Follow by Email

Thursday, April 21, 2011

109 - simulated circuit

Dear Reader,

To answer those many questions on - here's the sim circuit. Results are consistent with what we've been looking at on the apparatus.

and this for the results.

And this one on the close up.

Hopefully that answers your questions sprocket.

Kindest regards,

108 - how to avoid being eaten by those trolls

Dear Reader,

Just as a reminder. I am contactable on my email. Should any reader here - or anywhere at all - want to view this demonstration device - artefact - in operation, then please contact me. I am on record. I will show the systematic methodologies applied to getting it fully operational and the protocols applied to its measurements. Subject to their willingness - I will be glad to introduce you to those who have built this and assisted in progressing this

I assure you all that it is easily translated into practical applications. All that is still missing is accreditation by academic experts. And this is MUCH required - because without it we can be accused of perpetrating some kind of fraud. It is an unfortunate truth that these kind of claims proliferate our internet and our history. All the more reason to delay any development of marketable applications until this is endorsed.

And then. Should we EVER get that endorsement - there is absolutely no aspect of this technology that has been or can be patented. All has been thoroughly exposed on the internet. It is easily applied. It will put paid to any further requirement of monopolistic utility supply sources. It is capable of generating the most clean green and efficient use of electric energy. It is easily applied with known 'off the shelf' components. And it will reduce the cost of electricity generation to a fraction to installation costs and little else - except possibly as it relates to maintenance.

There are those detractors to this technology - those with psychological predispositions to denial of new science - or those with vested interests in perpetrating the status quo - who actively seek to prevent this knowledge from being spread. It is a travesty of science. And it is an abuse of knowledge. Fortunately they are now overplaying their hands with a kind of histrionic excess that makes their motives as plain as day. But this has also prevented me from 'spreading the news'- so to speak on a forum that encourages dialogue. Dialogue is preferred. It is the slow painful but ultimately rewarding method of also explaining this new science. That way, as the understanding unfolds, then that knowledge will perhaps pave the road to even more discoveries.

Hopefully that dialogue can be maintained here. I will undertake to publish any questions related to this that it can assist those who are trying to get to grips with the technology. And I'll answer those questions here in case they have wider relevance. Hopefully that way we can all benefit. I will append my email address on each and every post. And if you prefer it that your email remain anonymous - then Isuggest you email under an avatar or just advise me to keep your names off record.

There is a small unpublished variation to the circuit. It is absolutely NOT required for optimised performance. It is only emphasised because it speaks to the thesis or the thinking that first gave rise to this methodology and it is the thesis that actually needs to be advanced. I absolutely put on record that I have discovered nothing. The thesis itself resolves certain questions related to quantum and classical thinking and is essentially conceptual. Not a bad thing in itself as this new science must, by its nature, be progressed conceptually. There is no extant mathematical framework available to accommodate this 'field' theory except as has been devised by our string theorists. And that is so exotic that the most of our academic math experts have difficulties with its understanding.

Hopefully, one way or another - we'll advance this understanding.

Kindest regards,

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

107 - behind the facade of the forum

Dear Reader,

I've tried giving Stefan Hartman the benefit of the doubt as it relates to his interest in sincerely promoting research into over unity. That, after all, is the title of his forum. One assumes.

I have publicly invited him to come to South Africa and see the operation himself. I have assured him that in the event that our claims are not consistent with the fact then I'll refund him his air flight. I would then be in the happy position of introducing him to the team and allowing him carte blance to evaluate the circuit as required. This offer was rejected.

He has previously allowed posters to flame my threads. He is now allowing Poynt.99 to do this. Poynt's latest claim is that the functions generator is the source of the energy - entirely unsubstantiated and easily disproved. But it's the manner of his address that is particularly unacceptable. Offensively insulting and rude. And certainly in breach of the standards of posting required there. Were I to continue then I'd be endorsing that kind of communication. And that would hardly do me or this technology any good at all. It is interesting that Stefan allows this and rather endorses my concerns that Stefan even wants to let this technology be progressed.

I feel that there is actually NO real intention of advancing any genuine research into over unity on any of these forums. I think they're just meeting grounds where the members are hoodwinked into thinking that there's a sincere research into breaching those thermodynamic laws. I am now of the opinion that what these forums are actually doing is PREVENTING this research as their actual mandate.

I have not yet been banned. Unless I am I will post there as required - and, hopefully, on the progress of this experimental evidence to our experts. That's all that's now needed. I'll keep the technical discussion here because they can then be advanced without those endless interruptions.

My intention is to get this advanced - somehow - to our academic forums - or I'll die trying. But until then - I'm afraid that I am off those forums. I am now entirely satisfied that they are designed to prevent rather than progress any kind of genuine exploration into this subject.

If any posters are attempting to replicate I would earnestly advise you to keep your results off the forum. You will be actively discouraged - or mocked - or flamed. It's not worth the effort. And if anyone needs any guidance that I or the team may be able to give - then please email me.

My email is Please don't waste your time in adding comments to this blog. I can't always find them. And more often than not I forget to even look for them.

Kindest regards,

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

106 - onwards and upwards - and aiming for the stratosphere

Sorry - all.

I lost my password - YET AGAIN - and have only JUST managed to get back in here. What an ordeal. I really need to get this password thing standardised.

In any event. I have, finally, got a clear path to follow. I've been contacting certain academics - hand picked - on a one on one basis. I'm hoping they'll be able to evaluate the measurement protocols and then witness a private demo and THEN - accredit results as anomalous. I think - or correctly speaking - I HOPE that this will then pave the way to some kind of wider acceptance. It's certainly a start. And, with luck - may be less onerous on their reputations - by virtue of being less public.

Anyway. It's now the intended 'methodology' for all this required disclosure. I have a couple accepted this but will only look in here in early May. And between now and then, hopefully, we'll manage to get a few more. Perhaps I should aim for 5. That's a modest handful. Always a nice number.

Wish me luck dear Reader. I am much in need of it.

Kindest regards,

BTW someone wants to know if I'm suffering from manic delusions resulting from bipolar disorders. Not sure what this disorder is. But when I find out I'll let you know. Golly. That's certainly a change from the usual claim that I'm just 'delusional'. It's rather sweet. I think someone's trying to find an explanation for the fact that I can bear up notwithstanding these endless disappointments. And, notwithstanding what must be the most brutal personal attack on the internet - that anyone has ever been subjected to. But I'll deal with all this later. It's all getting way off topic and its also all just way too boring.

Monday, April 11, 2011

105 - just to enable some comments on the wrong post address

Dear Reader - I deleted this post and then saw some comments here. I can't enable them but will copy the one from MileHigh and answer it here.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "104 - more on the model":

High drama with a challenge to Stefan to go to South Africa to observe the experiments himself.

I've got news for you. Stefan is not nearly knowledgeable enough to look at your setup and your data and say if it is legit or not. Not by a long-shot. No kidding.

Here is a suggested plan:

1) Answer Humbugger's outstanding questions. You already know the answer to the question about the validity of your data when you move the probes. You have to face the implication; you don't even know if your data is valid because of the different readings when you moved the probes. The truth is you are back at Square One. With respect to some of the other questions, if you can't answer them then just admit that you can't answer them.

2) Make the simple current measurements using the low-pass filter which has been asked of you about 20 times now.

3) We still don't know if you have scoped the battery voltage across a SINGLE battery. The expectation is that it will show 12.6 volts DC with a small ripple. That would confirm that the TRUE nature of the voltage waveform for purposes of measuring the power input of the circuit would be pure DC with a slight ripple.

4) After the proper measurements are made as per Poynt and Humbugger' recommendations, then invite Stefan to South Africa if you still think that you have something. Again, there really is no point though like I say above because he simply is not knowledgeable enough.


1 - I will only ever enter into a dialogue with HUMBUGGER when he publicly retracts his multiple traducements against me and my good name.

2 - I will not filter anything. It will interfere with that required oscillation. I realise that's what you and Poynty et al - require. I'm not about to oblige you.

3 - the positioning of the batteries was to enable the probe to span the positive and negative terminals. I now realise that it's easy - albeit rather dangerous - to position the batteries that I can do this. WHY do you now require a 12 volt supply source? It seems absurdly irrelevant? Quite apart from which the scope probe will NEVER span an entire battery.

4 - I wonder if the actual lack of competence is your own MileHigh. And unlike Stefan you keep your identity secret. I also wonder at your willingness to maliciously damage and deny a qualified person acknowledgement of his skills. It seems - not only recklessly unprofessional of you - but reflects rather badly on your integrity. Quite apart from which one only needs to know how to measure electric energy. We're not into the complicated quantum reaches of averaging. It's a REALLY SIMPLE EXERCISE. Let me remind you. Power is here measured as vi dt. That's it. I should think one hardly needs the skills of a high school student with a passing knowledge of how to use a calculator.

IF Stefan takes up my offer then that will be a good thing.


Sunday, April 10, 2011

104 - more on the model

Dear Reader,

I have now exhausted my efforts to explain the field model in purely conceptual terms. But I have not really touched on the simple extension of those fields as they relate to the forces - except in a broad and generalised way. I'll see if I can somehow highlight the essential features of that model.

A material structure is defined as any object that has an inferred or defined boundary. No two material structures can interact unless they share a corresponding space and have a corresponding size.

Magnetic fields comprise bipolar tachyons that align opposite charges at 180 degrees to each other to form strings. These strings close at each extremity to form a circle. Many such circles in close juxtaposition are held bound to form the shape of a torus. This conforms to the general shape of Faraday's Lines of Force. The juxtapolsition of all those strings results in both an attraction and a repulsion between each of those strings. Each dipole adjusts to the chance positioning of its charge related to those dipoles from lateral and adjacent strings. Each adjustment results in the displacement in space of that first dipole that then propels it's neigbouring dipoles - throughout each string - resulting in an orbit. Because of the consistency in the positioning of each dipole the orbit has a justification or 'directional spin' that is expressed throughout the toroidal structure.

A one dimensional field - or single string has a simple or single orbit that can accommodate any justification from neighbouring strings. A two dimensional field has a justification determined by an axial spin which is fixed in relation to its centre. A three dimensional field has both an axial justification and a lateral justification thereby resulting in two predominant spins.

It is proposed that this is the background structure of the universe. All matter is held bound by a single toroidal field that remains outside the interactive reach of visible matter.

When any string is broken - through a singularity - then those magnetic dipoles fall out of that structured condition to form nebulae. This is the chance and chaotic condition of magnetic dipoles that have lost their 'feild condition'. The field condition is defined as an orbit with an implicit velocity to that orbit. That velocity then shared by adjacent strings in their perpetual reach to find a 'balanced' charge condition. The field therefore perpetuating a condition of attraction and repulsion - in whole and in part - that holds the field in a structured formation. Therefore - by definition - the broken string will be defined as having no velocity - no implicit arrangment or positioning of the magnetic dipoles in an alignment of attraction and repulsion - and, consequently - no structured formation.

That's about all I can manage for now. I'll get back here.


Friday, April 8, 2011

103 - just sharing a bleak morning mood

Dear Reader,

I must admit to feeling a bit disheartened at the moment. I can't get my circuit to take any energy at all from the battery and I do not have the skills to do the required trouble shooting. Hopefully this will be fixed later on today.

What also is getting me down is the relentless attack of the technology on one of the forums that I read. Here we have that characteristic freedom from any kind of need to use scientific argument - yet the demands that we change the protocols to something that is certainly less than required by mainstream. It's all so convenient and so negative and so intellectually abusive. The data is not taken on merit. It's subjected to an absurd level of scrutinty and dismissed on any grounds they choose. I wouldn't mind too much but it seems to satisfy everyone who reads there. Clearly there's an entire want of impartial assessment. And that heavy handed partiality is absolutely not going to go away.

Which is why I keep going back to our EXPERTS. They're the missing ingredient. Unlike those trolls - they're really impartial. But what's lacking here is the courage needed to claim the result. Or at least rescue it from complete extinction which is where it's going at present. Golly. Our planet's health, our children's future, our own continued existence depends on just this. An honest and open review. WHAT has happened to man's quest for knowledge? Is this prescribed? Restricted to opinions on energy when not ONE LIVING PERSON can tell us what energy is? Humbugger - or Hamburger - or whoever he is - relies on the fact that experts never read his drivel. As does Poynty the Poyntless. And there's a little band of mindless twerps who then follow in that wake and show the varying levels of their own small minds.

I actually think that the problem is with me. This circuit should have been promoted by a qualified electromagnetic engineer - preferably of the male gender - and preferably by someone young and bright. That way - there's a chance it would have, at its least, be considered with respect.

Sorry to dump all this. But these last few days have not been my easiest. By the way I've enabled comments again. If Laurel Gramm or Harvey or Humbugger fill those comments with their usual drivel I'll post it here in full view that you can see the caliber of the detractors that I get. What horrible people there are out there.

Kindest regards,

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

102 - just another rant

Dear Reader,

I am forever being advised - directly or indirectly - that I have not got the required 'schooling' to comment on physics. This is a truth and, in this, I am also in good company. But the truth of the matter is that there is no 'schooling' could provide me with the insights related to this thesis of ours. There is NO 'FIELD THEORY' that incorporates bi-polar tachyons - that assemble into particles that then form the foundation of all visible matter. Nothing that I know of - anyway. And certainly nothing on these lines that are taught at schools - anywhere. It is an exercise in logic. And logic should be very much a part of science.

I'm growing rather tired of this 'forum stance' where the dismissal of these ideas are based on the vainglorious assumption of a need to be taught all this. My question is - who will teach us? The idea is NEW. Thus far it has not been considered ANYWHERE.

That's some of them. The most of the detractors do not have the intellectual acumen to even understand the thesis. Yet they'll decry it - on the same basis. What rank - gross - outright bigotry. Savonarola springs to mind. Certainly a medieval mindset that is entrenched in self-righteous opinion. If anyone ever assumed to comment on the basis of actually having read that study of ours, then there would be a discussion. What - in God's name are they afraid of? And they seem to think that their comments are relevant? And again. God alone knows to what. Certainly it has NOTHING to do with logic or understanding or even knowledge. Even that would help. What has happened to the human intellectual reach when a new idea must first be dismissed - on principle - and because the proponent does not have the right 'credentials'? And what constitutes the right credentials? Frankly I do not see how a unifying model based on a 'magnetic field' can ever be incorporated into standard and known science. If it were it would require a complete upset of known paradigms. That's not happened yet.

Golly. It will be wonderful when we humans evolve to a stage where we had minds open to new ideas and enough courtesy and mutual respect to allow those ideas to come to fruition. We've got a long way to go before we can really consider oureselves to be even partially civilized.

Anyway - nice to get that off my chest.

Kindest regards,

Monday, April 4, 2011


Dear Reader,

I keep referring to this and then I have to find my way to the bottom of the blog of get the reference. For ease of future reference I'm just reposting this so that it's higher up on the blog. So. For those who've already read here - just skip this post.

Kindest regards,

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Omar Khayyam

If we could see gravitons we’d know everything about gravity. If we could see electrons we’d know everything about electricity. If we could see the interaction of particles with each other then we’d know everything about the strong and weak nuclear forces. We can’t see them. We can’t even see an atom. And we certainly can’t see the forces to explain them. We can only speculate. And when and if we do speculate then we’re no longer being scientific. We’re being philosophical.

The confusions that have been visited on this noble art of science is based on the philosophical reach that science is now trying to usurp. A scientist does not have the disciplines of logic that are required for philosophy any more than a philosopher has the required acuity of observation and measurement that a scientist has. The difference is only in this. A philosopher does not, as a rule, dabble in science. But our scientists are shamelessly dabbling in philosophies. And it is all being done with such disgraceful parade of poor logic that, in the fullness of time, these last pages of its history are likely to remain as a source of more than a little embarrassment. Whole chapters of scientific progress – based on nothing but pure speculation and the accidental use of concepts that partially work and partially don’t work. And all of it presented with a kind of intellectual flourish – a parade of self aggrandisement that would rival the pride of Lucifer himself.

What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely incomprehensible techno-babble. Terms are presented as acronyms and all is justified in the language of algebra. Complex equations drift into ever greater complexities that would confuse God himself. And all is intended simply to hide the manifold confusions that actually bedevil science itself.

It is possibly understandable that our experts feel required to explain ‘all’. But these explanations are drifting into realms of obscurity that have nothing to do with reason or logic or common sense or indeed science or philosophy. It has simply become pretension. What’s euphemistically referenced as theory is actually just obscure gibberish masquerading as deep intellectual knowledge. It makes the toes curl. One must be ‘trained’ in science – of necessity. It is not meant to be understood - certainly not as propounded by our experts. Their intention is to flaunt a familiarity with complex abstractions. And to own up to a lack of understanding would be to let the side down – to somehow admit to the disgrace of not actually being able to see the emperor’s new clothes.

Let’s explore some of the confusions – let’s actually focus on the bare facts - on some of those manifold contradictions which our mainstream experts defend. Starting with current flow. Now. We all know that electrical engineering is the applied knowledge of the electromagnetic force – so ably unfolded by Faraday and quantified by Maxwell. And so widely applied in today’s technological revolution. Our satellites, our trips to distant planets and more to come. Our internet – our computers – our – cars – our measuring instruments, and on an on. Examples of their skills are evident everywhere.

And yet. Amongst all those able, those skilled engineers – the vast majority will insist that electricity is the result of electrons moving through their circuits in the form of current flow. No matter that Pauli’s insights depended on the simple fact that electrons do not share a path. No matter that we have never been able to get electrons to move in the same direction without forcing them by the application of some very real energy. No matter that electrons have a like charge and we could not get them to co-operate with each other in a shared environment any more than we can get to souths of two magnets to co-operate. No matter that no-one has ever found ‘spare’ electrons inside circuit wiring.

And if the glove still doesn’t fit – then try another explanation. We are now told that the actual current flow is the result of one valence electron somehow influencing a neighbouring electron – in a kind of domino effect. Now we’ve got over the ‘shared path’ problem and that ‘no loss of electrons’ number. This would certainly account for current flow. But the problem is this. Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron. And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it. There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started. But, in all other respects it could – otherwise – have been a reasonable explanation. But it’s self-evidently spurious.

So. If that glove doesn’t fit then try yet another. We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘thing’ that was transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities – all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid. The truth is that no utility supply source would be able to access that many electrons.

So. Again. Another glove. Another qualification. We are then told that actually the electrons themselves are ‘free floating’ and they intrude into the material of the conductive wiring. They do not come from the supply source itself. Which also means that these electrons that are somehow detached from any particular ‘home’ – are floating about in the air belonging to no atoms – just free for the taking. And we must now get our heads around the problem that not only is our atmosphere saturated with these previously undetected little numbers but that they can move into the circuitry – all over the place, straight through the heavy barriers of insulation which was first applied to prevent this from happening, precisely because it’s impossible for electrons to breach this insulating material.

Challenge any scientist, any chemist, on any of these points and, in the unlikely event that they continue the conversation, they will do so in a loud voice and with more than a hint of exasperation. What gets me every time is their usual defence based as it is on the statement that I should not question ‘what has been known and used for centuries now ’. Somehow this is sufficient justification. And God alone knows why because it certainly it’s not logical. I would modestly propose that in the light of so much improbability – it may be proposed that – whatever else it is - current flow is NOT the flow of electrons, nor, as I’ve seen it suggested even on these forums, the flow of protons, or ions or anything at all that belongs to the atom. Else it would be logically evident. And it is not.

Then to attend to other confusions especially as it relates to gravity. Gravity – a weak force – apparently permeates the universe and acts as a kind of ‘glue’ on matter. It only attracts. It never repels. If, indeed, all began as a Big Bang – then all that energy will systematically deplete until there is a kind of Big Crunch – where all disappears into the void that proceeded that bang. Just as the electron is the ‘carrier’ of electrical energy – the graviton is philosophised to carry the gravitational energy. But the graviton has not been seen. Yet all is explained as if such a particle were extant. Millions of dollars, euros, rupees, whatever, have been spent on trying to find some evidence in the vast space time continuum around us and beyond us - in those seemingly infinite reaches of space.

Where is the evidence of this little particle? Not even the faintest of faintest of these ripples has been found. Not a whisper. Not a shadow. Notwithstanding which we’re assured that this lack of evidence is actually not a problem. It is not considered to be sufficient reason to preclude the particle nor to discontinue the experiments. We are told to ignore the ‘absence of evidence’. A trivial requirement, a small stepping stone. Because eventually this required evidence must surely come to hand. And until then – and in its absence – it is to be regarded and referenced as a FACT. This because our philosophical scientists are no longer requiring evidence to support a theory. It’s enough to just balance those interminable equations – those indecipherable and incomprehensible sums.

Now. While it is understood that gravity is attractive – and ONLY attractive to all matter – for some reason our universe is not drifting towards a Big Crunch. On the contrary. Space is EXPANDING. And this is now also referenced as FACT. It seems that it’s enough for two schools to have reached the identical conclusion to establish a new scientific reality. No-one questions the logic that supported this conclusion. But there’s a small caveat. The galaxies and stars and planets are not expanding. It’s the actual space between them that – like poor little Alice stuck inside a rabbit hole – that is actually growing ever bigger and bigger. And all this space is expanding at a predictable rate and is responsible for systematically propelling great clumps of matter apart from other great clumps of matter – all at a consistent and quantifiable velocity.

Those that subscribe to this new evidence are careful NOT to reference the evidence of galaxies colliding – as this would put paid to their sums. And those that do not subscribe – carefully do not reference these same galaxial collisions – for the same but opposite reasons. I’ll get back to this point. But for now the point is this. If space is expanding, and yet galaxies collide – then that expansion is either not smooth or the galaxies themselves drift through space with varying velocities that would introduce a marvel of chaos to the otherwise and seemingly ordered and structured condition of our universe.

Then more confusions. We are told that nothing can exceed light speed unless it also had infinite mass. Really? In which case does that explain why photons that have no mass are able to travel at light speed? And then what does one do with this famous equation where E = mc^2? If the photon’s mass is zero then zero times any value greater or smaller than 1 – remains ZERO. Where then is all this energy that moves at photon at light speed? The truth of the matter is that science took a wrong turn somewhere and is reluctant to ‘go back’ so to speak. Somewhere – somehow – the answers that were given as an explanation for all the forces were also somehow based on some erroneous foundation – a flaw in its structure. And I would humbly suggest that this may have everything to do with the need to speculate on the properties of forces that remain invisible and particles that can only be studied by inference.

One of the more intriguing obsessions of our mainstream scientists is their interest in particle manifestations. The neutrinos are the smallest and they're also considered to be stable. But these little numbers could just as easily been seen as a really small photon or a really small electron - and the electron neutrinos - like the electron - theoretically also has it's anti particle – its twin. These are the only stable particles together with the photon, the electron and the proton. And they’re considered to be infinitely stable which is a really long time.

But the thing is this. All other particles – whatever their frequency, their mass, their lack of it, their charge, whatever - they all last for really small fractions of time. Their duration can be measured in terms of quadrillionths of a second - or quintillionths - and so on - getting progressively smaller and progressively more improbable. Here's the puzzle. For some reason when one slams one particle into another - inside a bubble chamber - then from the interaction of two stable particles comes this 'particle zoo'. It's been described as the creation of a really complex fruit salad from a chance meeting of two fruits. Those myriad particles that manifest for such a brief moment of time - simply decay. They disappear back into the vacuum of space. And the proposal is that somehow these manifest particles are the product of that interaction. It's so energetic that it would be absurd to balance out the energies in terms of thermodynamic laws.

Matter here has multiplied - inexplicably and exponentially. Strawberries, plums, apricots, pineapples, grapes, quinces, oranges, apples, and on and on - from the chance interaction of a banana with a small tomato. So our scientists put paid to that energy equivalence - that all important sum that dominates science in every other respect - and they simply look at the conclusion of that experiment – to what happens after the manifest miracle of so much coming from so little. And in as much as the final product of that interaction is less than the manifest particles that decay - then what is left is precisely the right combination of particles which then evidence a perfect conservation of charge. One can almost hear the sigh of relief.

No-one, notwithstanding the evidence of this manifest matter in all it's varieties and that variety is widely considered to be potentially infinite - not one of them have suggested that, just perhaps, they are disturbing some kind of matter in the field that holds these particles. Why is this not considered? Could it not be that in the moment of interaction all that becomes manifest may be those particles in the field that were first invisible - and after impact, become visible - and then they decay? That way - and only in that way - would they be able to argue conservation of anything at all.

This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our scientists. There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence. According to mainstream - energy cannot be created. And NOTHING can exceed light speed. My own question is this. How would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light speed? In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring abilities. It's the gold standard. Actually it’s all we’ve got. We’ve nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against. If anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself would NEVER be able to find it. It would, effectively be invisible.

Which brings me round to my favourite topic and to another 'inconvenient truth' - to borrow a phrase from Al Gore. Around about the time when Heisenberg and Bohr were forging the foundations of Quantum mechanics, Zwicky, a Polish immigrant to America - saw something that was only enabled by a new found access to new and improved telescopes. What became evident were galaxies, in the millions, where prior to this there was nothing beyond our Milky Way Galaxy. And what was also evident was that the mass measured in the galaxies, was simply NOT enough to hold those galaxial structures together. If gravitational principles were to be universally upheld - then by rights - those great big star structures should have unravelled or should be unravelling. Neither was evident. He then superimposed the requirement for what he called 'missing matter'.

Over time those early results have been systematically ratified and refined. In effect - many scientists - our leaders in the field of astrophysics - have proved, conclusively that galaxies themselves are held bound by what is now referred to as dark mass - from what is proposed to be dark energy. In effect - they've uncovered a new - hitherto unknown FORCE. No longer are there four forces. There appears to be every evidence that there is this fifth force - and like a fifth column - it's well hidden but pervasive. But the new and insuperable puzzle is this. It's invisible. Yet it's everywhere. And we have no reason to doubt this evidence. Our scientists' ability to measure and observe is unquestionably exact. But, and yet again - they then make yet another nose dive into yet another explanation for the inexplicable. All around are frantically searching for its particle - the 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'. We are back to an Alice in Wonderland world - looking at an upside down reality - a bizarre universe that must first and foremost, obey any and every rule that our mainstream scientists propose - no matter their inherent contradictions.

Why should the particle be visible? Is this still to do with the obsessive requirement to disallow faster than light speed? Are we getting ready set, go - to confuse the hell out of another hundred years or more of theoretical physics - simply to adhere to relativity concepts? Has the time not come - with respect, where we can concentrate of 'field' physics and explore the implications of this - rather than impose a 'field' condition on known particles that none of them are able to constitute a field. No known stable particles are able to move together. Electrons and protons are, effectively, monopoles. Neutrons decay within twenty minutes. Photons irradiate outwards and can only share a path when their rays are deflected unnaturally. Nothing known is capable of sustaining a field condition. So WHY do our learned and revered insist on imposing a standard particle construct on a field? It is the quintessential condition of forcing a square peg into a round hole - of fitting one incorrect fact into another incorrect fact - in another endless circular argument. Again, with respect, has the time not come, in fact LONG overdue, to revisit - not so much our answers, which are increasingly shown to be incorrect - but to revisit our questions about physics? I personally, think that time would be well spent in exploring the conditions required for a sustained field. And I think the evidence now is overwhelming that the field itself holds matter - and, for obvious reasons, this unhappy, this uncomfortable, this inconvenient truth - needs to be fully explored. Just perhaps a whole world exists out there that remains out of touch of our actual realities. It leads - we follow. It proceeds in one time frame - and we interact with it in another time frame. That way - just that one small inclusion into our theoretical constructs - and we would be able to reconcile so much with what is evident. I suspect it's our aether energies - and reference to this has now been long been considered to be politically incorrect. Perhaps the time is now that this poor, abused concept be revisited and revitalised by our theoreticians. Certainly we may then salvage some logical coherence that is entirely exempt in current thinking.

Friday, April 1, 2011

100 - on the much needed finalisation of the model

Dear Reader,

I have finally finished adding illustrations to the model. But it's a work in progress and likely to be amended here and there. I believe there's a contradiction in my argument somewhere in there that I have to ferret out. And there's a few additions that I need to highlight related to the way the forces are an expression of the different dimensions in the field.

the model - click here

Poynty has sent me an email to advise me that I'm foolish - to try and pretend that I'm a scientist. I hope I'm not guilty of this. To the best of my knowledge, I have never made any such pretense. All I have done is try, within the constraints of my limited knowledge, to explain something that I have seen. It's a 'pattern' behind all that is manifest. And it does not contradict known physics. I believe this may be the first excusion into 'field physics' which, I firmly believe, will be the the new reach of this new age science.

And I am entirely satisfied that there are no readily formed mathematical constructs to explain all this. The best that our string theorists have proposed is a static backdrop. How would one resolve all that energy if, as proposed here, that backdrop is that fast that it exceeds light speed. I am certain that a new math and a new geometry will be required to do this justice. That I cannot - is a good thing. It is better that this is progressed by mainstream.

I do hope that there are those amongst you readers who are able to understand it.

Kindest regards,