Items of interest

6-23-08

There is no direct way to prove my theory except its ability to make correct predictions; so, how is it possible to make predictions from a theory for 55 years,and not have a single prediction proven wrong, plus having several proven right, unless the theory is correct? I realize my theory is hard to believe, but look at the facts. I am now beginning to believe that science will not accept this until the public forces them to accept it.

Everything I have written on these pages will become relevant when this theory is fully understood.

The following is proof that gravity is not a pull.Go to gravity when finished. Scientists are finally admitting they just do not understand gravity, but I do. If scientists won't listen, then perhaps you will listen. First, Gravity is a push, and anything and everything from space debris all the way down to dark energy does the pushing. Any astronomer with a good understanding of math can prove a pull of gravity does not exist: If gravity were a pull, a body at the perimeter moving toward the center would be pulled back more and more as it moved towards the center. when at the center it will have its maximum amount of outward pull in all outward directions. Now just think of two bodies orbiting each other at the galactic center. This works faster at the very center. They will be orbiting each other inside the entire galaxy, so every time one, or both at the same time, passes an outer body, it or they will be pulled a tiny bit towards the outer bodies, both bodies will have this effect, but if both orbiting bodies pass something at the same time they both will be pulled outwards a tiny bit. The body or bodies that caused this is pulled inward a tiny bit towards the two orbiting bodies. If you were able to grasp this you now should be able to see that if gravity were a pull the entire central part of the galaxy would be doing this, but fastesr at the very center and less as you move outwards, and this is bound to happen. This means that any galaxy at some time, or all the time is going to have two objects orbiting each other at the very center, or anywhere in a galaxy. (The reason I say two bodies is because it is just easier to see and understand.) A solar system like our own would take many years to see a change. Galaxies are not symmetrical. Anything that can happen, does happen. As these bodies orbit each other, either one or both will have outer bodies affecting it: Every time either one, or both orbits nearer to an outer body, or bodies. it, or they, will be pulled a slight distance apart, and this is not like stretching a spring: It, or they will not spring back. Their forward velocity will not change, but their orbit will now be larger, and the pull on each other has lessened slightly. This will grow and grow and eventually the entire galaxy will be the shape of a doughnut. "But" first think about the process this will have to go through before it becomes doughnut shaped: this acts first and fastest in the central region. When one of these orbiting bodies passes an outer body the nearest one will be pulled the most. The other orbiting body only slightly, and vice versa when the opposite orbiting body does the passing. The outer body that is being passed will be pulled toward the orbiting bodies. It is not the shape or size of something that creates gravity.

There is a specific cause for gravity, and what can happen to a system of two objects can happen to a complex system. Now think about entire solar systems doing the same thing. the outer planets and space debrie will be doing the same as the two but over a longer period of time. This will create systems of space debrie and planets in between solar systems which will allow the very center system to keep opening up. Whenever two outer bodies of two different systems pass each other a pull of gravity will pull each closer to the other. There is a lot I have left out of this because I can see it all works out as an advantage. If gravity were a pull the entire galaxy would open up. Everything close to the center will open up first. This will be proven right.

This same effect will affect a solar system, a star system, or any system within a galaxy. It is just more pronounced at the galactic center. A push of gravity will do the opposite. The closer it is to the center the more it will be pushed into a tighter orbit and the more it will be compressed. Like a skater spinning: The more a skaters arms are pulled toward the skaters body, the faster the spin. Read more of this page, then go to gravity.

Any way you look at it, everything had to come from nothing but empty space. There are only two things that could explain this: One is magic. The other is true suction.The electron theory has had so much success that scientists do not question it. I do not question it as a force, but I do question it as a thing. This explains the fast spinning starts. I suspect that science believes that electricity is the basis for everything. I say that electricity is only a flow of energy in a medium we do not see or feel, and that it is the result of creation, and not the reason for creation.

It seems to me that everything relating to "existence" can be explained without any math at all. For example, I say it rained today. That statement alone lets you understand that it rained today. Only if you need details do you need math: such as, how much did it rain today? I say understand the basics, then use math for any needed purpose. If there were just some way I could see and understand the worlld science lives in. They see something I do not see. I see the need for math, but I do not see a relation bettween math and basic understanding, except to understand a formula. I have said for fifty some years that science will never come up with anything that will surprise me. "Interest" yes, "surprise" me no.

My theory explains why it is possible to get something from "nothing, or space," and with this characteristic of "true suction" it allows space to create and store energy. Where before I had nothing, I now have something. If I assume this theory is correct, it stands to reason that from this I can figure out other assumption. Now if some of these assumptions happen to turn out to be true, it stands to reason you are on the right track, but if another assumption also explains the same thing, then which one are you going to believe, and why do both seem to be right?

If you have understood my proof that gravity is not a pull, you will now understand that gravity is not a pull. Science lives in a world of mathematics. I live in a world of understanding. I do not see what they see, and they do not see my side of the issue. Science seems to see everything as a formuls to something. I see foreces affecting the behaviour of other particles, and this in turn affects somethibg else.

Why the universe is here has been explained in all the early dictionaries.

There is one word in the dictionary that lets you understand why everything is here. That word is: "Suction." Everyone knows what suction is. "Right?" "Wrong;" only in undeveloped countries do the majority of the people think of suction as being what suction really means and the way it should be thought of. The older dictionaries describes suction as "the act of sucking." This is the correct explanation, but some of the newer dictionaries now describe it as a difference of pressures. (I think suction" because the action is the same, but the results are not the same. Suction is the one thing that can never be demonstrated in our present world because it is the cause of everything: The universe and everything in it is what it caused. This also explains why everything that exists is created and why the Bible says that God has been here forever. The universe has always been here because "Nature which is true suction" has always been here. True suction makes space dynamic, and is the basis for everything. We, being created, are the result of this characteristic. We are not the creator.

Now go to gravity, and then come back and finish this page. GravityIn 1953 I already believed that suction was natural andunlimited.  I could hardly believe my ears when a Chairman of a physics department explained that suction was limited to atmospheric pressure.  Then on my way back home I realized that matter was mostly empty space, so there is no way we can ever demonstrate true suction.  I already believed suction was natural so I could instantly see how this could give space the ability to create and store energy, so I thought that all I had to do was just mention this and science would see instantly that it has to be right.

  I already seen suction as being natural, but for a well educated person to see this might be like trying to think of a color that was no way related to any other color because even though our world requires the existence of this other world, we can never experience true suction.  We can experience and understand pressure, but we can never feel or experience true suction.  This other world could feel and experience true suction, but could it ever feel or experience pressure?  However, a complete understanding might reveal some new thoughts.

This brings up another problem:  The intense pull of a black hole will strip one or the other of any orbiting two or more bodies that are orbiting each other around a black hole.  This brings up another problem: There is no law that says: "If you move a black hole, the galaxy must follow."   There is also no law that says: "If you move a galaxy, the black hole must follow."  So why are all these black holes at the center of things in the first place?  Such as galaxies, star clusters, the center of a large orbiting system, or the center of galaxies within a galaxy..

How a star is born.

I should have seen this a long time ago. The whole of space is full of dark matter, and dark energy. None of this is static. It all moves at high velocity, but it must be understood that even particles are partly, or mostly dark matter, and that galaxies, stars and planets are all mostly dark matter. Just particles too tiny to be seen or detected with the instruments we have today. They do not have to be smaller: we might just be a lot larger than we see ourselves.

If you will notice: all galaxies have a hot spot at their center. The larger the galaxy, the hotter the spot. All planets have a hot spot at their center. The larger the planet, the hotter the spot. Now all you have to do is remember that all parts of a body is giving off energy in all directions, but the one place where the most of this energy will be concentrated, if gravity is a push, is at the center. The center of the earth is molten, and the larger the planet, the more molten it will become, and when large enough it will become a star. I suspect that Red giants are what we see when a world like our own merges into a star. I suspect that small stars are stars that have burnt off most of their mass. Also it could be a worle that scientists have converted into a star.

I also suspect that the hotter a planet becomes, the less chance a particle has of passing all the way through a star. This will cause it to heat faster, and the faster it heats, means that more particles that are going to be burnt and this will cause more heat. A vicious cycle that we mistakenly think of as more mass and more pull of gravity; because the sun is now absorbing this instead of all these particles passing on through and pushing other bodies away.

I have predicted for a long time that most of a stars mass is just pure energy. It is not just the size of a star that creates more gravity: It is also the amount of protection it gives the planets by absorbing particles that normally would have passed through it and hit the neighboring planets.

I am so certain I am right that I will now add this to my reward list. Be the first to prove this wrong and collect the $1,000:00 reward. There might be other ways to create a star, but I doubt it. I also suspect that spontaneous combustion is somehow related to this. Also I have said for a long time that there is not as much missing matter as science believes: The reason is that a lot of what is the cause of gravity is coming from outside a galaxy.

11-10-05: I say that all the dust clouds that astronomers are seeing are from past explosions. I also say that what they believe is a bright young star could also be a bright old star.

10-05-05: I suspect that these gamma ray bursts are caused by two stars, or a star and a planet colliding head on, and the debris spurting outward at an extremely high velocity will add that velocity to the velocity of light, and when this light now traveling much faster than the speed of light hits a normal energy field all the light rays will be up graded to higher frequencies.

9-15-05: Astronomers have found an interesting Quasar outside a galaxy that they are calling a black hole. This could become very interesting because I say that nothing outside a galaxy will behave like a black hole. I am more inclined to believe that all these bright items they see are nothing more than merging stars, or merging stars and worlds, or what would we have if our earth, and Titan, and a star merged at the same time? What would you have if a run-away solar system passed through a solar system that was rotating in an opposite direction and right off they started having head-on collisions? What would you have if a world like our own and a star hit head on? I really do not expect them to find this Quasar surrounded by anything. Nor do I expect them to find anything orbiting it at an extreme velocity.

9-15-05 I happened to read an article that I had overlooked before; It seems that for 10 years astronomers have been tracking a star circling the center of our galaxy. They believe this is proof that a black hole exists at the center. I am not an astronomer, but I believe that if they can do that, they should be able to pinpoint just where this black hole should be and point their telescope at this point without changing the focus: then gradually change the focus to a slightly longer distance and if they detect movement, then they will know that there is not a black there because they would be seeing through it.

Scientists say that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface of the earth. This not only indicates that the core of the earth is fluid, it also indicates that the rotation of the earth is meeting resistance. Gravity could not cause this, (if it did anything, it would be more apt to speed up the rotation) so this is additional proof that an energy field exists and that the interaction of the energy fields is what is slowing the earth's rotation. If given enough time a planet will eventually keep the same face toward its star.

For people who don't understand how "True suction" can explain everything: A caveman living in a warm climate who had never seen or heard of ice would be hard pressed to believe that water could cut a slash in a steel boat.

No matter what it is, or was, that caused everything to be here, it was not an accident. This means that empty space has to have a characteristic that is entirely natural. "True suction" is that characteristic, and the result of true suction would be energy, and now that you have energy you have something that did not exist before. I say that "space" is the one thing that just has to be here, and that true suction makes everything possible.

If you hit a high velocity stream of water from a fire hose with a hammer, the hammer will bounce back. In the atomic world you have velocities close to the speed of light. If you look at a solid with a high power microscope you will see that all parts are moving, but they move such a short distance and so fast that they can only be seen with a high power microscope, and I suspect that there are smaller particles that can not be seen at all.

5-29-05 TRACE has identified a possible source of the magnetic stress that causes solar flares. The sunspots that give off the very largest (X-class) flares appear to rotate in the days around the flare. "This rotation stretches and twists the magnetic field lines over the sunspots", Nightingale said. "We have seen it before virtually every X-flare that TRACE has observed since it was launched and more than half of all flares in that time." However, rotating sunspots are not the whole story. The unique flare came at the end of a string of five other very large flares from the same sunspot group, and no one knows why this one produced more sudden high energy particles than the first four. "It means we really don't understand how the sun works," Lin said. "We need to continue to operate and exploit our fleet of solar-observing spacecraft to identify how it works."
In the last decade or so, beliefs about the systems that build planets have changed drastically with the onset of powerful observatories that can take more precise measurements, Monnier said.
They found that measurements thought to be accurate were actually very different than originally thought.
"We were surprised to find no clear evidence of auroral X-ray emissions during our observations. "It is interesting to note that even as research solves some mysteries, it confirms there is much more we have to learn."

I copied the following on this date: 2-14-05, from NewsAlert: 2-14-05: Astronomers have reported the discovery of a star leaving our galaxy, speeding along at over 1.5 million miles per hour. This incredible speed likely resulted from a close encounter with the Milky Way's central black hole. I would like to point out that I think a better explanation would say that it is a free-wheeling star that fell into this galaxy and that now it is on its way out of this galaxy. I expect the SWIFT telescope to find that these are rather common and might result in a head-on collusion that causes the bright light that it is designed to look for,

2-12-05 my computer has been out of commission for a little over two weeks. I find that there seems to be a couple of run-away stars traveling at over a million miles an hour. I expect that in the next couple of years, run-away stars will become rather common. I suspect that there are a lot of free-wheeling stars falling into galaxies. If a star falls into our galaxy it no doubt will travel all the way through it if it does not make contact with another star, or planet.

7To understand "True Suction" just imagine that there existed a material that was a true solid and that you had this material in the shape of a deflated basket-ball. I say that if you tried to force this into the shape of a fully inflated basketball, you would create energy inside this deflated ball. Think of space as this solid material: Space relative to itself is a solid. (That is the true meaning of relativity) When you try to digest all this, just remember that in our world a true solid does not exist, so do not associate our kind of a solid with a true solid.

Everything is relative: (this is the true meaning of relativity) If everything except diamonds were a trillion (to its highest power) times more denser...diamonds would flow like water. No matter what we are created from...everything will fit and relate to that kind of matter. We do not relate to true suction because it is what does the creating and does not feed over into our world of experience. This should be easily understood. We can relate to suction. We just can not relate to what this different kind of an experience would feel like, or the awesome power of it.

When you create something from space you have something that did not exist before, and who can know what characteristics have been created, or what properties were created along with it? Once you have created something, you can have friction which did not exist before. Now that we have friction we can have heat which did not exist before...ect.

I believe my theory is the only theory that predicts dark matter; energy fields are made up of dark matter. It would not surprise me too much to learn that an atom, if we could see it in its true perspective, would be the size of what we perceive the moon to be. This would explain why we can not see dark matter: we are too large to see anything outside our standards. I truly hope this is an exaggeration, but, Is any size really too large when compared to infinity??? I will try to make this more understandable: Our tools can only see our kind of material and our kind of tools. Our tools can not see what X Rays are made up of because they are made up of dark matter.

If the universe is really expanding, the outermost galaxies should be showing a greater shift to the red every year until they eventually recede from view. Light eventually fades to nothing.

If that single rock we found came from Mars then almost every rock they test on Mars should contain signs of life. If not, the chances that the only rock we found came from Mars is too astronomical. I say it came from an exploded world. Also there should be many rocks on Mars from exploded worlds.

To get an honest result the probes need to be tested at different distances from the earth; if they are too far from earth they will be outside the earth's energy field. Einstein says that the speed of light is the same for all observers. I say the velocity or rotation of a star or planet must be added or subtracted from the speed of light. A future test they are going to make will prove this. Light travels at the speed of light in the medium it is traveling in, but if the medium moves it carries light along with it.

December 24, 2003: Another thing I should have pointed out long ago is that a planet can not form a long distant from a star and spiral into it, except from friction over a long period of time. 11-25-06: I questioned this remark a long time ago but I did not take the time to find where it was, so I will comment on it now. I can now see that it would spiral in rather rapedly, but I can also see that it would act like a spring: Its velocity from falling would also put it back to almost the same, but opposite, location from where it first started.

If you can believe Einstein and that at one time the only thing that existed was a single lump of matter that was surrounded by nothing...not even space...then my theory should be a piece of cake.

I suspect that atomic time is related to our velocity through space. Change our velocity and I suspect atomic time will change...I made this prediction many years ago...If I understand some things I have read...scientists might have already found evidence that this might be right.

I knew that everything that exists had to come from whatever it is that space is; space is endless and everywhere...Where else could anything come from? Anyway I still had no idea of how anything could be created from nothing but space, except that for the past several months I had been toying with the idea of getting a patent on a new kind of suction cup: (at that time I thought that our kind of suction was "True Suction" and unlimited) You have seen them...The kind that you turn a lever to attach them to a flat surface. All at once it hit me: "True suction" had to be the right explanation for everything. This is the only solution there could be that needs no explanation of where it came from because it is not a thing...It is just a characteristic of what naturally has to be here..."Empty space." I even wrote a letter to the editor of Scientific American...This became my first experience, of countless others, of being ignored. In fact I can brag that I have been ignored by a lot of well known people.
Time is confusing to people because there is "True Time" and there is "Awareness Time." The way we register time is related to our awareness. We are not aware of anything until a signal has traveled to our brain and has been deciphered. The only way we can ever know true time is to understand everything there is to know and make allowances.

In 1964 I found my first and only stumbling block to my theory. I read about the aberration of starlight by James Bradley. If his explanation for this phenomenon were true my theory would have to be wrong. It should be interesting to note that within a few hours I found a flaw in his explanation that no one has challenged me on it since 1964. So, think twice before you condemn my theory.

James Bradley's "Explanation" contradicted my theory because I say that the earth's energy field affects the velocity of light. James Bradley's "Explanation" says the earth and its energy field has no bearing at all on the velocity of light, (So does Einstein.) but by the time I went to bed I realized that if James Bradley's "Explanation" was right we would not see anything exactly where it was, except under certain conditions, and I knew that astronomers would have discovered this long before then. I say his "Explanation" is wrong, and I have already explained why. Einstein says that the velocity of the source or the velocity of the receiver has no bearing on the velocity of light. If Bradley and Einstein were right...any light at right angles to the earth's orbit would have to be off by two seconds (?) of an arc. How do you explain this?

James Bradley discovered a star that seemed to be centered above our solar system. He set his telescope and discovered that the star was directly over the center of the solar system with the exception that he had to tilt his telescope two seconds of an arc in the direction of the earth's movement around the sun. Six months later when the earth was on the opposite side of the sun he again set his telescope and discovered he still had to tilt his telescope two seconds of an arc in the direction of the earth's movement around the sun. This is somewhat like two people looking in different directions and seeing the same thing.
His explanation went like this: He said that the reason he had to tilt the telescope two seconds of an arc was because the earth was traveling close to 20 miles a second in its orbit around the sun, so if the telescope had been pointed directly at the star you would not be able to see the star because the telescope was moving with the earth as the starlight was passing through it and this would cause the eye piece to move out of the line of vision. He reasoned that the telescope had to be tilted to allow for the velocity of the earth, but "more important," this is also saying that the presence of the earth has no bearing on the velocity of light and I say that it does. Here is the correct explanation: What really happened is that the difference in velocity of the energy fields caused the light-rays from the star to be bent two seconds of an arc, so the fact is...If the telescope had been pointed at the star you never could have seen it because the light rays from the star would travel in the star's energy field until it was overrode by our solar system's energy field and eventually the earth's energy field. This also explains why they got a wrong answer when they used the angle of the telescope to find how far the star was from earth...The telescope was not pointed at the star...it was pointed at where the energy fields completed their interaction with each other...This alone should prove my theory if it can be checked out.

One more thing. If James Bradley's explanation was right we would never see anything exactly where it was except under the right conditions: for example, just imagine a flat plain 186,000 miles wide. (Just the distance that light travels in one second.) By James Bradley's explanation, if you aimed a beam of light at a target on the far side of this plain, it would not go straight across: it would exit the plain twenty miles behind the target it was aimed at: just the distance that the earth travels in one second in its orbit around the sun. By my theory the light beam would go straight across (relative to earth) and hit its target. One more very important thing: Einstein used James Bradley's "Explanation" as proof that his theories were correct. "This should tell you a lot." Please do not ever forget this. (How much more evidence is it going to take before people admit that this has to be right?)

I would like to go on record as saying that I believe that Einstein's famous prediction that gravity would bend light was nothing more than the measurements he took from the above "Aberration of starlight." Einstein says that the velocity of the source or the velocity of the receiver has no bearing on the velocity of light. This makes James Bradley's explanation appear to be valid, but if Einstein was right, any light at right angles to the earth's orbit would have to be off by two seconds (?) of an arc. How do you explain this?

I believe the universe is forever changing and is made up of many stages, and that scientists are barely scratching the surface.I believe the reason we are not hearing from other civilizations is because they do not survive very long after reaching our stage of technology. I have already explained one or more other possibilities.

Just in case you do not understand the above sentence...just remember that this civilization was here for millions of years before the radio was invented...so if this civilization were to end tomorrow there would be a window of only about a hundred years for an advanced civilization to hear from us; So I hope you can understand how unlikely it would be for an advanced civilization to be in the right place with the right equipment in the short time period it would have in which to receive the signal.
For example: Did the last signal from a dying civilization pass by us just before we invented the radio? Are there distant signals too weak to be heard, passing us now? A signal does not last forever, including light.

In 1966 while living at Tillamook, Oregon I read an item in the paper about a Laser Gyroscope. I wrote and told them that it disproved Einstein's theory: An observer on the gyroscope would get three different measurements for the speed of light. A Laser Gyroscope that had the mass of the earth would not even work: The following example demonstrates the truth of this.
Visualize the circumference of the earth's orbit multiplied by 186,000; now multiply the earth's circumference by this same number. (The distance that light travels in one second.) Visualize two markers on earth exactly 186,000 miles apart. Now try and visualize markers along the earth's orbit exactly 186,000 miles apart. (The Distance that light travels in one second.) Now just at the very moment that the two markers on earth are even with two markers on the earth's orbit a flash of light appears at the trailing markers. We know where this light will reach in one second: it will be at the leading markers, but the leading marker on earth will then be 20 miles ahead of the leading marker on the earth's orbit. The light on earth has traveled 20 miles farther in one second than the light in earth's orbit. There has to be somebody out there intelligent enough to know that if you are measuring the speed of light, here on earth, at the speed of light, its true speed is more or less depending on whether the light is moving with or against the earth's movement. I bet that you are intelligent enough to see this. If you are not, would you please explain why? A laser gyroscope works because its energy field is over-rode by stronger energy fields. If it had the mass of the earth its energy field would not be over-rode.

I believe that it will take the combined effort of the entire world to save this civilization. There are so many ways to destroy this civilization. For example: just a poor economy could keep us from doing all that is needed to save this civilization. In 1953...one of the things that came to mind was that we were creating a civilization without an immune system. We do what we have to do to keep people alive who in turn have children who need the same things; cloning might be the only way to keep a good supply of healthy people. Over-population will destroy us, and our freedom.

I believe that Mercury lost its water to Venus, and that Venus lost its water to this planet and that this planet will eventually lose its water to Mars and etc. unless our star burns out and we are set adrift. I say that most of a stars mass (size) is pure energy. 12-07-03 Our sun eventually will feed on Mercury, then Venus, then the earth. etc. Think about it, but if our sun is in a dying stage we will be set adrift to be captured eventually by some other star.

Ask yourself this question, "If I am wrong, why are so many (or all) of my predictions turning out to be true?" One of these days I am going to add to the number of things that I will pay a thousand dollars if any one is proven wrong. I now have added some. I could add more but what is the percentage...with all the evidence I have given, more would not help, but I am again starting to add even more.

I think there is a good chance that the universe is made up of many stages. We lack the ability to see beyond our limitations...(our stage) This is why scientists have, for so many years, believed that energy can not be created or distroyed: our tools will only let us explore this one stage; eventually our tools will become more intelligent and we can explore other stages. My theory predicts many stages. The past is forever.

A question on TV was: "What planet does not have a moon?" I told a member of our family that I believed the reason Venus does not have a moon was because Venus was so close to the sun that every time any moon that it had passed between Venus and the sun, the gravity of the sun would put it into a little higher orbit until it escaped from Venus. Venus might have had a moon that we now call Mercury. Using this same logic, it is possible that our moon will eventually be captured by the sun or perhaps first by Venus, then the sun. Every time the earth passes between the earth and the sun It will move a little bit towards the sun.

Are they finding evidence of past water on Mars, or is the surface layer on Mars mostly debris from exploded worlds? 11-24-06 I believe there is a lot of frozen water under the surface of Mars. For 52 years my theory has had a fatal flaw: "Its not mythical like Einstein's."

Einstein's gravity flawed:
To have a dimple you must have both a hollow and a ridge surrounding the dimple.  If the dimple attracts, then the ridge must repel.  Yes a dimple could hold numerous items, but each item you add must be added as part of the first Item, and the dimple must get wider in order to accept it.  This seems to work great, but if you keep adding material eventually you have extended this to the opposite side of the earth and finally this all comes together until you have only a tiny island left.  If you keep adding material to this dimple it will engulf the island and "presto:" no island. No island equals no dimple because now there is no dimple; it is all flat.  You see this idea of a dimple causing gravity is flawed. I seen this flaw in 1964   If you have a dimple for each item you will have as many ridges as there are dimples.  You might get attracted but the person standing next to you would be kicked off the planet.

Einstein's cover blown: I think Einstein experimented by making light static and having everything else move. By doing this everything would have to be figured by its own time slot. This way you can have a: one dimple fits all situation for gravity. This explains the origin of the frames, and by making time a fourth dimension, and using time dilation as a factor it gave him a space time reference table. Also by saying anything nearing the speed of light starts (?) I believe increasing in width. This explains why there are things that can be explained the conventional way. This lets us explain the things we can, in the conventional way, and the ones we can't in his way. this will change when we learn, and can see more. This way he could make it fit every thing that is known plus give an explanation for problems. It is this later that will eventually prove him wrong. I say that light will reach its destination sooner if it is moving with an energy field and later if it is moving against the energy field. Keep coming back here; I guarantee I will be able to explain this better in the future. Plus, on top of this he knew what conventional methods was unable to explain, so he invented time dilation to explain it. My theory explains these problems naturally. This is the only theory that actually leaves no unanswered questions.

The only thing that has kept me interested in astronomy is all the surprises that astronomers are continually being faced with. I have known for 52 years what the final analysis will be. 9-11-05: I will now start giving my suggestions for the things astronomers are finding hard to explain. For example: These bright explosions that soon disappear, I think is caused by debris from the explosion blocking out the vision, because it is a world, not a star that exploded. In a few million years this debris will clear up and astronomers will again be able to see the remnants of these explosions. 9-17-05: If it is not just an explosion it could be a head-on collision. this would disintegrate both bodies and because everything was exploding at the same time, the biggest part of the explosion would be over in a few moments.

I would also suggest that astronomers check the background: Try to find stars very close to, but behind this explosion and see if the expanding debris blocks any star from view.

The first scientist I talked to said "If what we have explains everything, why should we change?" I should have said: "Because it would change it from fiction to fact."

My theory says the center of a galaxy would be very violent. Science sees this as being caused by a black hole. I see it as being natural and just the way it should be. Science sees black holes as being natural. I see them as being not natural because there is no way to explain the mechanics of a black hole except to say that gravity is a pull and no one has explained the mechanics of a pull. To say that opposites attract and the same repels is only a crutch, and not an explanation. You still have to explain why. My theory explains all the mechanics.

My theory is the perfect solution: It uses the only word in the dictionary that describes an action that does not take place in our physical world. Nor does it require a physical explanation. In other words, its a natural explanation. It stands to reason that the theory for everything has to be something entirely natural. "True suction" is my explanation and it is not a thing: It is nature, and nature has been here forever. Here again I have to ask: "How can anything so obvious not be understood by scientists? How else would you change empty space into something? True suction makes it possible to change empty space into pure energy. 9-20-05: How does pure energy manifest itself? We seem to know it is there but we can not see it. I see electricity as being just a flow of energy in a medium that we can not see or feel. Is it just a flow of this "Pure energy?" If so I could be wrong about a push of gravity: maybe everything really does suck? Maybe true suction manifests itself as electricity, gravity, and/or magnetism, or is it that we just do not understand how pure energy behaves.

The following is the reasoning I used when I was putting my theory together. I reasoned that I could walk through an open door without any resistance and even if a baby hit me I still would not be meeting much resistance, but if a million babies hit me at the same time I would be meeting a lot of resistance. I reasoned that a diamond was not hard just because it was hard. It was hard because of how we relate to it, and how it relates to us. It is hard because of the traveling velocity and the spinning velocity of the way its particles are put together in relation to everything else. I am not a scientists. there are better ways of explaining this, but this was good enough for me. I had read that if you hit a stream of water from a fire hose with a hammer it would bounce back just the same as if you had hit an anvil. There is no such thing as a true solid. Every part of a solid is in motion if we could see it. My theory says that even the smallest particle we can see is, itself, made up of smaller parts. If you need more than this, contact me at.

The following is a list of excerpts from this web-site that support my theory.My very first prediction was that science would eventually discover that there was no such thing as a true solid. (Read my web-site.) I told an older brother that there had to be a way to package energy, and that I would find it. When I saw a younger brother blowing smoke rings, I just knew I had my answer. Then in 1957 I read in the news that hydrogen gas under certain conditions would take the shape of a doughnut. This was support for particles being like a smoke ring. Then I predicted that particles are like a tiny smoke ring. This prediction has not been proven yet nor has it been disproved, but a test I ask you to do in this web-site does support that theory.

My next correct prediction was that everything had an energy field. (but it took 29 more years for science to learn this was a true prediction. "WOW") At that time I did not understand very much about Einstein and his theories
The fact that I was able to predict the result of a test convinced me even more that my theory was right. (To understand this, read my web-site.)
I do not remember exactly when I verbally predicted that science would continue finding surprises until my theory was accepted, but my theory has always said that. I became interested in astronomy because all their surprises was an indication that my theory must be right.

Another suspicion I had that seems to be coming true is that everything, if we could understand it, is a form of life and that life will form anywhere the environment does not go from extremes to extremes. I expect them to eventually find that life exists some place on all planets.

If a theory was wrong you would expect to make more wrong predictions than correct predictions. I have 52 years with no proof of a false prediction, and 52 years of science being continually surprised. I have every reason to believe I am right, and absolutely no reason to even suspect I might be wrong. The following bit of news that is stumping astronomers is exactly what I would expect to find if my theory were correct. (Read my web-site) Everything in our visible universe is pushed by some degree by everything else in our visible universe. If you think this is wrong, lets talk about it.

I have also explained that a body does not need anything to orbit around at the center of galaxies and star clusters if gravity is a push. This might also include the center of a cluster of galaxies.

A vacuum is not the opposite of pressure: a vacuum is just the absence of pressure. If you question this, then just think about this: If a vacuum were the opposite of pressure, there would have to be almost no limit to the amount of vacuum you could create, because there is almost no limit to the amount of pressure that can be applied. "You need to understand my theory before you will understand what I just explained. (I use the word vacuum because this kind of situation is beyond our ability to detect. Eventually there will be a word for it.)

Please remember that I predicted that the Gravity Probe B would tend to prove that Einstein was right. They are now proving this. More testing will prove that the movement of the earth will transport light to its destination in less time if it is moving with the earth. It will take longer if it is moving against the movement of the earth. (Read my web-site.) 8-18-06 I learned that the Gravity Probe B is not designed to do what I thought.

I predicted to myself that I would find that light waves would be pushed together when the earth was approaching the star, and spread apart when the earth was moving away from the star. I was right. When you are learning things for the first time you do not automatically know these things, so it was an honest prediction. (Read my web-site.)

I consider the following information the strongest bit of evidence yet. The reason is this: If it were true it would have knocked my theory off the face of the earth. It is James Bradlley's explanation of the aberration of starlight. but the fact that I found a flaw in it, is additional proof that my theory is right.

Einstein used James Bradley''s explanation as proof that his theory was right. If his explanation were correct, my theory would have to be wrong. I say his explanation is wrong because if he was right we would not see anything exactly where it was except under the right conditions and astronomers would have discovered this a long time ago. I explained this discrepancy in 1964 and not one single person, in all this time, has said I was wrong.

In the middle sixties I wrote a letter to a science magazine (I still have the receipt) and said there would be a problem. The problem is this: If a space ship is in outer space its velocity will seem to change depending on whether it is traveling with or against the rotation of another planet. They did have problems, but they are not talking about it any more.
The next thing people need to understand is: the theory for everything has to be something entirely natural. Even if Einstein's "Dense Singularity" gave all the right answers. You still would not know anything basic. Scientists put a lot of faith in Einstein...Well, Einstein said everything is made from energy, and so do I. The only way you are going to create energy from something that basically is not physically something is by my theory; nothing else will work. This is why I have always said that I know this is right.

In the third week of November, 2004 I have been reading that scientists are being surprised by finding a second black hole at the galaxy's center. If they spent a lot of time looking I think they could find a lot of so called black holes near the center of any galaxy. The following is a later date: That suspicion has now came true. What would be surprising to me would be to find a single star orbiting what would appear to be nothing anywhere other than at the galaxy's exact center, or the center of a star cluster.

November 26, 2003: This theory predicted the existence of dark matter before I even knew what was meant by "dark matter." If everything could go back and start from scratch, my theory predicts that everything started out by space trying to balance itself. This means that large portions of space would be involved. This also means that early particles started out perhaps the size of galaxies or larger and have forever been shrinking as more and more energy was created. A particle is not going to just pop out of empty space. Vast portions of space will forever be trying to balance, so the beginning of a particle must, for obvious reasons, be very large. I predict that everything is much larger than we perceive things to be
I say that I have proven that gravity is not a pull. (If you look at the fine detail it is easy to see that gravity can not be a pull) I am also the one who has been trying to get astronomy to see that if gravity is a push, a body does not need anything to orbit around at the center of galaxies or star clusters if the clusters are large enough. I read that astronomers were learning that a star does not need anything to orbit around at the center of galaxies. I wonder where they learned that???

Because there is so much that scientists do not understand: my greatest fear now is that scientists will trigger something, or create a catalyst that will convert this world into a star, or cause it to explode. I am certain it is going to happen...I just do not know when.

Astronomers are saying a lot of material is being drawn into what they believe is a black hole at the center of galaxies. Let's go back to what I have said almost as long as I have had this theory: "I believe gravity is complex." With gravity being a push, a galaxy should act as an accelerator, and by the time a particle reaches the center of a galaxy they might collide and create a lot of smaller particles that are to small to see. We call this dark matter. Eventually these particles will slow down to where they will create a push, probably by the time they reach another galaxy. If gravity were a pull, a galaxy would not act as an accelerator.

For almost 50 years I have been saying that I believed that life fell here from worlds that have exploded. Now I notice that people are starting to say that life might have fell here. (This is a very old sentence.)
One of my first predictions was that everything was much larger than what we see; this also means that time is also much longer than what we experience it. I made this suggestion in the fifties. In the June 2003 issue of Discover magazine there is this statement: "To scientists, a second is an eternity." So how do you explain the fact that all these bits of evidence keep popping up?

I suspect that atomic time is related to our velocity through space. Change our velocity and I suspect atomic time will change...I made this prediction many years ago...If I understand some things I have read...scientists might have already found evidence that this might be right.

I believe the reason we are not hearing from other civilizations is because they do not survive very long after reaching our stage of technology. I have already explained one or more other possibilities.

In 1966 while living at Tillamook, Oregon I read an item in the paper about a Laser Gyroscope. I wrote and told them that it disproved Einstein's theory: An observer on the gyroscope would get three different measurements for the speed of light. A Laser Gyroscope that had the mass of the earth would not even work: The following example demonstrates the truth of this.
Visualize the circumference of the earth's orbit multiplied by 186,000; now multiply the earth's circumference by this same number. (The distance that light travels in one second.) Visualize two markers on earth exactly 186,000 miles apart. Now try and visualize markers along the earth's orbit exactly 186,000 miles apart. (The Distance that light travels in one second.)
Now just at the very moment that the two markers on earth are even with the two markers on the earth's orbit a flash of light appears at the trailing markers. We know where this light will reach in one second: it will be at the leading markers, but the leading marker on earth will now be 20 miles ahead of the leading marker in the earth's orbit. The light on earth will have traveled 20 miles farther in one second than the light in earth's orbit.

back to Top
Home Page