| |
CHAPTER
FOUR: THE SEQUENTIAL PERSPECTIVE
We have indeed seen the
evidence to suggest that the atom is an
aether-vortex with spherical symmetry
and a central axis, thus forming a spherical
torus. The Biefield-Brown effect proves
that the grand solution to the mystery
of “charge polarity” is that
aetheric energy is flowing through the
electron clouds into the nucleus. Dr.
Ginzburg made a few simple and acceptable
adjustments to relativity equations and
produced a model that perfectly explains
the behaviors of matter observed by Kozyrev
in the laboratory, wherein it sheds energy
and mass as it is accelerated towards
the speed of light.
Through the conventional
crystal molecule formations of the tetrahedron,
cube and octahedron, and especially with
the introduction of microclusters, icosahedral
and dodecahedral quasi-crystals and the
phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensates,
we now see the importance of Platonic
Solids in the quantum realm. We can no
longer deny that these forces exist, as
we now have irrefutable physical evidence.
These new findings also reveal that we
no longer need to think of atoms as individual
units, but rather as harmonic aether vortexes
that can merge together into greater levels
of unity and coherence, such as in quasi-crystals.
And with this data in place, we now have
a valid solution for all the “loose
ends” of the puzzle by introducing
the work of Rod Johnson.
4.1 BASICS OF JOHNSON’S
“SEQUENTIAL PHYISCS”
What we ultimately see in
Johnson’s model is the following:
- There are no “hard”
particles, only groupings of energy.
- Every quantum measurement
can be explained geometrically, as a
form of structured, intersecting energy
fields.
- Atoms are actually counter-rotating
energy forms in the shape of the Platonic
Solids, specifically rooted in the counter-rotation
of the octahedron and tetrahedron, each
vibrational / pulsational shape corresponding
to a different major density of aether.
- All levels of density
or dimensions in the entire Universe
are structured from these two primary
levels of aether, which are continually
interacting with each other.
Significantly, an increasing
number of advanced theorists have already
been striving towards a “particle
mesh” model of physics, based on
the Superstring theory, where all matter
in the Universe is somehow an element
of an interconnected geometric matrix.
However, since conventional scientists
have not yet visualized Platonic Solids
that are nested within each other, sharing
a common axis and capable of counter-rotating,
they have missed the picture for the quantum
realm.
Again, in this chapter we
will try to keep things simple by presenting
an overview of Johnson’s model for
“what’s going on” in
the quantum level first, and then discuss
the scientific evidence to prove it afterwards.
We begin our outline of the core principles
of the model with a pencil-shaded illustration
of the interlaced tetrahedron, which we
created to show very clearly what it looks
like as a three-dimensional sculpture.
It is important that we have a good visual
image of this structure before we try
to imagine an octahedron that fits inside
of it. We can clearly see that there are
two tetrahedrons in the image, one with
the tip pointing upwards and another with
the tip pointing downwards. Also remember
that it fits perfectly inside a sphere:
Figure 4.1 – The
interlaced tetrahedron.
With this structure in mind,
consider the following points of the model:
- The tetrahedron and octahedron
are counter-rotating within each other
at the quantum level.
- Both have spherical symmetry
around a shared center.
- The tetrahedron and octahedron
represent two primary levels of aether
density that must exist in the Universe,
which we shall refer to as A1 and A2.
- The octahedral field
fits perfectly in the center of the
tetrahedral field, and is therefore
smaller in diameter, as we can see in
the next diagram:
Figure 4.2 – The
octahedron (R) and its fit inside the
interlaced tetrahedron (L).
Figure 4.2 shows us the
octahedron inside of the interlaced tetrahedron,
which in turn is inside the cube. It is
quite confusing at first to try to imagine
the octahedron being a free agent that
can counter-rotate inside the interlaced
tetrahedron. Indeed, in this form, the
two geometries are completely balanced
and integrated. However, the most important
part of Johnson’s physics is to
see that the octahedron is “detached,”
acting separately from the tetrahedral
field, by rotating in the opposite direction.
There are only eight possible “phase”
positions that the two geometries can
fit into before they again reach the harmony
that we see above. In order to have a
phase position, the two geometries must
have some degree of direct contact with
each other, such as line to line or point
to point. This is graphically illustrated
in the next “phase” diagram:
Figure 4.3 – The
eight “phase positions” created
by the
counter-rotating octahedron and tetrahedron.
What we see in this diagram
are two basic waves: the smaller wave
that fits in each of the four main circles,
representing the rotation of the octahedron,
and the larger wave outside the main circle
boundaries as the counter-rotation of
the tetrahedron. This diagram is by far
the easiest way to show how and where
the tetrahedron and octahedron will connect,
and it is based on the science of “phase
physics,” which was first pioneered
by Kenneth Geddes Wilson as a means of
mapping out large-scale geometric relationships
as wave motions. Each of the eight “phase
positions” represents a different
element, and this is shown in the next
figure:
Figure 4.4 – The
eight “phase positions” as
they relate to basic crystal structures
formed by the elements.
So, to continue:
- The tetrahedron and octahedron
are both under high pressure –
the tetrahedron is pushing in towards
the octahedron, much as the negative
electron clouds press in towards the
nucleus.
- This pressure can only
be released when either a node or line
on one of the solids crosses a node
or line on the other solid, opening
up a gateway for the energy to flow.
The easiest way to visualize
such a “gateway” opening would
be if you cut out a hole in a piece of
cardboard, and then turned on a hair dryer
and held the nozzle flat against the cardboard,
then sliding it towards the hole. Until
the nozzle actually reached the hole,
the air has nowhere to go, and the engine
will quickly run hard and overheat; but
once the nozzle reaches the hole, the
air has somewhere to go and the pressure
is released, with the engine then relaxing.
Inside the atom, via the Biefield-Brown
effect, the pressure in the electron clouds
is always trying to rush towards the nucleus,
and unless the counter-rotating geometries
connect, that pressure is blocked. In
this sense, the lines and nodes in the
geometric forms could be seen as the “holes”
that are “popped” in the nested
spherical fields, which will allow the
in-streaming pressure to flow through.
This solves one “pressure”
problem, but we must also remember the
pressure that is created by the counter-rotating
forces of the tetrahedron and octahedron.
(These are the geometries that form in
the “field bubbles” of what
we shall now call aether 1 (A1) and aether
2 (A2) respectively. Ancient traditions
often referred to A1 and A2 as “positive
and negative force.”) Until the
greatest number of “holes”
have lined up between both geometries
at the octave point of geometric balance,
the full amount of outside pressure cannot
flow towards the center. So, when the
two forms “lock” together
in valence periods that are not at the
“octave” point, the counter-rotation
of A1 and A2 is not fully balanced, causing
additional pressure and lack of symmetry.
A1 and A2 will then remain “stuck”
in that unbalanced position if they are
undisturbed by outside energy.
Most of the elements on
D. Mendeleyev’s Periodic Table of
the Elements are “stuck” in
this manner, and therefore unstable. In
this case, all naturally-occurring, non-radioactive
elements are organized from left to right
on the table in groups of eight. They
move from a position of instability and
lack of symmetry on the left to a position
greater crystalline symmetry and geometric
balance on the right. In Johnson’s
model, it is only when we move to the
Octave or eighth phase position of counter-rotation
that the geometries again regain their
perfect balance.
This can be visualized with
the idea of sitting on a narrow stool.
Obviously, the most comfortable sitting
position is when your body is centered
in the middle. Now simply picture trying
to sit on the stool with eight different
positions, starting out with only a small
part of one of your legs contacting the
stool. Each position will be uncomfortable,
and you will not be truly in balance until
you are sitting completely centered on
the stool. Thus, atoms and molecules that
are not in such a state of balance are
considered as “unstable” and
will easily bond with other unstable atoms
and molecules that hold the missing energy,
in order to create equilibrium.
4.2 ‘COVALENT’
BONDING
The first form of bonding
that can occur is known as covalent bonding.
This name is used since the “valence
bonds” of electron clouds are believed
to be “shared” between the
atoms in question. As we said, there are
no true “electrons,” and it
is the completion of geometric symmetry
between A1 and A2, the nested tetrahedron
and octahedron, that forms this bond.
All elements are simply different proportional
mixtures of A1 and A2, the nested tetrahedron
and octahedron locked in different positions
relative to each other, in Johnson’s
model. The simplest example of this is
that a single oxygen atom will naturally
be attracted to two single hydrogen atoms
to mutually blend into a water molecule,
or H2O. Not surprisingly, the water molecule
is shaped in the form of a tetrahedron.
In later chapters on biology we will see
the interesting possibilities that arise
as a result of this unique structure.
4.3 ‘IONIC’
BONDING
The other option for basic
bonding in chemistry is known as “ionic
bonding.” In this case, the bonding
is created by a difference in charge polarity,
where a negative attracts a positive.
When an element has an unbalanced charge,
it is known as an ion, hence the term
ionic bonding. The simplest example would
be with sodium chloride or salt, which
can be written as Na+Cl-, and forms either
a cube or octahedron. The pressure difference
between the positive and negative ions
is what attracts them together in this
case. The chlorine atoms are 1.81 angstroms
wide in the salt molecule, almost twice
as large as the sodium atoms at 0.97 angstroms.
Ionic bonding can also occur
when individual atoms of a particular
element are attracted to each other and
bond together two-by-two, thus creating
symmetry. The most basic example of this
is a molecule of oxygen gas, written as
O2. The only way that early (al)chemists
were able to find these core elements
such as the single oxygen atom were by
disrupting basic chemical compounds through
processes such as burning, freezing, mixing
with acids and bases, et cetera.
4.4 FREQUENCY EXPANSIONS
AND CONTRACTIONS
So, returning to the main
point, we have eight basic positions or
phases in which the tetrahedron and octahedron
can be located. However, any astute reader
will have already seen that eight basic
geometric positions are clearly not enough
to form the entire Periodic Table; there
must be some additional properties at
work in order to produce the complete
set of natural elements.
Figure 4.5 – Frequency
contraction of tetrahedron (L) into octahedron
(R).
Here is the key:
Both geometric forms are
also capable of expanding and contracting
from their centers.
This is referred to as a
change in their frequency.
When they change frequency,
they form different types of geometric
solids.
These solids are not just
Platonics, but can be other forms as well,
such as the Archimedean solids –
and they are all interrelated by the “parent”
tetrahedron and octahedron formations.
As seen in Figure 4.5, contracting
a geometric shape is as simple as bisecting
each of its lines into two or more equal-sized
lengths and then connecting the dots together.
When we divide each line into two pieces,
this is called a “second-frequency”
division, whereas dividing each line into
three pieces would be called a “third-frequency”
division. Starting with the tetrahedron,
Buckminster Fuller demonstrated that a
total of ten different frequencies (geometric
shapes) could be created by this process
of frequency expansion or contraction
– and this is a central aspect of
Johnson’s findings. For example,
the “strong” force in the
atomic nucleus is known to be exactly
ten times more powerful than the “weak”
force in the electron clouds! (This is
usually written as the square root of
100, which is 10.) No other plausible
explanation for this anomaly has ever
been advanced. Here, the nucleus represents
the point of the greatest “infolded”
geometry at the highest frequency level
of contraction.
So, what we need to do is
to combine the eight basic phases of counter-rotating
geometry with the various frequencies
of geometry that can emerge from expansion
and contraction. With this in mind, the
entire Periodic Table can be rendered
– and ultimately you can predict
whether the element will be a solid, liquid
or gas, and what its freezing, melting
and vaporization points will be. Johnson
directs interested thinkers to the work
of James Carter, who was able to render
the entire Periodic Table through diagrams
of spiraling motion that he called “circlons.”
Most interestingly, Carter’s “circlons”
are spherical torus formations! Carter
didn’t appear to know what the spiraling,
curly, cyclical “rotations within
rotations” were that he was diagramming
between the circlons to show the various
elements, simply that they had to exist
by “absolute motion.” For
a more complete description we invite
the reader to peruse our detailed interview
article and / or his website. In order
to keep our thoughts simple for the purpose
of this book, we will now simply point
out some of the most obvious signs from
quantum physics that Platonic geometries
are indeed at work.
4.5 PLANCK’S
CONSTANT AND THE ‘QUANTIZED’
NATURE OF LIGHT
Most of us already know
that heat radiation and light are considered
to be caused by the same thing –
the passage of bursts of electromagnetic
energy known as “photons.”
However, before the year 1900, light and
heat were not thought to move in discrete
“photon” units, but rather
in a smooth, flowing, unbroken fashion.
Physicist Max Planck was the first to
discover that light and heat would move
in “pulses” or “packets”
of energy at the tiniest level, calculated
to be about 10^-32 centimeters. (An atomic
nucleus is actually the size of a planet
in comparison!) Interestingly, if you
have a faster oscillation, you get bigger
packets, and if you have a smaller oscillation
you get smaller packets. Planck discovered
that this relationship between the speed
of oscillation and the size of the packet
will always remain constant, regardless
of how you measure it. This constant relationship
between oscillation speed and packet size
is known as Wein’s Displacement
Law. Rigorously, Planck discovered a single
number that expressed this relationship,
which is now known as “Planck’s
Constant.”
A recent article by Caroline
Hartmann in the December 2001 issue of
21st Century Science and Technology deals
specifically with Max Planck’s findings,
and reveals that the puzzle created by
his discoveries remains unsolved:
Today we are indebted
to the continuing research of scientists
like the Curies, Lise Meitner and Otto
Hahn for a deeper insight into atomic
structure. But the fundamental questions:
what causes the motion of the electrons,
is that motion constrained by certain
geometrical laws,and why certain elements
are more stable than others, are still
not clear, and await new pioneering
hypotheses and ideas. [emphasis added]
We can already see the answer
to Hartmann’s question emerging
in this book. As we had said, Planck’s
discoveries came about through the study
of heat radiation. The introductory paragraph
to Caroline Hartmann’s article is
a perfect description of what he accomplished:
One hundred years ago,
on December 14, 1900, the physicist
Max Planck (1858-1947) announced (in
a speech before the Kaiser Wilhelm Society
of Berlin) his discovery of a new formula
for radiation, which could describe
all the regularities observed when matter
was heated and began to radiate heat
of various colors. His new formula,
however, rested on an important assumption:
that the energy of this radiation is
not continuous, but occurs only in packets
of a certain size. The difficulty was
in how to make the assumption behind
this formula physically intelligible.
For, what is meant by “energy
packets,” which are not even constant,
but vary proportionally with the frequency
of oscillation (Wein’s Displacement
Law)?
Hartmann continues a bit
later on:
[Planck] knew that whenever
you come upon an apparently insoluble
problem in Nature, a higher, more complex
lawfulness must lie behind it; or, in
other words, there must be a different
“geometry of the universe”
than one had assumed before. Planck
always insisted, for example, that the
validity of Maxwell’s equations
had to be re-established, because physics
had reached a point where the so-called
“physical” laws were not
universally valid. [emphasis added]
The core of Planck’s
work can be stated in a simple equation,
which describes how radiating matter releases
energy in “packets” or bursts.
The equation is E=hv, where E equals the
energy that you end up measuring, v is
the vibrating frequency of the radiation
that releases the energy, and h is what
is known as “Planck’s Constant,”
which regulates the “flow”
between v and E.
Planck’s constant
is listed as a value of 6.626. It is a
dimensionless constant, meaning that it
simply expresses a pure ratio between
two values, and does not need to be assigned
any specific measurement category other
than that. Planck did not magically discover
this constant, but rather painstakingly
derived it by studying heat radiation
of many different sorts.
This is the first major
mystery that Johnson clears up with his
research. He reminds us that in order
to measure Planck’s constant, the
Cartesian system of coordinates is used.
This system is named after its founder,
Rene Descartes, and all it means is that
cubes are used to measure three-dimensional
space. This is so commonly done that most
scientists don’t even consider it
as anything unusual – just length,
width and height in action. In experiments
such as Planck’s, a small cube was
used to measure the energy that moved
through that area of space. This cube
was naturally assigned a volume of “one”
(1) in Planck’s measuring system,
for the sake of simplicity. However, when
Planck wrote his constant he didn’t
want it to be a decimal number, so he
shifted the volume of the cube to 10.
This made the constant 6.626 instead of
0.6626. What was truly important was the
relationship between whatever was inside
of the cube (6.626) and the cube itself
(10.) Ultimately it did not matter whether
you assigned the cube a value of one,
ten or any other number, as the ratio
would stay the same. Planck only discerned
the constant nature of this ratio through
rigorous experimentation over many years
of time, as we said.
Now remember that depending
on the size of the packet that is released,
you will need to measure it with a different-sized
cube. Yet, whatever is inside that cube
will always have a ratio of 6.626 units
to the cube’s own volume of 10 units,
regardless of the sizes involved.Right
away we should notice something; the value
of 6.626 is very close to 6.666, which
is exactly 2/3rds of 10. So then we must
ask, “What is so important about
2/3rds?”
Figure 4.6 – Two
tetrahedrons joined at a common face to
form the “photon”
measured by Planck’s constant.
Based on simple, measurable
geometric principles explained by Fuller
and others, we know that when we fit a
tetrahedron perfectly inside of a sphere,
it will fill exactly one-third of its
total volume. The photon is actually composed
of two tetrahedrons that are joined together,
as we see in figure 4.6, and they then
pass together through a cube that is only
big enough to measure one of them at a
time. The total amount of volume (energy)
that moved through the cube will be two
thirds (6.666) of the cube’s total
volume, to which Planck had assigned the
number 10. Buckminster Fuller was the
first to discover that the photon was
indeed composed of two tetrahedrons joined
in this way, and he announced it to the
world at his Planet Planning address in
1969, after which time it was obviously
forgotten.
The slight 0.040 difference
between the “pure” 6.666 or
2/3rds ratio and Planck’s constant
of 6.626 is caused by the permittivity
of vacuum space, which absorbs some of
the energy involved. This “permittivity
of the vacuum” can be precisely
calculated by what is known as Coulomb’s
equation. To put it in simpler terms,
the aetheric energy of the “physical
vacuum” will absorb a small amount
of whatever energy passes through it.
This means that it will “permit”
slightly less energy to pass through it
than what was originally released. So,
once we factor in Coulomb’s equation,
the numbers work perfectly. Furthermore,
if we measure space using tetrahedral
coordinates instead of cubical coordinates,
then the need for Planck’s equation
E=hv is removed, because the energy will
now be measured to be the same on both
sides of the equation – thus E (energy)
will equal v (frequency) with no need
for a “constant” between them.
The “pulses”
of energy that were demonstrated by Planck’s
constant are known to quantum physicists
as “photons.” We normally
think of “photons” as carriers
of light, but that is only one of their
functions. More importantly, when atoms
absorb or release energy, the energy is
transmitted in the form of “photons.”
Researchers such as Dr. Milo Wolff remind
us that the only thing we know for certain
about the term “photon” is
that it is an impulse that travels through
the aether / zero-point energy field.
Now, we can see that this information
has a geometric component, which suggests
that the atoms must have such geometry
as well.
4.6 BELL’S
THEOREM
Another recently discovered
anomaly that shows us that there is geometry
at the quantum level is Bell’s Inequality
Theorem. In this case, two photons are
released in opposite directions. Each
photon is emitted from a separate atomic
state that has been excited. Both atomic
states are composed of identical atoms,
and both are also decaying at the same
rate. This allows two “paired”
photons with the same energy qualities
to be released in opposite directions
at the exact same time. Both photons are
then passed through polarization filters
such as mirrors, which should theoretically
change their direction of travel. If you
have one mirror at a 45-degree angle,
then you would naturally expect the photon
to make a different angular turn than
another photon would make if it was reflected
off of a mirror at a 30-degree angle.
However, when this experiment
is actually carried out, the photons will
make the exact same angular turns at the
same time, regardless of the differences
in the angle of the mirrors!
The degree of precision
that has been brought to this experiment
is staggering, as the next quote from
pages 142 and 143 of Dr. Milo Wolff’s
book illustrates:
The most recent experiment
by Aspect, Dalibard and Roger used acousto-optical
switches at a frequency of 50 MHz which
shifted the settings of the polarizers
during the flight of the photons, to
completely eliminate any possibility
of local effects of one detector on
the other…
Bell’s Theorem and
the experimental results imply that
parts of the universe are connected
in an intimate way (i.e. not obvious
to us) and these connections are fundamental
(quantum theory is fundamental.) How
can we understand them? The problem
has been analyzed in depth (Wheeler
& Zurek 1983, d’Espagnat 1983,
Herbert 1985, Stapp 1982, Bohm &
Hiley 1984, Pagels 1982, and others)
without resolution. Those authors tend
to agree on the following description
of the non-local connections:
- They link events
at separate locations without known
fields or matter.
- They do not
diminish with distance; a million
miles is the same as an inch.
- They appear
to act with speed greater than light.
Clearly, within the framework
of science, this is a perplexing phenomenon.
What Bell’s Theorem
is showing us is that the energetically-paired
“photons” are actually joined
together by a single geometric force,
such as the tetrahedron, which continues
expanding into a larger size as the photons
move apart. The photons will continue
to maintain the same angular phase position
relative to each other as the geometry
that is between them expands.
4.7 THE ELECTROMAGNETIC
WAVE
Our next point of investigation
is the electromagnetic wave itself, since
Einstein determined that matter is made
from electromagnetic energy. As most of
us are aware, the electromagnetic wave
has two components – the electrostatic
wave and the magnetic wave, which move
together. Interestingly, the two waves
are always perpendicular to each other.
To visualize what is going on here, Johnson
asks us to take two pencils of equal length
and hold them perpendicularly to each
other, also using the basic length of
the pencil for the distance that separates
them:
Figure 4.7 – Two
pencils at 90-degree angles from each
other, held equidistantly apart.
Now we can connect each
tip of the top pencil to each tip on the
bottom pencil. When we do this, we will
form a four-sided object made of equilateral
triangles between the two pencils –
we will have a tetrahedron. We can work
the same process with the electromagnetic
wave, by having the total height of the
electrostatic or magnetic wave (which
both have the same height or amplitude)
as our basic length, which was shown in
figure 4.7 as pencils. Here in figure
4.8, we can see how the electromagnetic
wave is actually tracing itself over a
“hidden” (potential) tetrahedron
when we connect the lines together using
this same process:
Figure 4.8 – The
hidden tetrahedral relationship in the
electromagnetic wave.
It is important to mention
here that this mystery has been continually
discovered by various thinkers, only to
be forgotten to science once more. The
work of Lt. Col. Tom Bearden has rigorously
shown that James Clerk Maxwell knew it
was there when he wrote his complex “quaternion”
equations, but Oliver Heaviside later
distorted the model down to four simple
quaternions and ruined the hidden tetrahedral
“potential” inside. This hidden
tetrahedron was also seen by Walter Russell,
and later by Buckminster Fuller. Johnson
was not aware of any of these previous
breakthroughs when he first discovered
it himself.
4.7 GELL-MANN’S
“EIGHTFOLD WAY”
The next enigma comes to
us when we study the subatomic “particles”
known as quarks. When an atomic structure
was suddenly shattered, brief tracks would
emerge that would fly away from the normal
spiraling “particle” path
in a bubble chamber, and they were named
“quarks.” These “quarks”
would disappear very quickly after they
were first released. The geometry of their
movements was carefully analyzed, since
the only thing you can truly detect in
a vapor-trail analysis is different geometric
forms of movement. Many different forms
of “quarks” were discovered,
each with different geometric properties,
misleadingly called such things as “color,”
“charm” and “strangeness.”
Murray Gell-Mann was the first to discover
a unified model that showed how all these
different geometric properties were interrelated,
and he called it the “Eightfold
Way.” Remarkably, the unified geometric
structure that we see is a tetrahedron:
Figure 4.9 – The
tetrahedron as seen in Gell-Mann’s
“Eightfold Way” organization
of “quarks.”
So what exactly are we seeing
here? Each dot is obviously a different
“quark.” Johnson tells us
that “quarks” are released
when the aetheric energy flow of the tetrahedron
inside the atom is suddenly shattered.
For a brief moment of time, the shattered
energy fragments that are released will
continue to flow with the same rotational
/ geometric properties as they had when
they were bound in the atom, but they
will very quickly dissolve back into the
aether afterwards. One wouldn’t
necessarily see all of the different “quarks”
just by shattering one atom, since the
angle at which the atom is shattered determines
what part of its inner geometric Unity
will be released. This is why the quarks
had to be painstakingly studied separately.
Even more interestingly, other “infolded”
geometric frequencies such as the cuboctahedron
are in Gell-Mann’s model as well;
this tetrahedron is just one of three
different hierarchies that he discovered.
Again, the mainstream scientific
world sees Gell-Mann’s Eightfold
Way as nothing more than a convenient
geometric organization, but with no further
meaning than that. In this next excerpt,
Dr. Milo Wolff alludes to the fact that
the geometry might be the solution to
understanding the structure of the “nuclear
space resonances” in the quantum
realm, from page 198 of his book:
Another interesting problem
with a valuable result is to see if
a way can be found to match up nuclear
space resonances with the group-theory
explanation of the nuclear particle
zoo. One of the names of that theory
is the Eight-fold way discovered by
Gell-mann and Ne’eman in 1960.
It cleverly uses geometric groupings
of the various particles to determine
their parameters: spin, parity, isotope
number and strangeness number. The group
theory has not yet revealed a physical
structure such as space resonances.
If there is a relation it is logical
to expect that the solutions of the
SR wave equation would have orthogonal
properties that match the Eight-fold
way. It is an exciting prospect to attempt.
Interestingly, just as we
were finishing this portion of the book,
we were contacted by Dr. R.B. Duncan,
who has a quite detailed and meticulous
work published online that explains the
structure of the atom based on the geometry
of group theory that Wolff was mentioning
above. Duncan had worked on this problem
for thirty years of his life before publishing
a solution!
4.8 THE ENIGMAS
OF “SPIN” AND TORSION EXPLAINED
Figure 4.10 – 180-degree
spin angles of “electrons”
caused by impulses moving over octahedral
energy forms.
The next piece of evidence
that we need to consider is spin. Physicists
have known for many years now that energy
particles “spin” as they travel.
For example, “electrons” appear
to be continually making sharp 180-degree
turns or “half spins” as they
move through the atom. “Quarks”
are often seen to make “one thirds”
and “two thirds” spins when
they travel, which allowed Gell-Mann to
organize their movements into the tetrahedron
and other geometries. No one in the mainstream
has provided a truly adequate explanation
for why this is happening.
Johnson’s model shows
that the 180-degree “spin”
of the electron clouds is being caused
by the movement of the octahedron, as
seen above in Figure 4.10. It is important
that we realize that the 180 degree movement
actually comes from two 90-degree turns
for each octahedron. The octahedron must
“flip over backwards,” i.e.
180 degrees, to remain in the same position
in the matrix of geometry that surrounds
it. The tetrahedron must make either 120-degree
(1/3 spin) or 240-degree (2/3 spin) rotations
in order to have the same position. This
will be explained more simply in section
4.9 just below here. (Other aether theorists
such as Wolff, Crane, Ginzburg and Krasnoholovets
have their own fluid-flow-based explanations
for the phenomenon of half-spin.)
The enigma of the spiraling
movement of torsion waves is also explained
by this same process. No matter where
you are in the Universe, even in “vacuum
space,” the aether will always be
pulsating in these geometric forms, forming
a matrix. Therefore, any impulse of momentum
that travels through that aether will
have to trace a path across the faces
of these geometric “fluid crystals”
in the aether. Thus, the spiraling movement
of the torsion wave is caused by the simple
geometry that it must pass through as
it travels.
4.9 THE FINE-STRUCTURE
CONSTANT
Though we have worked hard
to make this section simple, the fine
structure constant is a more difficult
problem to visualize; so if this section
becomes too difficult to read, you can
just skip ahead to the summary in section
4.10 without losing any of the major “thread”
of this book. We have included this section
for those who wish to see just how far
the “matrix” model goes. The
fine structure constant is another aspect
of quantum physics that few mainstream
people have ever even heard of, probably
since it is a totally unexplained embarrassment
to the scientific mainstream that clings
to particle-based models.
Picture now that an electron
cloud is like a flexible rubber ball,
and each time a “photon” of
energy is absorbed or released, (known
as coupling,) the cloud stretches and
flexes as if it had bounced. The electron
cloud will always be “bumped”
in a fixed, exact proportional relationship
to the size of the photon. This means
that if you have larger photons you will
get larger “bumps” on the
electron cloud, and smaller photons create
smaller “bumps” on the electron
cloud. This relationship remains constant,
regardless of size. The fine-structure
constant is another “dimensionless”
number like Planck’s constant, meaning
that we will get the same proportion regardless
of how we measure it.
This constant has been continuously
studied by spectroscope analysis, and
the highly revered physicist Richard P.
Feynman explained the mystery in his book
The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
(We should again remember here that the
word “coupling” simply means
the joining together or separation of
a photon and an electron:)
There is a most profound
and beautiful question associated with
the observed coupling constant e –
the amplitude for a real electron to
emit or absorb a real photon. It is
a simple number that has been experimentally
determined to be close to 0.08542455.
My physicist friends won't recognize
this number, because they like to remember
it as the inverse of its square: about
137.03597 with an uncertainty of about
two in the last decimal place. It has
been a mystery ever since it was discovered
more than fifty years ago, and all good
theoretical physicists put this number
up on their wall and worry about it.
Immediately you would
like to know where this number for a
coupling comes from: is it related to
pi or perhaps to the base of natural
logarithms? Nobody knows, it is one
of the greatest damn mysteries of physics:
a magic number that comes to us with
no understanding by man. You might say
that the "hand of God" wrote
that number, and "we don't know
how He pushed His pencil." We know
what kind of a dance to do experimentally
to measure this number very accurately,
but we don't know what kind of a dance
to do on a computer to make this number
come out – without putting it
in secretly. [emphasis added]
In Johnson’s model,
the problem of the fine-structure constant
has a very simple, academic solution.
As we said, the photon travels along as
two tetrahedrons that are paired together,
and the electrostatic force inside the
atom is maintained by the octahedron.
By simply comparing the volumes between
the tetrahedron and octahedron when they
collide, we get the fine structure constant.All
we do is divide the tetrahedron’s
volume when it is surrounded (circumscribed)
by a sphere into the octahedron’s
volume when it is surrounded by a sphere,
and we will get the fine-structure constant
as the difference between them. In order
to show how this is done, some additional
explanation is required.
The phase-wave diagrams
that we saw earlier in this chapter (figs.
4.3 and 4.4) showed us the angular relationships
between the octahedron and tetrahedron.
Since a tetrahedron is entirely triangular
no matter how it is rotated, the three
tips on any of its faces will divide a
circle up into three equal pieces of 120
degrees each. Therefore, you only need
to rotate the tetrahedron by 120 degrees
in order to bring it back into balance
with the matrix of geometry that surrounds
it, so that it is in the same position
as it was before. This is easy to see
if you visualize a car with triangular
wheels, and you wanted to move it forward
just enough that the wheels would look
the same again. Each of the triangular
wheels would have to turn 120 degrees
to do this.
Now in the case of the octahedron,
it must always be turned “upside
down” or 180 degrees in order to
regain its balance. If you want to see
this with the car analogy, then the wheels
would need to be in the classic “diamond”
shape that you see on a deck of cards.
In order to get the diamond to look exactly
the same as when you started, you have
to flip it upside down, by 180 degrees.
This next quote from Johnson explains
the fine-structure constant based on this
information:
[When you] see the static
electric field as the octahedron and
the dynamic magnetic field as the tetrahedron,
then the geometric relationship [between
them] is 180 to 120. If you see them
as spheres defined by radian volumes,
then simply divide them into each other
and you have the fine structure constant.
A “radian volume”
simply means that you calculate the volume
of an object from its radius, which is
half of the width of the object. (For
those who wish to test the math out themselves,
simply take the sine of 180 degrees and
divide it by the sine of 120 degrees,
then run that number through Coulomb’s
equation to account for the slight loss
of energy that happens when a pulsation
is moving through the aether.) When this
simple process of dividing the two “radian
volumes” into each other is performed,
the fine-structure constant will be the
result.
Interestingly, while Johnson
has shown that the fine-structure constant
can be seen as the relationship between
the octahedron and tetrahedron as energy
moves from one to the other, Jerry Iuliano
discovered that it can also be seen in
the “leftover” energy that
is produced when we collapse a sphere
into a cube, or expand a cube into a sphere!
These expanding or collapsing changes
between the two objects are known as “tiling,”
and Iuliano’s calculations were
not very difficult to perform; it was
simply that no one had thought to try
it before. In Iuliano’s calculations,
the volume of the two objects does not
change; both the cube and the sphere have
a volume that he set at 8pi times pi squared.
When we tile them into each other, the
only difference between the cube and sphere
is in the amount of surface area. The
extra surface area between the two is
precisely equal to the fine-structure
constant.
Immediately the reader should
ask, “How can the fine structure
constant be a relationship between the
octahedron and tetrahedron and also be
a relationship between the cube and the
sphere at the same time?” This is
another aspect of the magic of “symmetry”
in action, where we see that different
geometric forms can have similar properties,
since they all nest inside of each other
with perfect harmonic relationships. Both
Johnson and Iuliano’s perspectives
show us that we are dealing with a geometrically
structured aetheric energy at work in
the atom.
It is also important to
remember that what Iuliano’s finding
shows us is the classic geometry of the
“squared circle.” This has
long been a central element in the esoteric
traditions of “sacred geometry,”
as it was believed to show the balance
between the physical world, represented
by the square or cube, and the spiritual
world, represented by the circle or sphere.
Now we can see that this was yet another
example of “hidden knowledge”
that was encoded in a metaphor, so that
eventually people in our time would regain
the true understanding of the secret science
behind it. They knew that once we discovered
the fine-structure constant, we probably
would not understand what we had observed,
so this ancient knowledge was left behind
to show us the key.
4.10 A UNIFIED MODEL
Now, with the data that
we have seen from Johnson’s physics
and its realization in the science of
microclusters, quasi-crystals and Bose-Einstein
condensates, we do indeed have a unified
quantum model. Our presentation of Johnson’s
physics has been designed to be as simplified
and streamlined as possible, so anyone
who would attempt to challenge the model
scientifically would be required to read
more about it in order to truly grasp
its many nuances. Yet, for those who have
an open mind, the data that we have presented
here is more than enough to prove the
point. The key is that sacred geometry
has always existed in the quantum realm;
it just remained undiscovered amongst
the various anomalies of quantum physics
that had remained unexplained until this
time, as the mainstream continues to be
shackled to outmoded “particle”
models.
In this new model, we no
longer have to restrain atoms to a certain
size; they are capable of expanding and
maintaining the same properties. Once
we fully understand what is going on in
the quantum realm, we can design materials
that are extremely hard and extremely
light, since we are now aware of the exact
geometric arrangements that will cause
them to bond together most effectively.
We remember that pieces of wreckage from
the Roswell Crash were said to be unbelievably
lightweight, yet they were so strong that
they could not be cut, burned or damaged
in any way. This is the type of material
that we will be able to build once we
fully understand the new quantum physics.
We remember that quasi-crystals
are very good at storing heat, and also
that they often do not conduct electricity,
even if the metals involved are normally
good conductors. Similarly, microclusters
do not allow magnetic fields to penetrate
inside the clusters themselves. What Johnson’s
physics tells us is that such a geometrically
perfect structure has perfect bonding
all the way through, and thus no thermal
or electromagnetic energy can pass through
it. The geometry is so compact and precise
inside that there is literally no “room”
for a current to move through the molecules.
Now that we have a relatively
complete aetheric model for quantum physics,
we are ready to move forward and show
how such geometric forces continue to
have their influences on larger scales
of size, namely in the formations known
as the Global Grid. Much of this material
is a review from previous volumes, but
it is nevertheless important that we cover
it once more. After we establish this
crucial link between the geometry of the
quantum and the geometry of the macro,
effectively proving the existence and
importance of these new theories, we will
move on to delineate an entirely new model
of the Cosmos that is based on all of
the principles that we have discussed
up until this point. Chapter Six will
focus primarily on explaining this new
cosmological model, whereas Chapter Seven
will present more specific, observable
information that shows the new model in
action.
REFERENCES:
- Besley, N.A.,
Johnston, R.L., Stace, A.J. and Uppenbrink,
J. Theoretical
Study of the Structures and Stabilities
of Iron Clusters. School of Chemistry
and Molecular Sciences, University of
Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QJ, United
Kingdom.
- Carter, Barry.
ORMUS and Consciousness. YGGDRASIL:
The
Journal of Paraphysics. 1999.
- Carter, James.
Theory
of Absolute Motion.
- Feynman, Richard
P. The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
- Fuller, Buckminster.
Planet Planning. 1969.
- Gell-Mann, Murray.
The Eight-fold Way. 1960.
- Hartmann, Caroline.
Max
Planck’s Unanswered Challenge.
21st Century Science and Technology
Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 2, Summer 2001.
- Johnson, Rod and
Wilcock, David. Conversations
on Sequential Physics. 2001.
- Mehrtens, Michael.
Definition
of Microclusters.
- Sugano, Satoru
and Koizumi, Hiroyasu. Microcluster
Physics: Second Edition. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1998. ISSN:
0933-033X; ISBN 3-540-63974-8
- Wolff, Milo.
Exploring
the Physics of the Unknown Universe.
Technotran Press, Manhattan Beach, CA,
1990. ISBN 0-9627787-0-2.
|