turn my eyes to the schools & universities of Europe
And there behold the loom of Locke whose woof rages dire,
Washed by the water-wheels of Newton. Black the cloth
In heavy wreaths folds over every nation; cruel works
Of many wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
Moving by compulsion each other: not as those in Eden, which
Wheel within wheel in freedom revolve, in harmony & peace.]

William Blake: Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion

We know how waterwheels work in the main. Nobody knows anything about Newton’s heavenly wheels of ludicrous attractive forces. There is not a shred of evidence to support this nonsense. We know how push must work. One object must move to allow another to move in position. You say magnets attract? Do they not also repel? You posit some invisible incoherent attractive force? Why not some logically coherent invisible pushing force? The magnets are pushed together or pushed apart in turns. Just what is an anti-attractive force? How does attraction become repulsion? We know what push is. Newton could not see atoms. Why not suppose the ether was invisible? These elements are not atoms anyway. There are smaller pieces. Why not even smaller pieces between both atoms and planets? If we cannot figure out how to detect them as minute individual particles, this proves nothing. The evidence of light and force across distances is evidence enough, though indirect.

[Reason and Newton, they are quite two things,
For so the swallow and the sparrow sings.
Reason says ‘Miracle’, Newton says ‘Doubt’.]

William Blake: You Don’t Believe

Reason says both natural and miraculous, and doubt has nothing to do with reason. Reason analyzes nature but not miracles, being out of its scope. Reason is founded upon certainty. Without certainty, doubt is meaningless. Acknowledgment of ignorance when apt is morally mandatory, rationally coherent, and prudent. I don’t know for certain; two or more possibilities are before me as a certainty at present; I do know by logical proof. I know to the extent observation is knowable. Not having any reason to doubt my experience, I will act upon it definitely by that premise until circumstances dictate otherwise. There is no doubt here. Doubt is a neurosis of the mind founded upon lack of reason, character flaw and stupidity all around. No greater fool than the sceptic who suspects all. The iniquity of mankind does not invalidate truth. Are all liars? You know by the truth. What is truth? The question of a scoundrel escaping responsibility that even he knows is a lie. What is this truth, or that truth, or the truth beyond this and that? Now all that is reasonable and is founded upon truth. You honestly admit your ignorance: truth. You are encouraged to pursue truth to resolve the matter: virtuous. What is truth, is the question of an ignorant, cowardly knave, trying to pass himself off as a fearless existential philosopher. Pessimism is cowardice, not optimism. Faith is wisdom, not doubt. Tolerating ignorance, endless repetitive pain is futile, foolhardy and cowardly. He who hates pain and degradation most, loves paradise and God most. He who hates pain and degradation most, endures pain and degradation best. The sailor who hates the cruel and deadly and chaotic sea most, plies the cruel and deadly and chaotic sea best.

To Newton, gravity was a force that acted at a distance, with no obvious way in which it was actually transmitted from place to place. Newton was not satisfied with this explanation, but he had none better.

http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn: 2:7 Newton’s Laws

The motions of the Comets are exceedingly regular, are governed by the same laws with the motions of the Planets, and can by no means be accounted for by the hypotheses of vortices. For Comets are carried with very eccentric motions through all parts of the heavens indifferently, with a freedom that is incompatible with the notion of a Vortex.

The General Scholium by Isaac Newton, trans. Andrew Motte, 1729

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not frame hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

The General Scholium by Isaac Newton, trans. Andrew Motte, 1729

Now is this not amazing, this man whose IQ was supposed to be 265 by some ludicrous calculation once read by the author some years ago? I have read biographies of Newton about his childhood development. In the previous century, I watched a television report on a 200 IQ Korean child that far exceeded anything Newton was capable of at 3 years of age. He had skills in music, linguistics and mathematics. I personally met a child more intelligent by far than Newton was as a child. For myself, I am merely a C student, yet these IQ tests are largely meaningless for adults at any rate. They show statistical childhood development. The Mensa Society is filled with bums that solve difficult puzzles and little else.

Herr Leibniz could have informed Sir Isaac, supported by that stupid, fat sybaritic pig, David Hume, that it is impossible to establish any cause effect relationship in nature, meaning that all such assumptions are hypotheses. Hume did not consider himself to be a philosopher, the understatement of the era (metaphysics not his cup of tea, and understatement a British specialty), and was officially an agnostic no matter what the atheists claim. And Newton disdained atheism as did Leibniz. On the other hand, immediate phenomena that require no such causative supposition: space, matter, motion as such, time are clearly established. Proving cause and effect is not required. And there is no difference between empirical observation and immediately impressed cognition, requiring no memory of events, the events being immanent and immediate at every moment, requiring no memory, nor reflection. They are axioms of the senses so to speak. You can discuss and suppose their ultimate nature. Just what is matter after all in precise detail? Humph!

Your assumption of an attractive force based upon the evidence is based upon no evidence. There is no empirical evidence anywhere in the practical world of men that supports it. It is a hypothesis that you claim is not, because you do not make hypotheses. Well, sir, all empirical theories are hypotheses, no matter what evidence backs them up. They cannot be proven. Data establishes nothing, besides. It is only logic and reason that give validity to any theory and the underlying hypotheses.

I have no problem with your critique of Descartes’ explanation as such with respect to comets. This was merely a tentative suggestion. Your drivel about evidence and the invalidity of supposing some method of categorizing that evidence is utterly contemptible. You are contemptible and stupid to boot. Nor does your critique conclusively prove that some type of vortex action is not taking place in the Solar System on a local level. If the great spaces have little vortex action other than near the planets, or that action is uniform on the ecliptic of the system, such that it is not readily noticeable, all bodies moving with it, then even your comet critique is suspect. And if the comets have inertia far greater than the general vortex, the influence is negligible. The planets being in line with these forces, stay in line by inertia and angular momentum of the bodies. By that, very little vortex force is needed to keep them in place. We merely assume what all the ancients assumed up to Galileo that planets have some angular momentum within them, keeping them in orbit. This excludes the crystal spheres rotating domes supposition that was also considered back in history.

We hear that you gouged at your eyes in optical experimentation by your own admission that makes glue sniffers of today sound like sensible people. Go blind to see, is it? And that idiot, John Milton, going blind to become wise! My own eyes weary a bit refuting your contemptible stupidity. You had 40 times the average amount of mercury in your hair samples. You tampered with alchemical superstitions most of your life. Should we be surprised by your mystical invisible attractive forces emanating from matter? We have your fellow liar and scoundrel Herr Leibniz with his thinking specks of God knows what, without a shred of evidence to support them, howbeit, in conformity with the typical shaman liar that you find among primitive cultures and the evil Greco-Roman and other cultures that followed them. At the time, I hear that alchemy along with taking the King’s horoscope was illegal, deemed satanic and suspect, along with your denial of the Trinity of Trinity College and apparent denial of the full humanity of Jesus Christ, merely a shell of a body. So, not only are you capable of deception to keep your job (perhaps understandable) but self-deception to keep your undeserved inflated ego at full pressure. Newton’s adjusted Boyle’s Law of Gases with respect to overblown egotism!

Now, as for me, I do not mind making hypotheses, and in fact, am proud of it. Do not tell me that Newton did not hypothesize in assuming attraction as gravitation, know nothing liar. No genius, sir, a fool passing for genius in the minds of fools.

We must suspect Sir Isaac of bad faith, bad intent along with bad natural philosophical method and bad science.

Having briefly gone over why your undeserved reputation must be deflated, we go over the possibilities and reasons why we must look for mechanical explanations for gravitation. Back to Table of Content



Chapter 2: Deus ex Machina

The chapter heading bespeaks of theatrical ruses, tricks to make things appear what they are not, acts of the gods through supernatural agencies. Yet, we are not looking for supernatural agencies, and deus ex machina were and are machines that work according to predictable laws of mechanics. We look for God’s contraption.

First, we sow scepticism in the mind of the reader about the integrity and authority of our overblown scientific community generally working out of the ignorance factories called universities. We note that:

They commonly accept wave action without a medium. Water waves without water. This is the fact.

**They weasel out of the above nonsense by postulating a particle that somehow has no mass at rest but tiny mass at the speed of light, a speed that it must move at at all times. This is called a photon.
**Something called entanglement that means two paired particles interact instantaneously in space-time at any and all distances, in spite of the fact that they accept no speed greater than light to operate as a medium for this influence. They also reject supernatural agency or Ocassionalism. That is, some supernatural force outside of nature simultaneously influences both particles without any respect to time limitations or velocity limits.
**Space is an accordion that somehow contracts into itself, expands into itself, bends. In spite of the fact that space is entirely uniform (except when linked to matter), completely uniform without any granular nature, meaning there is no place to contract or expand into. Without space defined by mass, curved space is meaningless. And with mass, the curve is in the mass, and the space simply fills the form uniformly. No one has ever discovered any way to detect blobs of space. Two blobs would have what between them? Why space is between, and so a continuum of space. Matter as a continuum has always been a problem to prove (plenum), but space is without a doubt a continuum by definition. Space between spaces defined is space.
**We are told that relative velocity with respect to light in a vacuum is not possible, though this is utterly illogical and demonstrably disproven, even without any refutation of space warping, shrinking or other such nonsense. It is certain that any object approaching a beam of light head on, closes on that beam at velocity equal to light plus the object velocity (c + v). But the lollipop sucking moron says otherwise, so it cannot possibly be true that (c + v) is the closing velocity.
**We have the supposition of attractive forces without any reasonable explanation for them, nor any reasonable explanation as to why pushing forces cannot explain these so called attractive forces. We have previously discussed Newton’s hypocritical and moronic claim that the attractive force is not a hypothesis.
**We are told somewhat cryptically that mass and energy are equivalent, generally with the sense that matter turns into something called pure energy. It is hard to nail down just what the term equivalent means here. In fact, all evidence supports that natural energy in nature is merely matter in motion. In the case of uniform motion, a coherent object with velocity can exert force. In the case of multiform motion, waves, oscillating particles pass force through a medium while the particles stay within a limited back and forth zone of motion. Later classical science accepted heat as matter in motion at the molecular and atomic level. So do I and so do most theories of science, even by relativity idiots with their nonsensical qualifications of course.
**We are told that the speed of light is an absolute barrier without any empirical or logical justification. This is in spite of the fact that these people continually offer proof that this is not so. Entanglement is a case in point. In other examples particles move faster than light. This is generally crouched in some nonsense of the wormhole sort, these portals that bypass space and time to travel. This does not count.
**Black holes that collapse into point masses in the end.
**Big Bang Theory under the supposition of the point mass, space generated from nothing, mass generated from nothing or whatever a point mass is, all supported by nonsense geometry. In spite of the fact that the Big Bang starts at a point mass, radiation from this is moving in all directions, because space turns back in on itself or some such nonsense.
**That gravity bends light waves by bending space, supposedly proven by faulty experiments and interferometers. We must ignore that light passes through bodies with atmospheres that are subject to altering light paths by known properties of refraction.
**We must ignore any number of thought experiments and geometric proofs that the Theory of Relativity is nonsense. Liars have seized control of the education system, use their degrees to impress an ignorant public, then condemn religion for demanding acceptance of truth upon authority. Of course, they are not shaman filth themselves, though they clearly are.

There are some things we must take into account to posit a mechanical explanation for gravitation.

Explain the relationship between light transmission through space and gravitational effects. We conclude without any reservation at this point that light is a wave through a medium. No incremental interruptions in transmission from black bodies, no so called transverse wave effect, no apparent behavior anomalies of particles need offer any impediment to this. We merely find ways of resolving them into coherent algorithms or theories. If you find this self-serving, look at the nonsense our idiot pseudo-scientists postulate and then call me self-serving. I regret ever entertaining for a moment that light is not best explained as a wave. To be sure, a short intense incremental burst of light can look like a particle, look like, that is all.

**Explain the Michelson-Morley effect in terms of an ether as medium for gravitation. This experiment could find no evidence that the earth passing through the ether was leaving a wind effect, much as a car on a calm day produces an artificial wind about the car that will affect your hand out of the window when the car is stopped or moving in different ways.
**Explain the theory from the point of view of the conservation of energy supposition, adapting current classical laws of motion to fit the supposition.

Let us now make a palette of explanations that come to us down through the ages to draw on for a picture of gravitational mechanics:

One: There is some force or characteristic of heavenly bodies that inclines them to move in orbits in free space. This was a common explanation in former days.

Two: Interference of radiation in one, two or some mode creates an ether imbalance of forces that pushes heavenly bodies together. This operates in conjunction with the first palette option or not.
Three: Limited vortex forces operate in ways that conform to known operations of heavenly bodies in conjunction with one or two of the other palette options mentioned here.
Four: The final background palette color concedes that dynamic motion of objects in space is logically untenable in the absolute. We must go to supernatural forces to explain juxtaposition of matter in space and the consequent relationships of time. This offers no scientific option of controlling the physical world, and need not exclude systematic explanation based upon natural algorithms or theories. After all, the supernatural force doubtless acts in a systematic fashion for the most part. And this is no different than Newton venturing that God causes his attractive force and so no need of explaining that force as a mechanical force, that being excluded.

Mechanical explanations for gravitation have been around that differ from Descartes’ view. One view is based upon a radiant shadow concept. We note that radiant energy is all about the universe. Radiant energy can be in the form of waves or particles (solar wind, for example.) We should note that since waves push forward through the medium and the space of the medium, the action-reaction principle must certainly be at work, given that action-reaction is deemed reasonable. Waves do in fact push against the seawall. When a vibrating body emits waves, the wave action must push back on the emitting source, and each wave in turn pushes back on the prior wave all the way back to the source, until the emission stops. At that point, an attenuation back wave would be momentarily in effect. What I mean is, that when you stop swirling or sloshing water in the bowl, the swirling or sloshing goes on a bit after you stop causing it. So even waves have pushing force.

When radiant energy strikes a heavenly body, it applies pressure. Radiant energy is coming from all directions, as radiating heavenly bodies lie in all directions from other bodies. There is a question of the edge of the material universe. We have not been there, and our telescopes are of dubious use and reliable interpretation on that matter, and is certainly open to question. By the way, virtually all heavenly bodies emit radiation of some sort, not just stars. Stars are major sources.

One body in line with radiant energy coming from one side of outer space, casts a radiant energy shadow on the opposite side to that energy source. Should another heavenly body fall within the shadow, there is less pressure on the second body within the shadow produced by the blockage of radiant energy. In a like manner, the second body casts a shadow back on the first body. The result is that there is less energy force on the inner sides of the two bodies. This means that the forces on the outer side are stronger than those on the shaded inner sides. This causes an inward pushing force between the two heavenly bodies. When you have many bodies with many shadows you have resultant forces just as with Newtonian gravitation. The closer the bodies are, the more intense the effect of shading. Moreover, once bodies start moving toward each other, the continuous pressure produces continuous acceleration, just as is the case with Newton’s supposition.

A visualization of the shadow effect:

Imagine the Earth and Moon in space.
Earth blocks radiation hitting the Moon by its radiant shadow.
The Moon’s shadow blocks energy hitting the Earth at the same time.
This continues throughout their orbits along the inner line between their centers.
This is like the shadows of eclipses but omnipresent, as the Sun is one point and the cosmos all around.
More force hits the outer surfaces on Earth and Moon than the inner surfaces between them.
An unbalanced force pushes the Earth and Moon together.

One proponent of this theory at one point in his life was Thomas Jefferson Jackson See (1866-1962). He later concluded that EMF possessed a property that created a contraction of ether between heavenly bodies that forced the planets together. He also claimed that magnetism and gravity were the same force. See was a great critic of Relativity physics, was condemned for sloppy work in the later 19th century by claiming to have found a dark body around a binary star 70 Ophiuchus and ostracized by many astronomers. It was confirmed later on that See was right. His observations were correct. This was the first non-stellar body outside the Solar System found by astronomy via See.

Radiation interaction causes ether particles to contract inward between Earth and Moon.
A void is created by the contraction.
The rest of the ether pushes the heavenly bodies inward to fill the void.

With respect to the ether and its supposition as a gravitational medium, we must consider the Michelson-Morley Experiment that attempted to detect the velocity of the Earth through the medium. They used an interferometer that splits a beam of monochrome light from a single source into two beams moving at right angles to each other by use of a semi-transparent mirror. The absolute speed of light under a waveform assumption is dependent upon the medium. When light leaves the source, its speed depends upon the medium, and not upon the motion of the source. If light were a particle, like a bullet, the speed of the source would add to the speed of the particle from the perspective of the backdrop of space.

If the Earth moves, the interferometer moves with it. The device bounces back the split beams to a target. If the two beams come back to the target out of synchronization due to longer journeys through the ether, an interference pattern will indicate this. These variations of lines can be used to calculate the speed of the earth through the medium that light uses. The light source chases the mirror directly ahead of it. This adds to the time it takes to reach that mirror. The relative closing speed is less than the speed of light through the ether. The beam moving at right angles also takes a longer path to bounce to its mirror and back to a source, but less time than the beam going straight from the source, then back to the target. For example, a boat doing 10 knots in a 5 knot current will take twice as long to reach a buoy in the river as when there is no current. If the closing speed is 10 knots (no current) the boats reaches the buoy in 1 minute. If the current is 5 knots, the closing speed on the buoy is 5 knots and takes 2 minutes for the boat to reach the buoy. If the river is as wide as the distance between the start point and the buoy, It takes 1 minute to cross the river with no current. With a current, you have two forces acting on the boat, one at 10 knots and one at 5 knots. The boat moves at a diagonal and travels at the square root of 125 knots (about 11+ knots.) The increased speed and increased distance cancel each other out. A return trip would take another minute, adding to 2 minutes. The beam moving straight back would have a closing speed moving with the current of 15 knots. It would take 40 seconds. Adding 2 minutes to 40 seconds is greater than 2 minutes, even though the source beam is the same, left the source at the same time. This discrepancy is noted on the interference pattern.

Imagine a cross with a light source and 3 mirrors at the other 3 ends.
Imagine a mirror in the middle that is semi-transparent.
The middle mirror splits the beam into two. One beam passes straight through to a target mirror.
The straight back and forth path may take 2.67 nanoseconds, for example, to go from middle mirror to end mirror and back again.
The beam at right angle goes back and forth in 2 nanoseconds.
Both beams join at the middle mirror and reflect to a target that shows interference patterns.
The target shows that both paths have the same time (2 nanoseconds).
This would not be true if the earth was moving against the ether (ether wind.)

Michelson-Morley results indicated no such discrepancy. They concluded that the ether must be relatively static about the earth, or that there was no ether. Physicist George Fitzgerald surmised that the armatures of the interferometer contracted in the direction of the earth’s motion. Einstein later claimed that space itself contracted, or that at any rate, the velocity of light is always constant between any two bodies. The other supposition is that light is a particle and subject to the laws governing particles. The source speed is added to the beam of light particles, and this explains the results, barring some frictional attenuation of the beams over time in different proportion. That is to say, a bullet shot at x velocity from a gun moving at y velocity to a target moving at y velocity will approach the target at velocity (x + y). It will reach the target at the same time as if the gun and target were not moving at all.

The argument between light being a particle or wave has been going on for hundreds of years. The compromise of a wave-particle is logically incoherent as currently asserted. While 19th century scientists were coming to the conclusion that light was a wave, there was a phenomenon that a beam of light passing through pure water showed no sideways illumination, as if the beam were not there. With lasers, we have the same effect when no dust is in the air to scatter light transverse to the beam. This is indicative of particles but the facts will not support this. Further observations have noted these traits:

Light travels in discrete increments or bursts of waves. There is no need to assume a particle. I have modified my own views on particles as required. A tiny blip of light will appear as a dot that appears like a particle. The light has frequency and wavelength. The increments have length and frequency or period, how many times increments emitted/second. The waves have amplitude but much attenuated by the threshold and release point of very small particles acting as resonators to produce the light pulses. In effect, it is pulse or not pulse at a given very small range of amplitude. Brightness or dimness is in number of pulses per volume.

**There is no evidence that the speed of light is constant. An ether medium may vary in different parts of the universe or not. The Red Shift detected at the extremities of the visible universe need not show acceleration away from the earth. Given the preposterous assertion of the Big Bang Theory used to support this, we should view this evidence in the dim light of the developing room, also tending to red. The speed of light varies in different mediums on earth. The exact reason is not conclusively known. One option is staggered light path around atoms. Another is rarefaction of ether within dense masses of matter such as water. In general, denser medium produces faster waves. The fact that this is not so with the elements, indicates that the elements are not the medium. If they were, light should travel faster in water than air as is the case with sound.
**The distinction between transverse and longitudinal waves is a false differentiation. Waves moving along boundaries of discontinuity of medium have characteristic effects that modify their attributes.

We must consider the differences between waves that have very great wavelength in proportion to the medium particle sizes they travel through. Water waves are huge compared to the molecules of water. Radio waves are huge compared to light and gamma rays. As a general tendency, longer waves travel better through medium and medium impurities than shorter frequencies. This can vary with how the wavelengths resonate with medium particle dimensions, absorbed or reflected. Higher frequencies of the same amplitude have more energy per increment of wave than longer waves. The totals of the peaks add to more energy total. The more times a wave must move a medium, the more energy is dissipated by the inefficiencies attendant to any uniform type of motion, even when the uniform motion is multiform as in waves. The multiform action is uniform in behavior. Shorter frequencies to whatever degree are closer to the resonant frequencies of mediums and medium impurities. These all dissipate energy.

In the case of electromagnetic radiation the disconnect between seeing radio waves as particles and light waves as particles at the same time is mind numbing. We generally do not consider that topic in terminology and technology. To be consistent from that viewpoint, we should deny that radio waves and light are the same phenomena, regardless of Maxwell’s equations. It is easier to see light as waves, however, than to make that distinction.

The distinction between transverse waves and longitudinal waves is a false one. All waves must consist of both actions. That a plunger is transverse to the water surface while creating waves is irrelevant to any distinction. The plunger action pushes downward and outward. The outward movement pushes waves in line of force, the direction of the waves moving away from the plunger. The rise and fall of water attendant to this is transverse to the motion of the waves. This is true of all waves.

For example, if you had a sphere that could expand and contract in water due to air pressure or hydraulics or some mechanical force with sufficient force to cause visible water waves, the outward force would be longitudinal and still produce the wave effect. Using a cylinder of expanding and contracting force just below the water, the top at the surface, there would be no transverse force and the the waves would be the same. The distinctive thing about water waves is that they operate along a discontinuity of matter, that of the water and air. This has distinctive effects. The water has characteristics of solids, while the air is gaseous. Sound has so called transverse wave properties and the distinction becomes moot when working in solids. Solids have discontinuity boundaries that produce water wave effects. There are striations in the earth’s rock layers, shale and sandstone alternating layers, for example. A solid object has discontinuity with the air. This distinction between longitudinal and transeverse waves is utterly false. It is impossible for any wave action not to consist of longitudinal and transverse components.

The problem is that light waves have properties seen in water waves where a discontinuity in medium is the norm. This is the polarization effect of light. This effect is the result of medium discontinuity. There is no discontinuity in space to explain this. The surmised ether does not exist in this form. The only discontinuity is when the waves come in contact with masses of matter: radio antennas, lenses, glasses. This is where we must look for the cause of the polarization effects.

Clearly sound waves propagate both transversely and longitudinally in the atmospheres. They would not expand by the inverse law of propagation otherwise. We have no discontinuity in the uniform atmosphere to make them flatten out on a surface such as water to see polarization effects. As for the striking of receivers by sound, the gaps between the relative size of huge sound waves to reception medium of molecules is one factor. In the case of radio waves, the transmutation of waves to electric potential for detection is another factor. At any rate, light waves travel no differently than sound through air. The ether and atmosphere are equivalent and it boggles the imagination and logical faculties to see it any other way.

Moving to the laser effect and light beam invisibility transverse to the beam source, we must suppose some effects of transmission of high frequency, pulsed or incremental transmission, are causing this effect. We must consider how particles strike each other in a medium under the influences of oscillating wave action. It should be clear that a head on collision will transmit energy more effectively and cleanly, clean meaning relatively little change in direction from the forward motion of the wave action. Other motion would be of the sideswipe form, as when cars hit each other at an angle. You simply do not have the rapid deceleration to draw off energy from the vehicles to a dead stop.

Focusing in on a ray of light for a specific arc of the transmission, we see that the head on action passing the ray forward to the next layer of ether particles is quite strong in amount of energy passed along. The direct head on backwash also passes energy back to help set up the next compression front, for the backwash energy must be taken into account, and both forward and backwards direct line of ray motion is most efficient. But we also have sideway bumps that push off energy transverse to the line of motion. These may also bang into sideways hits from other rays in the expansion of the beam from source. This would of course fill in the gaps as the diverging rays of light spread out from the source. However, we must also have a backwash from sideswipe collisions. These place a compression force upon the ray channels that rigidify and densify the ray medium paths, allowing for even better transmission.* The backwash sideways energy is thus more efficiently channeled back into the forward motion of the rays on the line of transmission.

*Denser ether also takes more energy to move the ether, attenuating the force, but we suppose the oscillatory energy in the ether itself is somehow drawn back up into the increments of light to explain why light travels so efficiently through vast distances. We might imagine the increments act as sponges, sucking up frictional energy from the ether, much as I suppose planets reabsorb frictional energy moving through the ether and from friction within the bodies, all reabsorbed. These are almost or completely perpetual motion machines by this method. The fact that light is in packets of incremental waves, may allow the waves to pick up frictional force from the preceding passage of earlier waves. The front wave increments make the rear increments stronger. There must be a kind of vibrational synchronicity between the light packets and the ether medium, as it is the packets that are creating the frictional oscillatory energy in the ether in the first place.

Consider how this looks to the eye. The line of transmission from the source waves must be more intense than the sideway rarefaction/compression. It shows up bright upon the eye. Looking at the energy from a side view gives a very weak wavefront of rarefaction and compression, even to the point of invisibility. So the line of sight view from the source is the most intense. The sideways wavefronts are weak, and also the backwash is drawn up into the line of sight rays even as the total wavefront expands into the void of space. Without scatter to deflect line of sight rays, the very tenuous sideways front cannot be seen. The transverse expansion is weak; the line of sight from the source is strong. Also note that the side view of the ray is spread out while the front view is concentrated with respect to the force. It is geometrically more concentrated, as if you had a daub of yellow paint placed on a small circle of a coloring book, very intense, and the same daub spread out over the rest of the page, very pale. If the page were extensive enough, the yellow daub would even be invisible. We must posit some sort of transverse attenuation when rejecting light as a particle.

Imagine a star radiating light.
Call the lines directly from the star radiating outward: rays.
Call the spaces between the rays expanding sideways: sideway backwash.
Imagine the light goes out in tiny bursts or increments of light, particle-like.
Looking sideways you see lots of black space (free space) between the light increments.
From the side you see mostly dark space or all dark space.
With your eyes aligned directly to the star, many light increments hit your eye over and over.
The eye retains light for a fifth of a second as a lingering effect.
Add these things up, and you see a solid beam of light hitting your eye head on.
Imagine a car rearending a car directly ahead of it. Much energy is passed on to the rearended car.
Imagine a car sideswiping another car in the next lane. Not much energy is passed on.
The sideswiping cars will tend to bounce back into their respective lanes.
So sideswiping is weak but causes backwash into the ether in line with the rays.
This creates denser channels of ether along the rays, allowing more efficient energy transimission.
The ray transimission is still a back and forth motion though broken up into increments.
The increments are themselves waves and leave a backwash that helps make a strong wave action by collision.
That is, two forces moving at each other in opposite directions in a fluid medium cause a bump of energy moving transverse to their motion. This is the wave amplitude that gives the wave intensity.

Another factor in the laser effect is that light travels in very small discrete increments. This means that when you look at a laser beam from the side, you are looking at mostly empty black space. As just mentioned in the visualization above, when the pulses hit your eye dead on, their very great number striking your eye that holds an image for a fifth of a second at any rate, you can see that the beam is continuous and intense for as long as the laser is emitting the beam. These two factors combine to make transverse view of a laser beam invisible when without scatter from dust or impurities. I think my two hypotheses here are quite reasonable in explaining this effect.*

*On the other hand it cannot be quite that simple. We note that laser beams expand as they move out, though the increments are tightly directed upon a narrow vector front (rays as vectors close to parallel with each other.) You might guess that minute particles in outer space scatter the light, if you hold to a photon view or particle view. As waves, these increments must expand into ever larger conic sections though spread out over more space. The divergent lines or line segments that you might draw through a conic segment, multiply through some sort of sidestepping transmission of energy to effectively create new rays. This is true, as we see the point of light head on no matter how far off our distance perimeter ring (the ring that circumscribes the radius from the light source to our position), providing our eyes or telescope can detect the ever fainter light as it spreads out into space. For every action there is an equal and transverse force operating at right angles to the line of the force being observed. This can be oscillatory as in the transverse force in a baseball (bouncing back and forth transverse to the direction of the ball in flight), for example, or simply the longitudinal and transverse components of waves spreading out. So though the sideways collisions are weak in general in the ether medium, the continuous pressure expanding the light pulses into ever wider conic sections does supply the energy for the rays that expand as the pulse of light expands into outer space. Remember that light is a wavefront. You may have heard of Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), Newton’s contemporary, who showed that waves produce a point/ray effect that mimics light effects that you might suppose come about with light as a particle. The spread of waves must and does conform to the right angle law of energy transmission. NOTE: The Right Angle Law is not one of Newton’s or Classical Physics laws, but is a law nonetheless.

My theory of gravitation involves waves but also the tendency of heavenly bodies to move in ellipses by inner dynamic. In other words, I am combining ancient views of planetary motion with more modern external forces views as expressed by Newton and Descartes. I have done a similar thing for explaining inertia in my works. Briefly, you have the Aristotelian view of motion where things at rest tend to stay at rest; things in motion tend to stop when force is removed. You have the Newtonian view of inertia where things in motion stay in motion unless acted upon, and things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon. There was an intermediate view in the past, especially in the Middle Ages, called Impetus. Impetus places energy into an object and that energy rings like a bell within the object until it dissipates. Aristotle’s view did not adequately explain how things put in motion remained in motion for a while after the motive force was removed. For example, after the baseball pushes off from the hand, it continues to fly for a while. Aristotle assumed some sort of atmospheric effect that pushed the ball along.

I further modify inertia to conform to the Law of the Conservation of Energy that absolutely demands an oscillatory effect when energy is seen as matter in motion. When matter slows down, it must speed up at some point. In black space (or free space), an object would slow down as it emitted energy away from it by radiation. Its impetus force would radiate away even without impediment. An object dead in black space would absorb any energy coming through black space. The Law of Conservation demands that the energy emitted by the object would still be available in black space. We must have energy constantly being transmitted between bodies to remain energy, and so conserved. Even assuming some theoretical Newtonian Inertia, it would not exist in practice. Moreover, impetus is not compatible with Newtonian Inertia. Newtonian Inertia as with Newtonian Gravitation is basically mumbo-jumbo magic passed off as experimental physics. His assertion of a gravitational attractive force is a hypothesis no matter what he says, and a bad one at that. The balls of Galileo rolling down inclines do not prove Cartesian, Newtonian Inertia other than by hypothesis. The balls are under constant acceleration by a force, whether seen as Aristotelian or Newtonian. As with his gravitation, his inertia is convenient for his mathematical formulations but have no true scientific weight behind them. They go counter to common sense and to logic as well.

As for the motion of heavenly bodies by inner dynamics, this is due to imbalances in radiant, oscillatory energy. While symmetry is common in nature to varying degrees, it is virtually never perfect symmetry. Asymmetry is always a component however small or great. The symmetry of the human body is only left to right and never perfectly so. The front to back of the body is not symmetrical at all, except for left to right dimensions, top to bottom dimensions and certain things that might be considered to be symmetrical. The skin color may be considered symmetrical front to back, but even that is never perfectly so.

This means that the aggregate of all forces in heavenly bodies is never symmetrical. These forces include tidal forces, shearing forces due to differences in layers of the crusts and interior portions, heat generated by tidal, radioactive, stellar sources. There may be fusion forces as with stars.

As a boy, I recalled football games where the field vibrated by electric power. The toy men moved about the toy field. This got me thinking. Would oscillatory movement in a heavenly body in free space (black space) cause the body to move in a motion other than oscillatory, moving back and forth around a central point? I think this to be quite reasonable. Yes, the planet would move along some trajectory, especially since unbalanced forces due to asymmetry would incline it to move in one direction more than simply oscillating around a central point.

Next we have the occurrence of regenerative and degenerative feedback. Certain motions reinforce that very motion in magnitude and direction. Certain forces cause degenerative feedback as well. In general, friction attenuates energy progressively by the continuous abrasion of the moving body against other bodies. This is why things come to rest so often when accelerated upon earth. In free space (black space) this abrasive bodily action is not readily available. Moreover, if friction is fed back into a moving body, even friction can act in a regenerative cycle. We have acceleration to friction to deceleration to re-acceleration by oscillating feedback. If a planet is moved by oscillatory motion, and friction is itself vibratory (Note how short stops can cause vibration in things.), and that friction is feedback into the vibrating body in black space, then we have a loop to describe regenerative feedback by known forces. Once a body starts moving due to an imbalance of forces from side to side, front to back, and this creates the friction from that fact, biasing it, we might expect that regenerative feedback would lead to a constant angular momentum. This suggests that heavenly bodies would move in a circular orbit without influence from outside forces. This is no new idea. It does vary from the crystal spheres pulling planets along as ornaments on a moving wall. This was not the only notion of planetary motion in ancient times.

Imagine a planet in free space that has heat and energy within from atoms.
It is not a perfectly symmetrical body, and the motions are unbalanced.
It veers to one side. This changes tidal forces, shearing forces inclination. That is, that when a moving body has a vector force changing its motion, the inclination is in that direction.
Since oscillating energy is the engine that we suppose moves the planet in an orbit, and friction is also oscillating energy as heat, we assume the planet’s engine is regenerative.
Assuming the inclination is inclined towards the same original bias, we must assume all oscillating bodies in free space will form a circular orbit of some sort.

Of course, alas, I have no mathematical models to support or refute this speculation.

But the planets and bodies in space seem to interact as well. I have a hypothesis for that as well. I have already mentioned the radiant shadow suggestion that creates unbalanced forces in such a way as to cause bodies to move in the direction of the inner space between them. My notion is based upon negative interference. It may also be helped along by radiant shadow effects. Waves reinforce or interfere with one another. But I assume, with reason, that any bodies of a medium to come in contact with each other must draw off energy from the wave action. I say this in spite of the fact that light waves more or less move in opposite directions without attenuation. Do not care. I am speaking of cosmic distances effects of minute attenuation over time. It must be so.

Moreover, we now see that light in particular, moves in minute increments that reduces attenuation still further. And radio waves are so spread out with respect to the actual front energy along a wavefront, that this would limit noticeable attenuation. Most radiant energy in the cosmos is likely in the higher frequencies and in particle emission at any rate. Higher frequencies have denser energy levels per measurable increment through space. I will stick to my contention unless absolutely perfect experiments prove there is no attenuating force when waves meet.

All bodies radiate energy, including planets, moons and asteroids, comets and meteors. Waves push out so must push back on the source body as already noted in a train effect. In free space, you might expect them to be more or less balanced. But when other radiating bodies are near, the radiation from both planets interferes on their inner axis between them. This means the opposite forces push the two bodies together in a pervasive continuous manner, filling in for gravitational forces, being those forces in part. Recall that I do not consider this force to be the only factor keeping bodies in orbit. Recall that comets that Newton spoke of as refuting any medium in space, are quite small and light compared to the planets and the sun. They are more easily moved by the great body forces acting upon them to change their direction.

There may be a third effect influencing gravitation that I recently reconsidered in light of Ancient Times. Aristotle and others just thought that heavy bodies tend toward the earth and light bodies tend toward the sky by their very nature, much as the planets orbited by their nature.

We have objects: rocks, water, dust, bugs, air, upon the earth. They have varying densities. All are influenced and acted upon by heat. For example, hot air tends to rise. Hot water vaporized more easily when hot. Hot large solid objects do not tend to fly up but are quite heavy.

Let us consider a parallel matter. We have air pressure upon the earth. The atmosphere cannot escape the planet and blankets us. It has about 15 PSI of pressure. That is quite a lot of pressure. A five inch by four inch surface would have 300 lbs on it. That is more than the weight of most people. If you push your hands down on the shoulders of a man on a weighing scale, will not the scale reading increase? Now we suppose that the air pressure gets under our feet and crotch and more or less evens out. But I want to suppose some relationship between the motility as it were of things, an ability to move around on the surface of the earth, and that relationship between density, surface area of things and the ambient temperature.

Let’s suppose a relationship of: M = H/D (M-motility, H-heat, D-density of matter.) Motility is the organic capacity of little critters to move about. You know what heat is. We know that different matter has different densities. Modern physics shows that enormous energy is in the atoms of matter. All matter has a surface area to mass ratio. Light objects have more surface area to mass than heavier objects. First, in general denser objects take more time to heat up and cool down. This varies with types of matter. Iron balls heat up and cool down faster than billiard balls of a similar surface area. We know that hotter things are more energetic, and will rise above cooler objects of the same sort under circumstances that permit it. We also know that air pressure and water pressure must exert a downward force on matter under them of some sort. We mean that not only will people jump higher on the Moon and Mars for a given effort due to lower gravity, but also because of lower or no air pressure. If for nothing else, it is easier to push the air out of the way on the rise.

Former ages were unaware of the great mass of angular momentum energy stored in matter. We can say that denser matter has denser concentration of energy in general. Energy peaks as a ratio of stored force per mass with iron atoms, but gold is denser anyway, etc. It is true that ambient temperature penetrates matter to the core, though this takes time during changes in ambient temperature. On top of this, there must be a ratio between the amount of ambient temperature that is stored and the base of angular momentum of the substances. We say that for a given ambient temperature, the ratio is closer to unitary value for the surface area of lighter objects than for heavier objects. We can apply this to volumes of gas and water as well. Heavier gases and more dense concentrations of gases have more innate angular momentum. We also suppose that transference of heat energy into the core energies of atoms (strong forces, weak forces, electromagnetic) is either not there, or negligible, or muted and inefficient for any ambient temrperature, a supposition to be sure with some questionable truth value. Anyway, heat changes take more time to penetrate denser objects, the immediate effect of heat is more on the surface than in the interiors.

It is a fact that it is surface areas that interact in the jumble of material motility. It takes penetration to increase area to inner regions. This certainly happens. Because lighter elements have a more unitary ratio, this means that ambient temperature has a greater impact on motility. The effect of heat is greater in proportion to innate energy for lighter objects. Air is light and it moves about quite a bit in comparison to solid and heavier objects. So there is a natural tendency, as supposed by Aristotle, for air to rise and heavier objects by default not to rise, or as much. In a congested area, heavy will go down and light go up irrespective of gravitation due to M = H/D. Also bear in mind, that our planet has a floor discontinuity of earth and water. This barier influences how motility behaves, such that the loose things have an impassable floor or limit downward in most cases. We also note that general downward pressure of gravitation makes this more compact. In the case of bodies without atmosphere, there is still ether pressure. This pressure must exist. After years of contemplating on the matter, light energy as particle is not rationally viable as a working assumption for physics. I say this in spite of all the apparent things that appear particle-like. I discussed this a bit up above, and I will stick to ether pressure existing on the moon and about heavenly bodies.*

*If the assumption is that surface temperature to mass is the motive factor in this matter, what happens if there is no heat change or no heat at all? No heat is not something seen in the universe and contrary to the Conservation of Energy Law. (And what if that conservation assumption is not valid? Humph! It seems to be.) If long periods of static temperature arise, things stay where they are by inertia, heavy on the bottom and light on top. But of course, inertia is really oscillatory, and that state cannot last, right?

If you suppose that heat penetrates inward, the denser packed atoms add up to greater overall surface area to lighter objects, and the ratio of heat to mass is always about the same for both heavy and light objects by density? Humph! There is the question of heat transference to the other types of energy fields (assuming that energy is different from heat. We hear that heat is infrared EMF. Actually, it is simply matter in motion. Our skin feels infrared as heat. But rubbing, other wavelengths will convert to heat or simply are heat. To say the glowing red or white light of the heated iron ball is not heat energy is really disingenuous. We stick to heat as matter in motion, not simply infrared. Finally, there is the time delay of penetration of heat into denser objects, also influenced by type of matter. This whole H = H/D is highly speculative on my part, this quasi-return to Aristotelian notions.

We must not fall under the oppressive gravitational force of Isaac Newton when making hypotheses. On the other hand, there is a distinct difference between hypothesis and preposterous. They have an alliterative aspect and both end on s sounds, yet should not be confused. A plague on Sir Isaac and his mind numbing empirical bunk. We must take issue with the replacement Lucasian ogre of present day, who blurs the distinction between hypothesis and preposterous. He has jumped out of the Newtonian frying pan into the stone of fire circle of hell and death, father of lies. One-stone after One-stone after Ein-stein (as you may say in German.)

So these are the two or possibly three forces that make up gravitation:

One: Angular motion of heavenly bodies in black or free space.

Two: Ether calms between the inner space of heavenly bodies.
Three?: A general tendency for light to rise and heavy things to fall due to M = H/D.

This complexifies the nature of gravitation. We prefer simple, but oversimplification is a source of error and a fault as much as over complicating things. We must consider all the evidence. Ockhams Razor, the option of going with the simplest solution by default unless struck in the face with contraindications in the body of evidence, is only valid as a methodology of thought, not as a proof or even validation of a good algorithm of computation and consideration. Subtle or not so subtle, yet noticeable contraindications should make us consider complexifying the subject matter. After all, all truth indicates that existence and life are not as simple as one, two, three. And you can classify the world into two types of people if you like, but you can try three types, four types if you prefer to get more detailed options on dealing with people. Even if there are two types of people, the types could very well be broken down into two valid subsets, or perhaps not. Or perhaps your first subset is false, but another is true. We should certainly consider complex hypotheses to resolve problems with data coherency.

Now, I would like to discuss the nature of the ether, whether static or dynamic, or sometimes one and sometimes the other, as with calm days and windy days. I will go back to the Michelson-Morley Experiment as a backdrop to this matter, and discuss the erratic orbits of comets and asteroids as well. Back to Table of Content



Chapter 3: Ether Motion

Below is an extract from my work: Ether Force: An Essay

I have postulated in the past (Unified Field Theory: An Essay) that radiation passing through space must produce interference regardless of how the radiation meets other radiation. Waves must move the substance of the medium back and forth. Colliding waves must impede the actions of this in an absolute overall manner. By absolute overall I mean that positive reinforcement of waves, while certainly valid, operates in an overall inertial frame where negative interference impedes all waves. To be sure the energy of any wave will diminish along a front that expands indefinitely according to any measurement along the front, but negative interference is in addition to this.

Seeing that all heavenly bodies must perturb the ether and do in fact radiate, oscillate, within their own substance, we see that an ether null exists between nearby heavenly bodies on their near side. That is, the sum total of vibratory energy at a point from a radiating body is greater at a point radiating away from a solar system than within the solar system. This is due to negative interference, creating a relative calm in oscillatory energy on that side. This creates an imbalance in forces pushing back on the body. Waves must indeed push off from something, creating an action/reaction. As waves push through the ether, in like manner, they push back towards the emitter body. If nothing else, the back and forth, up and down motion of waves creates a back force. At one point the particles move with the forward propagation of the wave, at another point they move against it.

The end result is that planets push themselves in towards the sun by their own oscillatory energy, an energy that comes from within as tidal forces, gravitational pressure forces, radioactive decay, electrical forces, and all constantly being renewed by the passage of the planet through the ether and under torque forces due to the angular momentum of the orbits.

We may suppose that a vibrating medium possesses a pressure in proportion to the total quantity of oscillatory energy within the volume. We suppose that if one area of space had an abundance of agitation, this agitation would spread to another area of less agitation. This is coincident with and not in any way contrary to the natural flow of radiation or any other type of energy to move out from its source. The one necessitates the other. Moreover, this would suppose that higher pressure matter would push inward to lower pressure areas as any volume of gaseous material would. In the void of space, the transfer of energy at light speeds would obviate this tendency for the ether to actually flow from higher to lower pressure areas. Would the presence of heavenly bodies and systems of bodies in any way change this matter? I think so.

The Solar System possesses an ether calm or null within its boundaries, relative to the vast space between other star systems. We also have negative interference outside the boundaries of the Solar System, but the diminution of radiation from other bodies must make this attenuation by negative interference much less noticeable about the nearby area of space of the solar system. Moreover, the solar array of heavenly bodies form a distinct local pattern that predictably creates distinct patterns of negative interference. This pattern follows the trajectory of the system. In effect, it places the ether within it in a kind of corral.

The ether calm between the bodies creates a lower pressure area of oscillatory energy that is incident with the motion of these bodies. This means that the pressure all about the system is higher in pressure, pushing in on the system. But the radiation is greater about the rings of the system than outside the system due to the inverse square law of energy. The vast forces of distant stars is not in play to any significant degree. And this is a continuous state of affairs.

Nature abhors a difference in potential and will strive to equalize this. To increase pressure in a given volume, you increase the density or increase the agitation of the particles. Both ways increase pressure. A lower pressure volume will not push into a higher pressure volume. This corrals the ether within the Solar System. But the pressure must be equalized. The other way is for ether to flow into the Solar System in greater density than without. This also has the effect of dragging the ether within the system along with the system.

The result is that a portion of the ether moves through the ether as an independent body. To be sure we have currents within gases and liquids, but this is somewhat different. The immediate ether about the Solar System is effectively a part of that system. Its volume must be added to that of the heavenly bodies. In compensating for the energy imbalance, ether actually flows into the solar systems to equalize pressure with a greater ether density within the system. We must have:

Eo – Ether State Outside System
Ei – Ether State Inside System
Pa – Pressure Average to Inertial Frame
Pd – Pressure Due to Ether State Balanced by Increased Density

Pa = Pd (at equilibrium), so Eo = Ei (with respect to pressure)

Now we go to the matter of Michelson-Morley.


Chapter 2: Michelson-Morley [Extract continued]

Michelson and Morley noted in their conclusions that unless the velocity of the Earth relative to the ether was quite small, the results of the experiment could not be reconciled with other observations up to that time with respect to light. But how could that be, given that the Earth orbited quickly about the sun? Was the ether coincidentally moving at the same speed as the Earth? And does its speed change with the motion of the Earth about the sun? The Earth must move into and away from this independent wind as the direction of the Earth changed in its orbit. That was not the case, or was it but on a local inertial framework?

When the ether within the system is postulated to move along with the Earth and Solar System, that mass included with the mass of the Solar System by that state, we see that we can explain Michelson-Morley without any recourse to a Fitzgerald contraction of matter, even less so to the space contraction nonsense of Einstein’s fancy.

We also see that ether nulls rid us of the superstitious nonsense of some mystical attractive force operating within nature, postulated by Isaac Newton. We suppose this fiction force was quite conducive to Newton’s mathematical notions, and that carried the weight in his mind. Even though nonsense, he could always mea culpa to: it is the work of God that makes it happen. Not disputing the theology, this is not conducive to the advance of the arts and sciences. The attractive force also dispensed with a mass of matter that interfered with Newton’s supposed light corpuscles. Going over the matter over and over again, I see no reason or reasonable supposition that can explain light other than a waveform of incremental or non-incremental propagation as the case required by the physical circumstances. We now have pushing forces controlling the universe much to the satisfaction of logic and to the prospects of more advances in scientific knowledge.

There is also the matter of the microcosmic world and how push forces operate there.



Chapter 3: Microcosm [Extract Continued]

We are justified in supposing these ether particles as quite small to explain the great speed of light and to explain other aspects of optics, chemistry and physics. That being the case, and the supposition that the so called atoms have a solar system type of structure with a massive central core, we propose the same forces keep the atom together. We include the inner ether as part of the mass of the atom, that this inner ether moves through the larger ether inertial frame as with the planets. Due to the anomalies of electrons, we suppose they are both liquid and droplets or beads as the case may be. Water does bead up and beads are particles with distinct borders independent of any container. Electrons are very small and quite likely to bead, but can be pulled apart when surrounding forces, acceleration, energy levels, differences in potential are suitable to this. This gives them a puddle state according to the case, or a string of liquid state, behaving at variances around other atomic particles. The whole notion of particles being waves and waves being particles is simply linguistic nonsense, logical nonsense.

From the days of Copernicus and before we have the dichotomy between algorithms that work and actual theoretical states. We hear from Kepler that the editor wrote the preface to the Copernicus system opus, calling the system an algorithm for working out planetary motions. Copernicus dropped dead on the day of publication and was not available for comment. We suppose he would not be happy. When Poincaré formulated Einstein’s equations and notions before he did, he simply noted that the absurdities did not matter, as it was only algorithms of mathematics. This strange Frenchman called the speculations of Georg Cantor on infinite sets as “disease” and then complimented Cantor on his notions. He smiled and babbled on about Einstein’s relativity, stolen from him most likely rather than independent invention, though he knew as a matter of physics that it was utter drivel, merely an algorithm to get around current problems in physics.

So I pull away from Fitzgerald contractions at the moment and go to my notion of ether nulls to explain Michelson-Morley in the manner stated above. Whether mathematical computations will support it or not is a future project that I put aside for others or for some later day.

End of Extract: Ether Force: An Essay

Going over a few points, we can see that the inverse square for the diminution of radiant energy must be modified for wave radiation (though not particle emissions.) There is a negative interference factor that further reduces the energy level at the various distances from the source of wave propagation. We have an effective perpetual motion machine when frictional oscillations feed back into the vibratory engine of the heavenly bodies that drives them forward. We also need to deal with Newton’s objections regarding comets and mechanical forces operating in the Solar System.

If we suppose that the Solar System has a denser ether in its midst due to interference and planetary motion, this would also be true for the terrestrial system of Earth and Moon, and for the other planets with their satellites. Recall that we do not rely upon transmission hydraulics to move the planets. The planets move as engines, the attractive force between is different from vortex forces. We think of the rotating ether more like the composition of a great wheel of the ecliptic with lesser wheels for planets and satellites. The relative motion of the Solar ether rotation is relatively static to the system, yet is hardly fixed, necessitating variable speeds at the various distances from the sun, just as the planets slow down the further away you go. There are shearing forces that allow the Solar Ether Disk to slip in a gradual manner according to the graduation of the distance from the Sun. These changes in velocity conform roughly to the orbital speeds of the planets. While a part of the Solar System, it is still gas-like and so can do this. The ether disk about the earth and moon rotates within the larger wheel while also moving along with it. There is no reason to assume that this does not extend out to the Oort Cloud. At some point the galactic ring takes over, moving very slowly or virtually at a standstill relative to the Solar System. So we do not have the quandary of our ether disk moving faster at the extremities in contrast to the opposite phenomena that requires the planets to slow down further away.

As the ether disks are moving in formation with the Solar System planetary bodies and Sun, and the shearing is very gradual, comets are carried with and through these tenuous influences along with the forces moving with the planets. Moreover, comets propel themselves in the same manner as all heavenly bodies. This fact along with gradual shearing of the Solar Ether Disk do not create the dramatic effects that Newton would suppose, or even Descartes would suppose. We do have rotating gas-like ether but not a hydraulics vortex engine to any degree as suggested by Descartes and accepted by Newton as a necessary corollary of that theory.

Solid disks must speed up at the extremities progressively to maintain continuity of disk.
Gas disks are progressively sheared such that the outer parts rotate slower than the inner parts.
Solid disks are held together by material bonding obeying centrifugal force laws when rotating.
Gas-like disks are held in by centripetal forces (gravity, congestion) and shear under centrifugal forces.
Shearing means that variations of speed are the result of bands actually moving independently of the whole.
The bands shear to go slower at extremities rather than faster as required for a fixed disk.
We may suppose there are more distinct shearing bands along planetary orbits.
We may suppose more gradual shearing in the spaces between planets.
We may suppose shearing swirling effects in the immediate vicinity of planets in orbit.
We may suppose less or no swirling along orbital paths far from immediate planetary location.
We may suppose more jostling of comets near planets and less passing through orbital boundaries far from the planet at any given time.
We may suppose eccentric orbits are equally affected by shearing bands uniformly as with the Solar Ether Disk as a whole.
We may suppose the inner motive force of the comet is great compared to shearing forces in most cases.
We may suppose that vibratory engine feedback caused by comets moving against varying shearing forces passing inward and outward from the Sun are frictional oscillating forces reabsorbed into the comet engine motive force, acting as a kind of gyroscope to keep the comet in orbit.
It is essential to understand that friction is ultimately regenerative immediately after leaving the heavenly body motive force, reabsorbed back into the motive force. By this means, the Newtonian objections to shearing forces on comets is much attenuated or eliminated. Moreover, we have a complex gravitational theory, not the simple monopole single source of gravitational attraction that Newton posited.

If that stubborn, conceited orge simply admitted that his attractive force was an algorithm that made it easy to compute the motions of the planets, the world would likely be a better place today. We have a report that he verbally admitted the absurdity of this attractive force, but then mealymouthed his way out of it. He never wrote this down and so the report is hearsay. Hearsay or not, the assertion is true whether actually asserted by Newton or not.

In summary, the assertion by Newton that the attractive force supposition is not a hypothesis, that he did not make it, is an absurdity. It is his hypothesis that makes no sense and was pointed out to him many times. This essentially malignant influence upon the advancement of science, that he ever had any interest in truth apart from a vehicle for his vanity is nonsense. This truth loving supposition applies more to Descartes than Newton. His petty behavior toward Leibniz proves this.

Descartes found celebrity status distasteful, made his analytical geometry difficult for the common man to read, hoping others would flush it out and also do the solid geometry and calculus. Newton obfuscated Principia Mathematica deliberately to confuse critics, pretended no desire for fame, a lie in light of his behavior, but kept much of his work in secret out of greed and understandable fear that such difficulties would lead to mistakes and open him up to ridicule. Sir Isaac had a very thin skin. Does all this prove my bias in the matter of gravity? So what! My assertions stand or fall on their own. The Lucasian ogre should be put in his place. As for push forces causing gravitation, it is only for the sake of formalism that I call it a hypothesis. All evidence points to push. The only question is how.

It is Newton who made the attraction hypothesis founded upon nothing other than that it is occult, obtuse, hard to nail down as to the forces involved as they are invisible. Eleven dimensions, nonsense strings, nulliverse universe composed of nothing, two-D no-D worm holes, worm in the apple, warping, bending, lying drivel. The Lucasian evil farce continues. Thank Satan for crop circles, ET, football player 4-D liars, Age of Aqueerius nightmare world, Ecstasy hopped up speed freak nirvana, Monty Python’s Flying Circus BS become reality. First the farce, then the tragedy. Ask Jesus. But then nothing is funny anyway. All tragedies end in a marriage, all comedies in a death. That is unless you ask a Greek pagan pervert or fellow travelers. And of course, it is all proven by Einstein. Let us move on to paradise, and to hell with hell and hell hole liars. Back to Table of Content




ASTONISHMENT 1: At the age of 62 I learned that the summer sun rises north of true east in the Northern Hemisphere. “What”, I said. Does not the Sun keep to the south at high noon even in the height of summer? What about all that backwoods lore about moss only growing on the north side of trees, because it is sun sensitive and dries out in bright light? What about the Boys Scout manual, the Blue Jacket manual that talked about navigation and compass? What about those Solar System atlases that I read? I even bought one myself. How did I miss that bit of info and how could it be true? Did it I read, and just forget it over time?

Well, when the equator inclines southward in June, the true east line is still on the equatorial parallel. So looking along the equatorial line, you see the Sun to the Northeast at dawn. I never had any problem with that. But you see on the 42nd degree North latitude, the same thing is true. Looking along the 42nd parallel line, you are looking southward across the ecliptic at dawn. And that means you will see the Sun in the northeast in June. And east in your neighborhood does not change with respect to buildings, hills and layout of streets tagged East, West or otherwise. Only there direction with respect to outer space changes. It is still true that the course of the sun is to the south at high noon seen as directly above. And what about looking down on the ecliptic from thousands of miles north? Well, the Sun is about 100+ times bigger than the Earth and 93,000,000 miles away. Shrink everything down to a model of 100 millionth scale size. The distance between Sun and Earth is about .93 miles. The Sun is about a span of .0086 miles across (45 feet or so) and the Earth so many inches across. Draw an arc with laser beams the better part of a mile from the equator of the earth to the pole of the Sun and see how close the beams are together, virtually flush, a very acute angle. And what is more, you do not look down on the Sun of 864,000+ miles from 4,000 miles above the Earth's equator.

ASTONISHMENT 2: I watch the flat earth people on Internet YouTube broadcasts. They explain to me that the Sun never sets but goes in some sort of figure 8 above the Earth. They show some film of the course of the Sun taken from Antarctica that is supposed to show a fraud by NASA/Others to fool us that the Earth is a globe. I see the looping film, cannot tell who is looping it, whether the flat earth people or Big Govt. is looping it. Anyway, it does not prove anything. How the figure 8 of the sun causes day and night makes no sense. At least the ancients assumed the sun went under the earth, blocking out light. I listen to a man who lives on the shores of Lake Ontario claim that he has seen beyond the 11-14 mile limit on a number occasions, looking across the lake and proving that the earth is flat. The narrator goes on to ridicule Einstein’s theory of relativity and space warping, claiming that the French mathematician Henri Poincaré actually developed the equations, and that he clearly used them only as an algorithm, readily admitting that the assertions behind them were ridiculous. They merely gave a framework to solve certain quandaries in physics around 1900. The relativity stuff mentioned is true as best that I can discern. And Relativity as a theory is absolute nonsense as a matter of logic. I completely agree with the narrator, but he soils his critique with the flat earth stuff that distresses me. Why am I distressed?

I once drove along Lake Erie in a car for hours on end. The Interstate goes along the lake. I wanted to see if I could see across (about 20 to 25 miles on average) and could not see Canada. This area of the world is not mountainous and no big mountains were on the Canadian side. Might we not conclude the man saw the other side of Lake Ontario by optical effects of bending of light? The same effects that make mountains in the desert appear to float in the sky and look much closer than they are. Are temperature inversions of the atmosphere over Lake Ontario impossible? In the Boston area, I used to climb a hill of several hundred feet height and could see ships coming and going from Boston Harbor, and even from Lynn and ships heading south from Salem. Year after year I would see the masts and hulls rise up and fall away into the sea as the ships came in and went out to sea, just as people saw in Venice and Genoa hundreds of years ago looking out to sea. I was stationed on an island with a channel of about 20 miles between it and Grand Turk Island. It’s highest hills were less than 200 feet high and Grand Turk is low and without mountains. I never once saw Grand Turk Island from the Caicos Islands across the channel. A few times I would go up in a DC-3 to a military exchange on Grand Turk courtesy of an ex-Air Force owner of a cargo company. He would never go up high as the distance was only 20 miles across the channel. Even then, while still over the island and above the hills, it would take a few minutes to see Grand Turk Island. At a hundred MPH, it takes 12 minutes to go 20 miles. A DC-3 does not fly faster than 200 knots at full speed. I would fly on WWII planes across the Bahamas to Miami and note that at a mile or so up, Miami would be invisible on clear days far out to sea. Turks and Caicos Islands are over 500 miles from Miami. I was on that island for a full year, on the coast every day and never saw Grand Turk. Now, maybe temperature inversions were not common there that could bend light over the horizon. I am convinced that the earth is a globe based on personal empirical experience.

Is it possible that I was hallucinating all that time, tricked by optical effects to think the Earth was round, perhaps by Satan or extraterrestrials who want to keep mankind ignorant? Well, that does seem a bit much, although I do believe in Satan and have no problem with ET in general as a possibility. Hey, maybe Satan is trying to trick mankind with Flat Earth nonsense to keep us ignorant? It is the Flat Earth people who are Satanic, maybe to make that moron Einstein look like a genius by mentioning flat earth and relativity absurdities in the same YouTube broadcast.

ASTONISHMENT 3: Have I ever seen Mars go retrograde? No, though I once owned a 50x telescope and looked at Mars. Other than the Big Dipper, Little Dipper (if I can see it), Orion’s Belt and the Pole Star, Venus, the Moon, and maybe Mercury (with some doubt), the skies are a mystery to me. I have studied them and forget what I learn over and over, but never studied deeply. Did I ever read Tycho Brahe’s star positions catalogs? No. Can I prove Kepler’s Laws by my own empirical observations of the heavens? No. Can I prove the Copernican solarcentric system against the system of Ptolemy by my own observations? No, At a glance, can I tell that the planets are moving in ellipses? No. They look like symmetrical arc rotations to me just as they appeared to Aristotle. Can I prove they are symmetrical or not at a glance or a few casual observations? No. And yet here I am dueling with Isaac Newton about celestial mechanics. By the way, Newton was said to have poor eyesight and was never a star gazer. Did Mr. Empiricist confirm Kepler and Brahe on his own? I don’t know, maybe. Some Newton scholar may know. Back to Table of Content



Other Works by the Author

[(*]Available online[)*]

Elements of Physics: Matter
Elements of Physics: Space
Elements of Physics: Time
Space as Infinity: An Essay
Space as Infinity II: An Essay
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
Collected Poems I
Collected Poems II
Golden Age Essays
Golden Age Essays II
Golden Age Essays III
Golden Age Essays IV
Golden Age Essays V


About the Author

My current biography and contact links are posted at Shakespir.com/profile/view/EdRochon. My writings include essays, poetry and dramatic work. Though I write poetry, my main interest is essays about the panoply of human experience and knowledge. This includes philosophy, science and the liberal arts. Comments, reviews and critiques of my work are welcome. Thank you for reading my book.

Back to Title Page

Gravity Wars

Preface lays out scope of essay. Mention Newton's work on gravity with respect to René Descartes. We commence the critique of Newton's attractive force. Chapter 1 discusses opinions on Newton by various sources (Pope, Blake, etc.) and mention Newton's attack on pushing forces in the Solar System, why they were not convincing. I attack his claim that he made no hypotheses when writing. His attractive force assumption is nothing but hypothesis, and not supported by any reasonable evidence, despite his use of comets to suggest otherwise. Chapter 2 goes into the mechanics on how push forces might work and be reconciled to radiant energy. I start off by attacking the rationality of the modern scientific community, pointing out ridiculous assertions that violate experience and logic, while claiming that experiments and logic support the absurd assumptions. I repeat the problem of push with respect to light energy and Kepler's Laws. I suggest that planets are engines that drive themselves under the influence of push forces in the ether. I mention a theory supported at one point by Thomas Jefferson Jackson See (1866-1962) that radiant shadows create gravity by pushing more on the outer edges of two heavenly bodies in contrast to the line on the inner diameter between the two bodies. I also mention See's radiant energy contraction supposition that bears some relationship to my notions. I give two explanations for gravity forces: oscillating engine of heavenly bodies, ether calms due to interference of EMF in space, and the possible third effect of the Aristotelian assumption that bodies naturally tend to rise innately. This is expressed as M = H/D (M-motility, H-heat, D-density of matter), with the assumption heat energy operates in a way to make things rise naturally, especially with the earth's surface of rock and water acting as a floor. We note that an ether also demands ether pressure on the moon, and that air pressure and ether pressure have an effect on this upward/downward tendency. I discuss the laser effect where you do not see the beam sideways by suggesting that incremental bursts of light have black space between them as one of two reasons for this. The other reason is that forward motion of light pushes the ether more forcibly back and forth than side to side. And the side motion concentrates the ether along the rays (line of sight from source to observer) to make direct ray transmission still stronger. The observer has multiple hits of light bursts reinforced along the line of sight, and not so from side to side due to black space and tenuous push out force of waves operating transversely to the ray from the source. We summarize with an attack on Newton and the Lucasian Chair crowd. I add an addendum about proof of modern scientific assertions from the point of view of the common man. to wit, from the point of view of the author. We discuss the motion of the Sun, Flat Earth people, Kepler's Laws proven by Joe Blow.

  • Author: Edward E. Rochon
  • Published: 2017-08-04 22:05:09
  • Words: 15085
Gravity Wars Gravity Wars