Gravity Does Not Exist – The Lorentz Contraction Conundrum


There is no such thing as gravity, dielectric acceleration IS (so called) magnetic attraction and IS (so called) gravity. It is one and the same thing, the only difference is coherency.

A magnet is a coherent and polarized object, any spatial extrapolation is polarization necessitatively. What drives a magnet is point non-specific and no different from any other holographic fractal in that respect. It is field incommensurability. A magnet does not have poles it has the inverse of counter-space. Space is the absence of inertia, it has no properties. Space acts on nothing, time acts on nothing. A field in and of itself has no quantity, no physicality, it is not phenomena. Space is a posterior attribute of a field, therefore it does nothing and acts on nothing. Space and Time are not autonomous forces, this is absurd. Modern science has never adequately defined polarity, or quantified a field for that matter.

“A magnet has 2 poles” is a description not an explanation. The loss of inertia necessitates polarity. The rest point in the centre is a result of pressure mediation. It is concentrated there because it is the inverse of space (force and motion) it is counter-space (inertia and acceleration). What we call a magnetic field is a reciprocating precessional hyperboloid resultant of a coherent dielectric object. Electricity is the multiplicative byproduct OF Phi (magnetism) and Psi (dielectricity).

The 800 pound gorilla that shits on the head of modern physics and QM and that is going to turn the world upside down with countless new inventions MUST be and WILL be in dielectrics, not electricity. Classical magnetism does not account for the difference between centripetal convergence and centrifugal divergence and how they interact to cause dielectric voidance or counter-voidance (magnetic vectorization). Which is often incorrectly labelled as magnetic attraction/repulsion.

There is no need for a unified field theory; all fields are already unified. What is not unified is human comprehension of the nature of field modalities in relationship to one another. Mother Nature does not do math and complex calculations with virtual particles. The conjugate forces of reality are simplex and have been understood since ancient times, albeit foolishly dismissed by the arrogance of modern society.

Gravity is left entirely undefined and lacks a scientific denotation in principle, ergo the term is nothing other than a pseudoforce and you may as well say unicorn farts or pixie dust interchangeably. It makes no difference. DESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT EXPLANATIONS!

To summarize, gravity is incoherent dielectric centripetal acceleration towards a null-point of counter-spatial inertia. Essentially a hybrid field modality and byproduct of electromagnetism to put it in layman’s terms. Nothing more.

uni field modalities final final one 0

Proof masses do not accelerate towards each other:


Magnetism never attracted anything, it only displaces. When two magnets collide they do not attract towards each other directly but to a a void or counter-spatial null point of inertia between them. 




In regards to atomist relativity theory;

There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called ‘electrons’ are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not “electrons”, nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving ‘electrons’; the ‘electron’ is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist.

Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; ‘electrons’ do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or likewise the Ether fields.

There is a widespread belief that individual Lorentz – Einstein transformation equations have a physical significance of their own and can be used independently of each other. Thus, for example, some authors believe that for transforming the electric field of a parallel-plate capacitor or of a line charge from one reference frame to another it is sufficient to use only the charge-density transformation equation. Similarly, some authors believe that the same seemingly correct results can be obtained by using just the electric and magnetic field transformation equations. An analysis of field expressions obtained by means of such transformation methods shows, however, that these expressions are incorrect. In order to obtain correct expressions for electric and magnetic fields by means of Lorentz – Einstein transformation equations, the equations must be used collectively, so that all transformable quantities in the system under consideration are properly transformed.

These and similar errors in the understanding of relativistic concepts and equations frequently result in incorrect representations of physical phenomena and in various relativistic “paradoxes” that have caused some scientists to criticize and even to reject relativity theory as such.

The answer is simple: As a physical phenomenon the relativistic (kinematic) Lorentz contraction does not exist. And the fact that several revisions of this concept had no ill effect on relativistic electrodynamics or on any other branch of physics is an excellent indication that the concept does not represent a physical phenomenon in the conventional sense.


See also:

The Problem With Physics & The Science Delusion

Dogmatic Scientism – The New World Cult

Before Tesla Died, He Never Did Release His Theory of Dynamic Gravity

Jefimenko’s Electrostatic Motors & Heaviside’s Gravitational EM Analogy

What is a Ferrocell? – Seeing Into the Cross Section of the Secret of Mother Nature

There is no Speed of Light

Debunking Relativity

What is the Zetetic Ethic? – The Right to Inquiry


“What is this madness…

This surge of furious and indignant investigation,

Why are so many increasingly daring to question that which is supposed to be unquestionable…

To challenge the core consensus of that which our modern, advanced society claims to know.

Are they simply going slowly insane?

Or maybe just fools?

Are they the tragic victims of a sadly innadequate education?

Or, is it maybe, something else…

Have they instead perhaps stumbled upon a most unexpected, yet liberating, realization, the realization that our most fundamental of human faculties, have in fact not been rendered obsolete, by this cumulation of so-called “higher knowledge”,

and the staggeringly simple conclusion, that our own senses and observations, can indeed be trusted.

For it is truly this question of trust itself which propels so much of this controversy, so much of this zetetic madness,

because we live in a day and age whereby we are taught from birth to put our blind faith in the sum total of humanity’s accomplishments, and to trust whole-heartedly in the assumption, that collectively mankind’s inevitable progression is always in the direction of truth and understanding…

Yet in this period of history, exists a growing minority of those of us who have been forced to concede that this is certainly not always the case,

to wake up and recognize that this idolatry of our own selves is in fact very fertile soil, for mixing science with fallacy, and confusing knowledge with presumption…

And so, this rediscovered Zetetic ethic, this ethos, is simply about refusing to live life whereby certain things are deemed exempt from continued examination, from questioning. It is the rejection of this unspoken cultural code which implies that the pursuits of scientific observation and experimentation are no longer the purview of the ordinary individual, and that all relevant scientific inquiry has now been relegated to the realms of government institutions , peer-reviewed academia and corporate interests.

We must insist on never overlooking the inherent danger of making the misguided assumption, that none of these public or private establishments could ever be abused, whether by simple error, or malicious intention, and so we seize back for ourselves, this simple right to question, to test, to inquire, to verify.

What’s more, we insist on never again surrendering the value and validity of our own personal obversations, direct experiences, and our inherent cognitive abilities, and degrading them once more to being sources of insight that are considered inferior to the theoretical speculations and mathematical abstractions being pushed from every angle by this monolithic system.

We believe that the simple freedom to question and test everything is the most effective antidote against the ceaseless agenda of indoctrination.

And this, I believe, is what lies at the heart of this Zetetic philosophy. It is something which touches so much more than just the matter of the shape of the Earth, the nature of the Cosmos, or all questions of a scientific nature. It encompasses, practically, everything, which holds meaning and importance in the course of human experience.

We are by nature, questioners. And when this freedom to question is removed, whether by overt action, or more often by sway of social conformity, this is what paves the way for true science to degrade into Scientism, for authentic democracy to erode into mob rule.

We question, because we recognize that at the end of the day, we really have nothing of consequence to lose by doing so, but on the other hand, we have potentially an unimaginable amount to lose, if we do not…”


The Scientific Method vs The Zetetic Method

Often an accusation is made against Flat Earthers regarding the methodology they use for determining their views of reality. It is important thus to understand that we do not use the Scientific Method as our primary method. It is instead our secondary method. We rely instead on the Zetetic Method as our primary method.

That’s right! There are other methodologies outside of the Scientific Method! But why haven’t your schools ever taught you this?

Zetetics has been around far longer than Science and it is through Zetetics that the Ancient civilizations were able to create calendar systems that rival if not surpass our own modern calendar systems!

So what is the difference between the Scientific Method and the Zetetic Method?

“”The zetetic method differs from the scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A Zeteticist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, where as the scientist would rather speculate on what the answer might be before testing it out.””

Empiricists feel this is a more reasonable method than the scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.


1.) Come up with a question about the world.

All Zetetic work begins with having a question to ask. Sometimes just coming up with the right question is the hardest part for an inquirer. The question should be answerable by means of an experiment.

2.) Design an experiment.

An experiment should be able to allow the zeteticist to draw a possible answer to the question, called a hypothesis; it may not tell him or her if the hypothesis is right.

3.) Experiment and collect the data.

Here the zeteticist tries to run the experiment he/she has designed. Sometimes the zeteticist gets new ideas as the experiment is going on. Sometimes it is difficult to know when an experiment is finally over. Sometimes experimenting will be very difficult. Some zeteticists spend most of their lives learning how to do good experiments.

4.) Draw conclusions from the experiment.

Sometimes results are not easy to understand. Sometimes the experiments themselves open up new questions. Sometimes results from an experiment can mean many different things. All of these need to be thought about carefully.

5.) Formulate a hypothesis — at least one possible answer to the question.

A hypothesis both in Zetetics and Science is a word meaning “An educated guess about how something works”. It should be possible to prove it right or wrong. For example, a statement like “Blue is a better color than green” is not a zetetic (or scientific) hypothesis. It cannot be proven right or wrong. However, the statement “More people like the color blue than green” could be a zetetic (or scientific) hypothesis, because one could ask many people whether they like blue or green more and come up with an answer one way or the other.

6.) Communicate them to others.

A key element of both zetetics and science is sharing the results of experiments, so that other inquirers can then use the knowledge themselves and all who seek can benefit. Usually inquirers do not trust a new claim unless other inquirers have looked it over first to make sure it sounds like real inquiry. This is called peer review (“peer” here means “other inquirers”). Other zeteticists should follow the Zetetic Method for their own experiments first, but rely on the scientific method secondly to verify any Zetetic hypothesis that was previously reached. In this manner bias is negated as Zetetics insures that all scientific theory is forced to be honest and empirical rather than deceptive and intangible.

Before Tesla Died, He Never Did Release His Theory of Dynamic Gravity

When Tesla was 82, instead of speaking at a dinner party, he issued a written statement:

“I have worked out a dynamic theory of gravity in all details and hope to give this to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies.

Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still very self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves.

Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible -However, even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion.”

Dogmatic Scientism – The New World Cult


Some interesting food for thought, courtesy of Jeranism. I’m not entirely religious myself, and i don’t feel that theology is a necessary argument against the scientific fallacies of the day. Common sense  and deductive reasoning should suffice, either way it seems modern science can no longer deny that pivotal part of itself which seeks to fuse and synthesize into a great truth and understanding. Of course i’m talking about that abstract scientific taboo we call ‘Spirit’.

First up,  Exposing Scientism:


Secondly, a hodge podge of observations and commentary about what Scientism has become and a look into who it is we trust.


Addendum: Some of you may not hive well with Jeranism, not all flat earthers are religious and some of the theological arguments can turn people off, but as i say, it’s really not necessary, the stupidity of modern science debunks itself with or without God’s help. lol

As usual, he’s a refer to a related article on the site:

The Problem With Physics & The Science Delusion

Eric Dollard – Tesla 2.0 – Crash Course in Electrical Engineering

Eric Dollard is a legendary electrical engineer trained by RCA, Bell Labs and the US Navy. He is the only man alive to have successfully replicated Nikola Tesla’s wireless electricity technology and is considered to be the modern living Tesla. Because of his contribution to electrical science and his advancements in a Tesla-Alexanderson type of Advanced Seismic Warning System, the Federal Government’s documents in relation to this project refer to him as Dr. Eric Dollard, which confers to him an honorary PhD. His fans lovingly refer to him as Professor Dollard. The Lone Pine Writings (Part 1) and its content was developed out of the general frustration of the author when trying to teach others about his work in electrical engineering.

Related Article – Read First! Watch 3 hour history lecture.
We Are Not Smart! We Stand on the Shoulders of Giants – The History of Electrical Theory

With the history covered and honorable mentions out of the way, now to tackle some hard theory. EM Basics and introduction to Steinmetz simplified symbolic algebra.


This is one of Eric Dollard’s presentations and demonstrations from way back in the Borderlands days. Eric Dollard authorizes this version of this presentation for unlimited distribution. You can get it in a zip file at Eric’s official homepage – this is relevant to Wireless Giant of the Pacific.



Seismic Warning System Update!:



Jefimenko’s Electrostatic Motors & Heaviside’s Gravitational EM Analogy

From Oleg D. Jefimenko,
Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different
Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

, 2nd ed., (Electret Scientific, Star City, 2000)

This reproduction of Heaviside’s article is an unedited copy of the original, except that I have converted some formulas and all vector equations appearing in the article to modern mathematical notation.

[Part I, The Electrician, 31, 281-282 (1893)]


Electrostatic Motors

» JEFIMENKO, Oleg : Electrostatic Motors ~ PDF copy of the out-of-print classic. Run motors with atmospheric electricity.

Popular Science  ( April 1971 )

The Amazing Motor That Draws Power from the Air

byC.P. Gilmore & William J. Hawkins

Would you believe an electric motor made almost entirely of plastic? That can run on power transmitted through open air? And sneak free electricity right out of the earth’s electrical field?

At the University of West Virgina we saw a laboratory full of such exotic devices spinning, humming, and buzzing away like a swarm of bees. They are electrostatic motors, run by charges similar to those that make your hair stand on end when you comb it on a cold winter’s day.

Today, we use electromagnetic motors almost exclusively. but electrostatics have a lot of overlooked advantages. They’re far lighter per horsepower than electromagnetics, can run at extremely high speeds, and are incredibly simple and foolproof in construction.

“And, in principle,” maintains Dr Oleg Jefimenko, “they can do anything electromagnetic motors can do, and some things they can do better.”

Jewel-like Plastic Motors.

Jefimenko puts on an impressive demonstration. He showed us motors that run on the voltage developed when you hold them in your hands and scuff across a carpet, and other heavier, more powerful ones that could do real work. Up on the roof of the University’s physics building in a blowing snowstorm, he connected an electrostatic motor to a specially designed earth-field antenna. It twirled merrily from electric power drawn out of thin air.

These remarkable machines are almost unknown today. Yet the world’s electric motor was an electrostatic. It was invented in 1748 by Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin’s motor took advantage of the fact that like charges repel, unlike ones attract. He rigged a wagon-wheel-sized, horizontally mounted device with 30 glass spokes. On the end of each spike was a brass thimble. Two oppositely charged leyden jars — high voltage capacitors — were so placed that the thimbles on the rotating spokes barely missed the knobs on the jars ( see photo ).

As a thimble passed close to a jar, a spark leaped from knob to thimble. That deposited a like charge on the thimble, so they repelled each other. then, as the thimble approached the oppositely charged jar, it was attracted. As it passed this second jar, a spark jumped again, depositing a new charge, and the whole repulsion-attraction cycle began again.

In 1870, the German physicist J.C. Poggendorff built a motor so simple it’s hard to see what makes it work. The entire motor, as pictured here, is a plastic disk ( Poggendorff used glass ) and two electrodes. The electrodes set up what physicists call a corona discharge; their sharp edges ionize air molecules that come in contact with them. These charged particles floating through the air charge the surface of the palstic disk nearby. Then the attraction-repulsion routine that Franklin used takes place.

A few papers on electrostatic  motors have trickled out of the laboratories in recent years. But nobody really showed much interest until Dr Jefimenko came on the scene.

The Russian-born physicist was attending a class at the University of Gottingen one day shortly after World War II when the lecturer, a Prof. R.W. Pohl, displayed two yard-square metal plates mounted on the end of a pole. He stuck the device outside and flipped it 180 degrees. A galvanometer hooked to the plates jumped sharply.

“I could never forget that demonstration,” said Jefimenko. “And I wondered why, if there is electricity in the air, you couldn’t use it light a bulb or something.”

Electricity Everywhere

The earth’s electrical field has been known for centruries. Lightning and St Elmo’s fire are the most dramatic manifestations of atmospheric electricity. But the field doesn’t exist just in the vicinity of these events; it’s everywhere.

The earth is an electrical conductor. So is the ionosphere, the layer of ionized gas about 70 kilometers over our heads. The air between is a rather poor insulator. Some mechanisms not yet explained constantly pumps large quantitites of charged particles into the air. The charged particles cause the electrical field that Jefimenko saw demonstrated. Although it varies widely, strength of the field averages 120 volts per meter.

You can measure this voltage with an earth-field antenna — a wire with a sharp point at the top to start a corona, or with a bit of radioactive materials that ionizes the air in its immediate vicinity. near the earth, voltage is proportional to altitude; on an average day you might measure 1200 volts with a 10-meter antennas.

Over that past few years, aided by graduate-student Henry Fischbach-Nazario, Jefimenko designed advanced corona motors. With David K. Walker, he experimented with electret motors. An electret is an insulator with a permanent electrostatic charge. It produces a permanent electrostatic charge in the surrounding space, just as a magnet produces a permanent magnetic field. And like a magnet, it can be used to build a motor.

Jefimenko chose the electrostatic motor for his project because the earth-field antennas develop extremely high-voltage low-current power — and unlike the electromagnetic motor — that’s exactly what it needs.

The Climactic Experiment

On the night of Sept. 29, 1970, Jefimenko and Walker strolled into an empty parking lot, and hiked a 24-foot pole painted day-glow orange into the sky. On the pole’s end was a bit of radioactive material in a capsule connected to a wire. The experimenters hooked an electret motor to the antenna, and, as Jefimenko describes it, “the energy of the earth’s electrical field was converted into continuous mechanical motion.”

Two months later, they successfully operated operated a corona motor from electricity in the air.

Any Future In It?

Whether the earth’s electrical field will ever be an important source of power is open to question. There are millions — perhaps billions — of kilowatts of electrical energy flowing into the earth constantly. Jefimenko thinks that earth-field antennas could be built to extract viable amounts of it.

But whether or not we tap this energy source, the electrostatic motor could become important on its own.

* In space or aviation, it’s extreme light weight could be crucial. Jefimenko estimates that corona motors could deliver one horsepower for each 3 pounds of weight.

* They’d be valuable in laboratories where even the weakest magnetic field could upset an experiment.

* Suspended on air bearings, they’d make good gyroscopes.

In a particularly spectacular experiment, Jefimenko turned on a Van de Graaff generator — a device that creates a very-high-voltage field. About a yard away he placed a sharp-pointed corona antenna and connected it to an electrostatic motor. The rotor began to spin. The current was flowing from the generator through the air to where it was being picked up by the antenna.

The stunt had a serious purpose: The earth’s field is greatest on mountaintops. Jefimenko would like to set up a large antenna in such a spot, then aim an ultraviolet laser beam at a receiving site miles away at ground level. The laser beam would ionize the air, creating an invisible conductor through apparently empty space.

To be sure, many difficulties exist; and no one knows for sure whether we’ll ever get useful amounts of power out of the air. But with thinking like that, Jefimenko’s a hard man to ignore.

Popular Science ( May 1971 )

Electrostatic Motors You Can Build


C.P. Gilmore & William J. Hawkins

When we crank up the electrostatic motor at the top of this page, people always want to know what makes it run. It is mysterious — there’s nothing but a plastic disk and two strange electrodes. Yet there it is, spinning merrily.

In “The Amazing Motor That Draws Power From the Air”, last month, we told about our visit to the laboratory of Dr Oleg Jefimenko at the University of West Virginia, who has designed and built a variety of these ingenious machines. now, as promised, we bring you details on how you can build your own electrostatic motor from simple materials.

The devices that you see here are corona-discharge motors. The sharp-pointed or knife-edge electrodes create a corona, which ionizes or charges the air particles floating by. These charged particles transfer their charge to the closest part of the plastic rotor and charge it up, just as you can charge your body by walking across a wool rug on a dry winter’s day.

Once a spot on the rotor assumes a charge, it is repelled from the chargin electrode by electrostatic forces, and at the same time is attracted to the other electrode, which has an opposite charge. When the charged section of the rotor reaches the opposite electrode, another corona discharge reverses the polarity and starts the whole thing over again.

The Concept is Simple

And so are the motors. But that doesn’t mean thery’re easy to build. These motors run on millionths of a watt; they’ve got no power to waste turning stiff bearings or slightly misaligned rotors. So they must be built with watch-making precision.

They’re made of acrylic sheet, rod, and tube stock — Plexiglas and Lucite are two of the better-known brands. Acrylic cuts and works beautifully. Cut edges can be sanded so they have a white, frosted appearance that, in contrast with clear surfaces, gives your finished motor a sparkling, jewel-like appearance. If you like clear edges, you can buff them on a wheel and the whole thing becomes transparent.

Drill and tap the acrylic and assemble parts with machine screws. This allows for fine adjustment and alignment. Later, you can make the whole thing permanent by putting a little solvent along the joints. The solvent flows into the joint and fuses it permanently.

Details of framework, support and so on aren’t important; change them if you like. but work with care if you want to avoid headaches. The Poggendorff motor looked simple; we slapped it together in a couple of hours, hooked up the power source — and nothing happened. We gave it a few helpful spins by hand, but it wouldn’t keep running.

The cure took about 3 hours. First, we noticed that the outer edge of the disk wobbled from side to side about 1/16 of an inch as the wheel revolved. So the rotor-electrode distance was constantly changing. There was a little play in the 1/4″ hole we had drilled for the electrodes — so they weren’t lined up absolutely square with the disk. Then we noticed that the disk always stopped with one side down. The imbalance was only a fraction of an ounce — but it was too much.

We drilled out the old hub and cemented in a new one — this time, carefully. We lined up the electrodes — precisely. Then, once more spinning the disk by hand, we added bit of masking tape until it was perfectly balanced. We connected the power — and slowly… slowly… the disk began to turn. After about a minute, we clocked some turns with a watch and found it was spinning at 200 rpm. A moment later, we lost count. It was a great feeling.

Where Tolerances Are Brutal

We had even more trouble with the octagonal-window machine. When it wouldn’t run and we turned the shaft by hand, we could feel the rotor dragging. We took it apart, felt all the surfaces on the rotor and the framework’s insides and found a few bits of hardened cement, which we removed. We filed down all edges on the rotor adn the windows to make sure there were no beads or chips dragging.

The rotor and corner separators are made from the same sheet of 1/2″ plastic, so rotor clearance is achieved by putting shims at the corners to hold the side plates slightly more than 1/2″ apart. With the 1/16″ shims we were using, we could see that the sides were slightly misaligned so the shaft was not being held at a true 90 degrees. We drilled slightly oversized holes in the corners of one side piece and carefully adjusted until the rotor was turning true in the slot. To give the motor more torque, we put a bead of cement along the outer edge of each aluminum-foil electrode to stop corona leakage. The motor ran.

Take A Giant Step

Once you’ve built these machines, why not design your own? Start with the Jefimenko 1/10 hp model (pictured) as a challenge. Then plan one from scratch. You can power your motors with a laboratory high-voltage supply, a Van de Graff generator, or a Wimhurst machine or any other high-voltage source. We’ve been running ours on the home-built Wimhurst machine shown in the photos. (If you don’t want to build one, Wimhurst machiens are available from scientific supply houses such as Edmund Scientific ).

The discharge globes are traditional for high-voltage machines. They aren’t necessary, but they give a quick check on machine operation and a satifying arc when you move them within 1/2″ of each other. Incidentally, that funny smell is ozone. But its concentration is too low to be harmful. The generator is safe, too. You can hold both electrodes in your hands and all you’ll feel is a tingle. This particular generator, we estimate, puts out about 30,000 volts.

To make wiring simple, we used standard connectors on the Wimhurst collectors, and meter leads with regular banana plugs and alligator clips to hook up the motors.

Last month, we mentioned seeing Dr Jefimenko run his electrostatic motors on electricity tapped from the earth’s field. We haven’t had a chance to try this yet with ours, but it should work. If you want to try, you’ll need a needle-pointed piece of music wire a few inches long to start a corona, plus several hundred feet of fine copper wire.

Connect the pointed wire to the fine conductor, get the sharp point up into the air at least 200-300 feet with a kite or balloon, and hook the wire to one side of the motor. Hook the other side of the motor to ground. The earth field antenna should at times be able to develop up to 20,000 volts from the earth’s electrical field. If nothing happens, check your equipment, or try another day. The field changes constantly.

Oleg D. Jefimenko

(October 14, 1922, Kharkiv, Ukraine – May 14, 2009, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA) – physicist and Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University.


Jefimenko received his B.A. at Lewis and Clark College (1952). He received his M. A. at the University of Oregon (1954). He received his Ph.D. at the University of Oregon (1956). Jefimenko has worked for the development of the theory of electromagnetic retardation and relativity. In 1956, he was awarded the Sigma Xi Prize. In 1971 and 1973, he won awards in the AAPT Apparatus Competition. Jefimenko has constructed and operated electrostatic generators run by atmospheric electricity.

Jefimenko has worked on the generalization of Newton’s gravitational theory to time-dependent systems. In his opinion, there is no objective reason for abandoning Newton’s force-field gravitational theory (in favor of a metric gravitational theory). He is actively trying to develop and expand Newton’s theory, making it compatible with the principle of causality and making it applicable to time-dependent gravitational interactions.

Jefimenko’s expansion, or generalization, is based on the existence of the second gravitational force field, the “cogravitational, or Heaviside’s, field”. This is might also be called a gravimagnetic field. It represents a physical approach profoundly different from the time-space geometry approach of the Einstein general theory of relativity. Oliver Heaviside first predicted this field in the article “A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy” (1893).

Selected publications


* “Electrostatic motors; their history, types, and principles of operation”. Star City [W. Va.], Electret Scientific Co. [1973]. LCCN 73180890
* “Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity: New Chapters in the Classical Theory of Fields”, 2nd ed., Electret Scientific, Star City, 2004.
* “Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields”, 2nd ed., Electret Scientific, Star City, 2000.
* “Electricity and Magnetism: An Introduction to the Theory of Electric and Magnetic Fields”, 2nd ed., Electret Scientific, Star City, 1989.
* “Scientific Graphics with Lotus 1-2-3: Curve Plotting, 3D Graphics, and Pictorial Compositions”. Electret Scientific, Star City, 1987.

Book chapters

* “What is the Physical Nature of Electric and Magnetic Forces?” in Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics? — New Horizons, A. E. Chubykalo, Ed., (Rinton Press, Paramus, 2004 ).
* “Does special relativity prohibit superluminal velocities?” in Instantaneous Action at a Distance in Modern Physics: “Pro” and “Contra”, A. E. Chubykalo, Ed., (Nova Science, New York, 1999).


* “A neglected topic in relativistic electrodynamics: transformation of electromagnetic integrals”., 2005.
* “Presenting electromagnetic theory in accordance with the principle of causality”, Eur. J. Phys. 25 287-296, 2004. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/25/2/015
* “Causality, the Coulomb field, and Newton’s law of gravitation” (Comment), American Journal of Physics, Volume 70, Issue 9, p. 964, September 2002.
* “The Trouton-Noble paradox,” J. Phys. A. 32, 3755–3762, 1999.
* “On Maxwell’s displacement current,” Eur. J. Phys. 19, 469-470, 1998.
* “Correct use of Lorentz-Einstein transformation equations for electromagnetic fields”, European Journal of Physics 18, 444-447, 1997.
* “Retardation and relativity: Derivation of Lorentz-Einstein transformations from retarded integrals for electric and magnetic fields”, American Journal of Physics 63 (3), 267-72.
* “Retardation and relativity: The ease of a moving line charge”, American Journal of Physics, 63 (5), 454-9.
* “Direct calculation of the electric and magnetic fields of an electric point charge movingwith constant velocity,” Am.J.Phys. 62, 79-84, 1994.
* “Solutions of Maxwell’s equations for electric and magnetic fields in arbitrary media,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 899-902 1992.
* “Electrets,” (with D. K. Walker) Phys. Teach. 18, 651-659, 1980.
* “How can An Electroscope be Charged This Way?”, TPT 56, 1979.
* “Water Stream ‘Loop-the-Loop'”, AJP 42, 103-105, 1974.
* “Franklin electric motor,” Am. J. Phys. 39, 1139-1141, 1971.
* “Operation of electric motors from atmospheric electric field,” Am. J. Phys. 39, 776-779, 1971.
* “Demonstration of the electric fields of current-carrying conductors,” Am. J. Phys. 30, 19-21, 1962.
* “Effect of the earth’s magnetic field on the motion of an artificial satellite,” Am. J. Phys. 27, 344-348, 1959.

Encyclopedia Article

* “‘Maxwell’s Equations'”, Macmillan Encyclopedia of Physics, Macmillan, New York, 1996.

The next energy breakthrough is Dr. Oleg Jefimenko’s electrostatic motors. Discovered by Ben Franklin in the 18th century, electrostatic motors are an all-American invention. They are based on the physics of the fair-weather atmosphere that has an abundance of positive electric charges up to an altitude of 20 km. However, the greatest concentration is near the ground and diminishes with altitude rapidly. Dr. Jefimenko discovered that when sharp-pointed antennas are designed for a sufficient length to obtain at least 6000 volts of threshold energy, the fair-weather current density available is about a picoampere per square meter. Such antennas produce about a microampere of current. However, small radioactive source antennas may be used instead that have no threshold voltage and therefore no height requirements. Similar to a nuclear battery design of Dr. Brown, these antennas have larger current potentials depending upon the radioactive source used (alpha or beta source) and ionize the air in the vicinity of the antenna. Electrostatic motors are lighter than electromagnetic motors for the same output power since the motor occupies the entire volume. For example, it is expected that a motor one meter on a side will provide a power of one megawatt and weigh 500 kg or less. Electrostatic motors also require very little metal in their construction and can use mostly plastic for example. They can also operate from a variety of sources and range of voltages. As Dr. Jefimenko points out, “It is clear that electrostatic motor research still constitutes an essentially unexplored area of physics and engineering, and that electrostatic motor research must be considered a potentially highly rewarding area among the many energy-related research endeavors.”[5] The atmospheric potential of the planet is not less than 200,000 megawatts. He has succeeded in constructing demonstration motors that run continuously off atmospheric electricity. Jefimenko’s largest output motor was an electret design that had a 0.1 Hp rating.[6] Certainly the potential for improvement and power upgrade exists with this free energy machine.

Book Report

So I go out on my step and what to my wondering eyes doth appear but the box from containing the Jefimenko books that Bill Miller shamed me into finally buying. So I take a quick look inside and decide to give an initial report here. (Too much vector math in there for a thorough review.)

These books have some amazing advanced thinking in the understanding of Maxwell and EM. One first thought is the consideration of causality. This is typically totally ignored in the EM community. Evidence of that is the fact that EM waves are widely held to be propagated by the E field creating the H field and the H field creating the E field as it goes along. Too bad it’s just not true! Jefimenko points out that causality demands that that an event must be PRECEDED by it’s cause! Simultaneous events CANNOT be “causal” of each other. Hence E and H fields of waves are created by the WAVE SOURCE not each other! Same things goes for the E field created by Faraday induction. It simply cannot be “caused” by the time-varying Magnetic Field. “Magnetic induction” is therefore a misnomer. Such induction is caused by the source CURRENT and NOT the magnetic field!

This leads Jefimenko on to note that contrary to the “one E field” theory that has been believed for so many years, the inductive E field is clearly NOT the same field as an electrostatic E field. Jefimenko terms this inductive E field the “Electrokinetic Field” to show that it is a different field from the electrostatic E field. Very good. However, old habits die hard and even Jefimenko persists in writing an expression for a “total E field” following Maxwell as consisting of a sum of the electrostatic and electrokinetic parts as if they were both the “same” kind of E field.

Jefimenko then proceeds to illustrate the electrokinetic fields with a series of calculations and examples using his formulas as an approach. He presents it as basically a “new” way of doing this and in one sense it is compared to the commonly used and non-causal bogus “flux linkage” methods. However, he fails to note that the causal Neumann formula is in essence identical to his formulation and has been a standard formulation for years for the calculation of the “electrokinetic field” or what is usually termed “mutual induction”. Nevertheless his example calculations are important basic references to the topic of Faraday induction. And the consideration of causality clearly shows that the Neumann approach has the edge over the “flux linkage” ideas with at times fail to give correct results.

But the subject doesn’t end with induction, he pulls gravity into the mix. Of particular interest is that he shows that once you introduce causality into Newton’s theory of gravitation, interesting things start to happen! Relativity suddenly begins to show up and even more interesting “action-reaction” is soon discovered to actually be a law that does NOT hold in all cases! The electromagnetic nature of gravity quickly becomes strongly hinted at and without action-reaction laws, those dreamed of devices such as anti-gravity ships and the “force-glove” that you wear to push over a building become theoretical possibilities! These are truly books full of thought-provoking new ways of looking at tired old physics!

I’m not going to be going through the large quantity of field theory math in these books in a hurry, but that’s OK because clearly taking the time to go through in detail WILL be worth the effort! What can I say? Listen to Bill Miller and get that order off to now. At roughly $25 each these two books are a huge bargain to the usual EM text books costing hundreds of dollars and then being full of bogus ideas and misunderstandings of the established theories. Just do it! I did and I’m not sorry I did!


The Bizarre and Intriguing Story of Oleg Jefimenko and the Solutions to Maxwell’s Equations

I recently heard the story of Oleg Jefimenko during a lecture on Electrodynamics, specifically the general solution to Maxwell’s Equations.

Jefimenko’s tiny bit of fame comes from Jefimenko’s Equations, which are the general solution to Maxwell’s equations expressed solely in terms of sources, that is charge and current distributions. The equations are messy and difficult to work with, and aren’t used much in practice. But they do reveal certain bits of physics (such as the applicability of the quasistatic approximation (the link goes to a thermodynamics page, but the idea is the same) and that fields must be created by sources), and it’s always nice to have the general solution to a problem available.

These equations weren’t written down until 1966, about a century after Maxwell’s Equations were known. Some people will claim (as the Wikipedia article cited does) that Jefimenko’s Equations were written down earlier, but those earlier versions are always slightly different and not quite complete. What’s really funny is that Jefimenko wrote them down in an attempt to formulate an alternative to Maxwell’s equations.

When my current Professor, David Griffiths, was in the process of writing a paper on the subject, he independently derived Jefimenko’s equations, and tried to figure out if anyone had done it before. Other than some slightly tricky and annoying math, they’re not hard to derive, so someone must have done it. He found that Jefimenko had written them in a book that was published by a company that had only published one other work, also by Jefimenko (apparently regular publishers wouldn’t take his books, so he went to a prestige press). He contacted Jefimenko, and Jefimenko didn’t believe that he had solved Maxwell’s equations, but that he had created an electromagnetic theory separate from (and doubtless better than) Maxwell’s. Of course he had done no such thing, his formulation is exactly equivalent to Maxwell’s, but he wasn’t buying it.

According to Griffiths, Jefimenko currently submits one or two papers a week to American journals, gets denied, then publishes them in Europe (where review is apparently not as stringent). I don’t know what they’re about, the Wikipedia article says he focuses on overthrowing Einstein’s General Relativity and Maxwell.

I found this story behind some esoteric equations to be pretty amusing, and thought others might agree. I hope you’ve enjoyed the convoluted and intriguing story behind Jefimenko’s equations.

[Most of my information comes from a lecture with Griffiths, and as such could not be found online. Anything that is available online has been referenced.]

Electret Scientific Co
P.O. Box 4132
Star City,   WV   26504 USA

Books by Professor Oleg Jefimenko

(also available from

Gravitation and Cogravitation — Developing Newton’s Theory of Gravitation to its Physical and Mathematical Conclusion,
Paperback – List Price US$ 22.00
Hardback – List Price US$ 32.00

Electrostatic Experiments — An Encyclopedia of Early Electrostatic Experiments,   Demonstrations,   Devices,   and Apparatus,
by G.W. Francis (author), Oleg Jefimenko (editor)
Paperback – List Price US$ 24.00
Hardback – List Price US$ 48.00

Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity — New Chapters in the Classical Theory of Fields, 2nd edition,
Paperback – List Price US$ 24.00
Hardback – List Price US$ 44.00

Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation — A Different approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields,   2nd edition,
Paperback – List Price US$ 22.75
Hardback – List Price US$ 32.50

An Introduction to the Theory of Electric and Magnetic Fields,   2nd edition,
Hardback – List Price US$ 72.00

Electrostatic Motors — Their History, Types, and Principles of Operation,

Out of Print — free e-book download available soon

Electrostatic Experiments: An Encyclopedia of Early Electrostatic Experiments, Demonstrations, Devices, and Apparatus (Paperback)

Electrostatic Motors (Paperback)
by Oleg D. Jefimenko

Scientific American ( October, 1974 )

Electrostatic Motors Are Powered by Electric Field of the Earth


C. L. Stong

Although no one can make a perpetual motion machine, anyone can tap the earth’s electric field to run a homemade motor perpetually. The field exists in the atmosphere between the earth’s surface and the ionosphere as an electric potential of about 360,000 volts. Estimates of the stored energy range from a million kilowatts to a billion kilowatts.

Energy in this form cannot be drawn on directly for driving ordinary electric motors. Such motors develop mechanical force through the interaction of magnetic fields that are generated with high electric current at low voltage, as Michael Faraday demonstrated in 1821. The earth’s field provides relatively low direct current at high voltage, which is ideal for operating electrostatic motors similar in principle to the machine invented by Benjamin Franklin in 1748.

Motors of this type are based on the force of mutual attraction between unlike electric charges and the mutual repulsion of like charges. The energy of the field can be tapped with a simple antenna in the form of a vertical wire that carries one sharp point or more at its upper end. During fair weather the antenna will pick up potential at the rate of about 100 volts for each meter of height between the points and the earth’s surface up to a few hundred feet. At higher altitudes the rate decreases. During local thunderstorms the pickup can amount to thousands of volts per foot. A meteorological hypothesis is that the field is maintained largely by thunderstorms, which pump electrons out of the air and inject them into the earth through bolts of lightning that continuously strike the surface at an average rate of 200 strokes per second.

Why not tap the field to supplement conventional energy resources? Several limitations must first be overcome. For example, a single sharp point can draw electric current from the surrounding air at a rate of only about a millionth of an ampere. An antenna consisting of a single point at the top of a 60-foot wire could be expected to deliver about a microampere at 2,000 volts; the rate is equivalent to .002 watt. A point-studded balloon tethered by a wire at an altitude of 75 meters might be expected to deliver .075 watt. A serious limitation appears as the altitude of the antenna exceeds about 200 meters. The correspondingly higher voltages become difficult to confine.

At an altitude of 200 meters the antenna should pick up some 20,000 volts. Air conducts reasonably well at that potential. Although nature provides effective magnetic materials in substances such as iron, nickel and cobalt, which explains why the electric-power industry developed around Faraday’s magnetic dynamo, no comparably effective insulating substances exist for isolating the high voltages that would be required for electrostatic machines of comparable power. Even so, electrostatic motors, which are far simpler to build than electromagnetic ones, may find applications in special environments such as those from which magnetism must be excluded or in providing low power to apparatus at remote, unmanned stations by tapping the earth’s field.

Apart from possible applications electrostatic motors make fascinating playthings. They have been studied extensively in recent years by Oleg D. Jefimenko and his graduate students at West Virginia University. The group has reconstructed models of Franklin’s motors and developed advanced electrostatic machines of other types.

Although Franklin left no drawing of his motor, his description of it in a letter to Peter Collinson, a Fellow of the Royal Society, enabled Jefimenko to reconstruct a working model [see illustration at right]. Essentially the machine consists of a rimless wheel that turns in the horizontal plane on low-friction bearings. Each spoke of the “electric wheel,” as Franklin called the machine, consists of a glass rod with a brass thimble at its tip. An electrostatic charge for driving the motor was stored in Leyden jars. A Leyden jar is a primitive form of the modern high-voltage capacitor. Franklin charged his jars with an electrostatic generator.

The high-voltage terminals of two or more Leyden jars that carried charges of opposite polarity were positioned to graze the thimbles on opposite sides of the rotating wheel. The motor was started by hand. Thereafter a spark would jump from the high-voltage terminal to each passing thimble and impart to it a charge of the same polarity as that of the terminal. The force of repulsion between the like charges imparted momentum to the wheel.

Conversely, the thimbles were attracted by the oppositely charged electrode of the Leyden jar Franklin placed on the opposite side of the wheel. As the thimbles grazed that jar, a spark would again transfer charge, which was of opposite polarity. Thus the thimbles were simultaneously pushed and pulled by the high-voltage terminals exactly as was needed to accelerate the wheel.

Franklin was not altogether happy with his motor. The reason was that running it required, in his words, “a foreign force, to wit, that of the bottles.” He made a second version of the machine without Leyden jars.

In this design the rotor consisted principally of a 17-inch disk of glass mounted to rotate in the horizontal plane on low-friction bearings. Both surfaces of the disk were coated with a film of gold, except for a boundary around the edge. The rotor was thus constructed much like a modern flat-plate capacitor.

Twelve evenly spaced metal spheres, cemented to the edge of the disk, were connected alternately to the top and bottom gold films. Twelve stationary thimbles supported by insulating columns were spaced around the disk to graze the rotating metal spheres. When Franklin placed opposite charges on the top and bottom films and gave the rotor a push, the machine ran just as well as his first design, and for the same reason. According to Franklin, this machine would make up to 50 turns a minute and would run for 30 minutes on a single charge.

Jefimenko gives both motors an initial charge from a 20,000-volt generator. They consume current at the rate of about a millionth of an ampere when they are running at full speed. The rate is equivalent to .02 watt, which is the power required to lift a 20-gram weight 10 centimeters (or an ounce 2.9 inches) in one second.

Jefimenko wondered if Franklin’s motor could be made more powerful. As Jefimenko explains, the force can be increased by adding both moving and fixed electrodes. This stratagem is limited by the available space. If the electrodes are spaced too close, sparks tend to jump from electrode to electrode around the rotor, thereby in effect short-circuiting the machine. Alternatively the rotor could be made cylindrical to carry electrodes in the form of long strips or plates. This scheme could perhaps increase the output power by a factor of 1,000. 

Reviewing the history of electrostatic machines, Jefimenko came across a paper published in 1870 by Johann Christoff Poggendorff, a German physicist. It described an electrostatic motor fitted with a rotor that carried no electrodes. The machine consisted of an uncoated disk of glass that rotated in the vertical plane on low-friction bearings between opposing crosses of ebonite. Each insulating arm of the crosses supported a comblike row of sharp needle points that grazed the glass.

When opposing combs on opposite sides of the glass were charged in opposite polarity to potentials in excess of 2,000 volts, air in the vicinity of the points on both sides of the glass was ionized. A bluish glow surrounded the points, which emitted a faint hissing sound. The effect, which is variously known as St. Elmo’s fire and corona discharge, deposited static charges on both sides of the rotor.

Almost the entire surface of the glass acquired a coating of either positive or negative fixed charges, depending on the polarity of the combs. The forces of repulsion and attraction between glass so charged and the combs were substantially larger than they were in Franklin’s charged thimbles. The forces were also steadier, because in effect the distances between the combs and the charged areas remained constant. It should be noted that adjacent combs on the same side of the glass carried charges of opposite polarity, so that the resulting forces of attraction and repulsion acted in unison to impart momentum to the disk, as they did in Franklin’s motor.

By continued experimentation Poggendorff learned that he should slant the teeth of the combs to spray charge on the glass at an angle. The resulting asymmetrical force made the motor self-starting and unidirectional. When the teeth were perpendicular to the glass surface, the forces were symmetrical, as they were in Franklin’s motor. When the machine was started by hand, it ran equally well in either direction.

Poggendorff was immensely pleased by the rate at which his machine converted charge into mechanical motion. He concluded his paper with a faintly odious reference to Franklin’s device. “That such a quantity of electricity must produce a far greater force than that in the [Franklin] electric roasting spit,” he wrote, “is perfectly obvious and nowadays would not be denied by Franklin himself. With one grain of gunpowder one cannot achieve so much as with one hundred pounds.”

Electrostatic motors are now classified in general by the method by which charge is either stored in the machine or transferred to the rotor. Poggendorff’s machine belongs to the corona type, which has attracted the most attention in recent years. Although its measured efficiency is better than 50 percent, Poggendorff regarded it merely as an apparatus for investigating electrical phenomena. He wrote that “it would be a sanguine hope if one wanted to believe that any useful mechanical effect could be achieved with it.”

Poggendorff’s negative attitude toward the usefulness of his design may well have retarded its subsequent development. A modern version of the machine constructed in Jefimenko’s laboratory has an output of approximately .1 horsepower. It operates at speeds of up to 12,000 revolutions per minute at an efficiency of substantially more than 50 percent. In one form the modern corona motor consists of a plastic cylinder that turns on an axial shaft inside a concentric set of knife-edge electrodes that spray charge on the surface of the cylinder [see illustration at left]. Forces that act between the sprayed charges and the knife-edge electrodes impart momentum to the cylinder.

Machines of this kind can be made of almost any inexpensive dielectric materials, including plastics, wood and even cardboard. The only essential metal parts are the electrodes and their interconnecting leads. Even they can be contrived of metallic foil backed by any stiff dielectric. The shaft can be made of plastic that turns in air bearings. By resorting to such stratagems experimenters can devise motors that are extremely light in proportion to their power output. Corona motors require no brushes or commutators. A potential of at least 2,000 volts, however, is essential for initiating corona discharge at the knife-edges.

A smaller and simpler version of the machine was demonstrated in 1961 by J. D. N. Van Wyck and G. J. Kühn in South Africa. This motor consisted of a plastic disk about three millimeters thick and 40 millimeters in diameter supported in the horizontal plane by a slender shaft that turned in jeweled bearings. Six radially directed needle points grazed the rim of the disk at equal intervals. When the machine operated from a source of from 8,000 to 13,000 volts, rotational speeds of up to 12,000 revolutions per minute were measured.

I made a corona motor with Plexiglas tubing two inches in diameter and one and a half inches long. It employed stiffbacked single-edge razor blades as electrodes. The bore of the tube was lined with a strip of aluminum foil, a stratagem devised in Jefimenko’s laboratory to increase the voltage gradient in the vicinity of the electrodes and thus to increase the amount of charge that can be deposited on the surface of the cylinder. I coated all surfaces of the razor blades except the cutting edges and all interconnecting wiring with “anticorona dope,” a cementlike liquid that dries to form a dielectric substance that reduces the loss of energy through corona discharges in nonproductive portions of the circuit.

The axial shaft that supports the cylinder on pivot bearings was cut out of a steel knitting needle. The ends of the shaft were ground and polished to 30degree points. To form the points I chucked the shaft in an electric hand drill, ground the metal against an oilstone and polished the resulting pivots against a wood lap coated with tripoli.

The bearings that supported the pivots were salvaged from the escapement mechanism of a discarded alarm clock. A pair of indented setscrews could be substituted for the clock bearings. The supporting frame was made of quarter-inch Lucite. The motor can be made self-starting and unidirectional by slanting the knife-edges. Those who build the machine may discover, as I did, that the most difficult part of the project, balancing the rotor, is encountered after assembly. The rotor must be balanced both statically and dynamically.

Static balance was achieved by experimentally adding small bits of adhesive tape to the inner surface of the aluminum foil that lines the cylinder until the rotor remained stationary at all positions to which it was set by hand. When the rotor was balanced and power was applied, the motor immediately came up to speed, but it shook violently. I had corrected the imbalance caused by a lump of cement at one end of the rotor by adding a counterweight on the opposite side at the opposite end of the cylinder. Centrifugal forces at the ends were 180 degrees out of phase, thus constituting a couple.

The dynamic balancing, which is achieved largely by cut-and-try methods, took about as much time as the remainder of the construction. To check for dynamic balance suspend the motor freely with a string, run it at low speed and judge by the wiggle where a counterweight must be added. Adhesive tape makes a convenient counterweight material because it can be both applied and shifted easily.

I made the motor as light and frictionless as possible with the objective of operating it with energy from the earth’s field. The field was tapped with an antenna consisting of 300 feet of No. 28 gauge stranded wire insulated with plastic. It is the kind of wire normally employed for interconnecting electronic components and is available from dealers in radio supplies.

The upper end of the wire was connected to a 20-foot length of metallic tinsel of the kind that serves for decorating a Christmas tree. The tinsel functioned as multiple needle points. Strips cut from window screening would doubtless work equally well.

The upper end of the tinsel was hoisted aloft by a cluster of three weather balloons. Such balloons, each three feet in diameter, and the helium to inflate them are available from the Edmund Scientific Co. (300 Edscorp Building, Barrington, N.J. 08007). The weight in pounds that a helium-filled balloon of spherical shape can lift is roughly equal to a quarter of the cube of its radius in feet. To my delight the motor began to run slowly when the tinsel reached an altitude of about 100 feet. At 300 feet the rotor made between 500 and 700 revolutions per minute.

A note of warning is appropriate at this point. Although a 300-foot vertical antenna can be handled safely in fair weather, it can pick up a lethal charge during thunderstorms. Franklin was incredibly lucky to have survived his celebrated kite experiment. A European investigator who tried to duplicate Franklin’s observations was killed by a bolt of lightning. The 300-foot antenna wire can hold enough charge to give a substantial jolt, even during fair weather. Always ground the lower end of the wire when it is not supplying a load, such as the motor.

To run the motor connect the antenna to one set of electrodes and ground the other set. Do not connect the antenna to an insulated object of substantial size, such as an automobile. A hazardous charge can accumulate. Never fly the balloon in a city or in any other location where the antenna can drift into contact with a high-voltage power line. Never fly it below clouds or leave it aloft unattended.

A variety of corona motors have been constructed in Jefimenko’s laboratory. He has learned that their performance can be vastly improved by properly shaping the corona-producing electrodes [see illustration at right]. The working surface of the rotors should be made of a fairly thin plastic, such as Plexiglas or Mylar. Moreover, as I have mentioned, the inner surface of the cylinder should be backed by conducting foil to enhance the corona. Effective cylinders can be formed inexpensively out of plastic sewer pipe. Corona rotors can of course also be made in the form of disks.

One model consists of a series of disks mounted on a common shaft. Double-edged electrodes placed radially between adjacent disks function much like Poggendorff’s combs. This design needs no foil lining or backing because a potential gradient exists between electrodes on opposite sides of the disks. It is even possible to build a linear corona motor, a design that serves to achieve translational motion. A strip of plastic is placed between sets of knife-edge electrodes slanted to initiate motion in the desired direction.

Notwithstanding the problem of handling potentials on the order of a million volts without effective insulation materials, Jefimenko foresees the possibility of at least limited application of corona power machines. In The Physics Teacher (March, 1971) he and David K. Walker wrote: “These motors could be very useful for direct operation from high-voltage d.c. transmission lines as, for example, the 800 kV Pacific Northwest-Southwest Intertie, which is now being constructed between the Columbia River basin and California. It is conceivable that such motors could replace the complex installations now needed for converting the high-voltage d.c. to low-voltage a.c. All that would be required if corona motors were used for this purpose would be to operate local low-voltage a.c. generators from corona motors powered directly from the high-voltage d.c. line.”

As Jefimenko points out, a limiting factor of the corona motor is its required minimum potential of 2,000 volts. This limitation is circumvented by a novel electrostatic motor invented in 1961 by a Russian physicist, A. N. Gubkin. The motor is based on an electret made in 1922 by Mototaro Eguchi, professor of physics at the Higher Naval College in Tokyo.

An electret is a sheet or slab of waxy dielectric material that supports an electric field, much as a permanent magnet carries a magnetic field. Strongly charged carnauba-wax electrets are available commercially, along with other electrostatic devices, from the Electret Scientific Company (P.O. Box4132, Star City, W.Va. 26505). A recipe for an effective electret material is 45 percent carnauba wax, 45 percent water-white rosin and 10 percent white beeswax. Some experimenters substitute Halowax for the rosin.

The ingredients are melted and left to cool to the solid phase in a direct-current electric field of several thousand volts. The wax continues to support the field even though the external source of potential is turned off [see “The Amateur Scientist, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, November, 1960, and July, 1968]. The electret reacts to neighboring charges exactly as though it were a charged electrode, that is, it is physically attracted or repelled depending on the polarity of the neighboring electrode.

Gubkin harnessed this effect to make a motor. The rotor consisted of a pair of electrets in the shape of sectors supported at opposite ends of a shaft. The center of the shaft was supported transversely by an axle. When the rotor turned, the electrets were swept between adjacent pairs of charged metallic plates, which were also in the form of sectors.

The plates were electrified by an external source of power through the polarity-reversing switch known as a commutator. The commutator applied to the electrodes a charge of polarity opposite to the charge of the attracted electret. As the electret moved between the attracting plates, however, the commutator switched the plates to matching polarity. The alternate push and pull imparted momentum to the rotor in exact analogy to Franklin’s motor.

Gubkin’s motor was deficient in two major respects. The distances between the electrodes and the electrets were needlessly large, so that the forces of attraction and repulsion were needlessly weak. Moreover, during the electret’s transit between electrodes its surfaces were unshielded. Unshielded electrets attract neutralizing ions from the air and lose their charge within hours or days.

Both inherent deficiencies of Gubkin’s motor have been corrected in Jefimenko’s laboratory by taking advantage of what is termed the slot effect. Instead of sandwiching the electret alternately between pairs of metal plates, Jefimenko employs opposing pairs of adjacent plates [see illustration at rightt]. The adjacent plates are separated by a narrow slot. When adjacent plates carry charges of opposite polarity, the electret experiences a force at right angles to the slot and in the plane of the electret. The strength of the force is at a maximum because the electret is close to the electrodes. Simultaneously the electrodes function as shields to prevent the neutralization of the electret by free ions.

Motors based on the slot effect can be designed in a number of forms. One design consists of an electret in the shape of a wafer-thin sheet of Mylar supported by a flat disk of balsa wood 100 millimeters in diameter and three millimeters thick. (A long-lasting charge is imparted to the Mylar by immersing it in a field of a few thousand volts from an electrostatic generator after the motor is assembled.) This rotor is sandwiched between four semicircular sectors that are cross-connected [ see illustration ].

The electret is mounted on a four-millimeter shaft of plastic that turns in jeweled bearings. The conducting surfaces of the commutator consist of dried India ink. The brushes are one-millimeter strips of kitchen aluminum foil. The motor operates on a few microwatts of power.

Jefimenko has demonstrated a similar motor that was designed to turn at a rate of about 60 revolutions per minute and develop a millionth of a horsepower on a 24-foot antenna having a small polonium probe at its upper end. (By emitting positive charges probes of this type tap the earth’s field somewhat more efficiently than needle points do.) The performance of the motor easily met the design specifications. The charm of these motors lies in the fact that, although they do not accomplish very much, they can run forever.


ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY. J. Alan Chalmers. Pergamon Press, 1968.


ELECTROSTATICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS. Edited by A. D. Moore. John Wiley & Sons, 1973.

Annales de la Fondation Louie de Broglie 32 (1 ) : 117 ( 2007 )

The Problem With Physics & The Science Delusion


Part 1:

Bill Gaede explains scientism, mathmagicians and how dogma is sold as SCIENCE.



Bill Gaede explains the contradictions and deceptions in “science” — Big Bang Theory, Steven Hawking, Dark Matter, Parallel Universes, Nasa, etc



Rupert Sheldrake, BANNED Ted Talk: The Science Delusion


Ken Wheeler, revealing the very nature of my entire blog in essence. Spot on.

The Principle – Our Place In The Universe Redefined

The Principle is a compelling and controversial film that calls into question humans entire existence and the truth about our earth and why we are here. Regardless of which side of this argument you may find yourself on, this movie is a must see for everyone!

Feat. Michio Kaku and Laurence Krauss

“One Of The Most Heated Debates In History!

Simply put, the upcoming documentary, “The Principle,” is likely to become one of the most controversial films of our time.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the idea of Earth being at the center of the universe is a ridiculous holdover from an ancient, superstitious age. Modern science has long maintained that the human species is nothing special in the context of the cosmos.

We inhabit, in Carl Sagan’s words, “…. an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” His words reflect the Copernican Principle; the foundational assumption underlying the modern scientific world view.

Prepare to re-examine that assumption.

“The Principle”, brings to light new scientific observations challenging the Copernican Principle. The film brings before the public eye astonishing results from recent large-scale surveys of our Universe which disclose surprising evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth. The film explores from all sides the question of Earth’s station in the universe and whether it could, in fact, have a unique importance.”

“The Principle” features narration by Kate Mulgrew (“Star Trek Voyager”, “Orange Is The New Black”, and “Ryan’s Hope”), stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (“Life of Pi”, “Thor”), and commentary from the most prominent scientists of our time, including George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, and Max Tegmark.

Interviews with leading cosmologists are interspersed with the views of dissidents and mavericks, bringing into sharp focus the implications of an alternative explanation for our place in the universe.

These shocking new discoveries of Earth-oriented alignments in our visible cosmos bring us face-to-face with the challenging question … what does this mean for the soul and the future of humankind?”  [  ]


This is the hardesr movie to find online, it is constantly deleted from every media source and so i can no longer provide the full documentary and can only offer the trailer. Sorry.

Full Movie, Temporary mirror:

If you are connected with me on Facebook, please refer to my ‘The Principle’ photo album in which i expand on the theories and loosely connect some dots for you. ]

We Are Not Smart! We Stand on the Shoulders of Giants – The History of Electrical Theory

A rebuttal of the notion that the great electrical engineers of our history and their formulae and experiments are outdated, obsolete or are in any way invalidated by contemporary scientific theories. – A brief exposé of quantum mechanics’ critical errors.


I’ve been accused of being intentionally reductive in my scientific reasoning, with implications this is not a productive pursuit. I prefer the term retroductive myself, theoria apophasis, and find it a near infallible method of logical deduction, personally. I’ve been told i listen to the ‘wrong kinds of scientists’, with implications that people of the past, specifically the great minds of electrical theory and engineering who paved the way for all the technology we have today, somehow have little to no bearing in our modern era, and are overshadowed by these radical new quantum theories of the insane atomistic relativists. Atomism was destroyed by the Greeks thousands of years ago but since then it has reared it’s ugly head again. My intention is to vindicate these men and dispel the illusion that they couldn’t possibly have debunked our modern theories long before they came about.

“Tesla? That was almost 100 years ago, times change. It’s all about Neil Tyson and Richard Feynman now”

Yes times change, but truth is immutable. ‘The caveman’ who discovered fire isn’t an idiot because he is our ancestor when such knowledge will always have practical applications and an observable basis in reality. If anyone is at fault for perpetuating wild, hypothetical, speculative, over-imaginative, logically absurd theoretical conjecture and who fails to deliver empirical evidence of their claims it is The Cult of Quantum. If you think you’re smarter than Tesla show me your tons of patents revolutionizing the world’s electrical grid. No? Didn’t think so.


Moreover, these over popularized fallacies of quantum mechanics repeatedly fail to concede to their scrutiny, despite having been debunked so long ago by these minds the majority consensus has chosen to mostly overlook and dismiss, even given their accomplishments.

Instead, a foolish and malicious agenda in our scientific industry seemingly unfolds as they constantly refuse to admit their mistakes, let alone adequately address the scrutiny that has been gathering dust in the libraries for over a hundred years. The reprecussions are that we ALL lie in their wake on their denial, holding ourselves back from advancements that should have already been achieved. And, who’s to say they haven’t been and we just haven’t been told, but i digress.

It is unfortunate for us that corporate greed and self interest impeded those who were ahead of their time, suppressed and resisted them, but sooner or later society always catches up. One major point i want to put forth is that these people are STILL ahead of their time, but in our current arrogance we have not the vision or humility to see or accept it. If not for the pioneers outlined in this article, you wouldn’t even be reading it right now.

Eric Dollard. The only man known to be able to accurately reproduce many of Tesla’s experiments with Radiant Energy and wireless transmission of power. This is because he understands that conventional electrical theory only includes half of the story.

Watch this video below, and maybe you will learn something!

James Clerk Maxwell. Gave us the rudiments, field equations over time variables. His work is taken grossly out of context by modern quantum.
Michael Faraday. Gave us the principles underlying electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism and electrolysis. Also helped coined the term ‘dielectric’.
Oliver Heaviside. Gave us the coaxial cable, and the TRUE understanding of light.
Charles Proteus Steinmetz. The smartest genius you never heard about.
Nikola Tesla. The smartest genius you have heard about.
Oleg Jefimenko. Numerous PHDs, master of electromagnetic theorem.

Walter Russell. Expanded on and unified much of the works before him.

I suppose i should give an honourable mention to that slimey cretin Edison, as i do believe in giving credit where it is due.

Moving swiftly on, each of these individuals have a piece of a very significant puzzle pivotal to humanity’s advancement in understanding our natural world. Together, i propose actually not far off from The Grand Unified Theory. If this was the case, such a conspiracy to withold this revelation (for whatever reason, perhaps stalled for the ‘right time’) isn’t entirely implausible, and worth some consideration. Assumptions mean nothing. Implications are everything. Truth reveals truth reveal truth, it doesn’t just stop. If it does that is human error alone. Everything connects.

“Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown and turned your great science upside down. Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name, puts on your high teaching all the blame. (he) Says: matter and force are transmutable and wrong the laws you thought immutable. I am much too ignorant, my son, for grasping (crazy) schemes so finely spun.” – N. Tesla (Fragments of Olympian Gossip. by Nikola Tesla regarding Einstein)

Einstein and his ilk reified space as ‘something’ that ‘did things’ and ‘acted upon things’. This is the fallacy of attribute reification, and is a titanic error of thought and theory. Einstein has blamed the flies (forces) on the horse feces (space), completely ignoring the horse (fields) entirely. This brain wasting idiocy can and must come to an end given time and intelligent minds to see clearly. Nobody who has ever lived has seen space ‘do’ anything.

Einstein was once asked what it was like to be the smartest man alive, he replied “I don’t know. You’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla” – Ok, I’ll do that.

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

The history of science shows that theories are perishable. With every new truth that is revealed we get a better understanding of Nature and our conceptions and views are modified.  There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine.

Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.   The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter – for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. 

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – N. Tesla

You may wish to read that again as for most people it goes in one ear and out the other. This really encapsulates the essence of the motive for this article. I wish to rectify this ludicrous mentality that plagues modern science. Fortunately for me, all the work has already been done, the issue is trying to bring it to light.

“It is a difficult thing to do, to give unlimited energy to limited minds” – N. Tesla

It is time we shatter this farcical paradigm of modern quantum by absorbing only what is useful and rejecting what is useless (the majority, which contradicts current electrical theory). This involves moving The Ego out of the way, we must humble ourselves and admit that we’ve spun a long road for ourselves for a long time which had no relevance to reality whatsoever, and we must not be ashamed to turn back and start again on a sensible route of understanding that actually does have empirical standing and a tangible basis in reality.

“The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by “cutting” lines of magnetic induction via a so called electric conductor. This “cutting” is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the  conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot “cut” through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of  flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot. Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day “do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos”. – E. Dollard

You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their “force lines” is the “flow of electrons”; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance.

There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called ‘electrons’ are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not “electrons”, nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving ‘electrons’; the ‘electron’ is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; ‘electrons’ do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields.

There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated through the Ether. Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later. One must move away from the (rehashed) atomistic fallacies of the cult of quantum that propose the universe is a big bag of particles bumping into each other. Mother Nature is not a cross-eyed crack whore with a calculator processing some mathematically ineffable chaos. On the contrary, nature is simple and works of simplex pressure gradient meditations. Everything in the universe is fields fundamentally and fields are nor particles, they can not be quantified because they are incommensurable. This is why modern science has never defined a field. They can’t and won’t.

“JJ Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” – E. Dollard

Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of coordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetalcentrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’.


All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. ‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.


The loss of inertia necessitates polarity. The rest point in the center is a result of pressure meditation. It is concentrated there because it is the inverse of space (force and motion) it is counter-space (inertia and acceleration). What we call a magnetic field is a reciprocating precessional hyperboloid resultant of a coherent dielectric object. The loss of inertia is magnetism, from this ‘loss’ of inertia, space is ‘created’, as well as the field (Ether)- in which the three components of the field, are always present. Those three components being, magnetism, electricity, and the dielectric plane.


I digress on the issue of electrons, but it’s just one of many examples that can be used to illustrate my points. I’ll cover this in more detail and satisfy your dependencies on calculations soon, don’t worry about that. I merely paste in some of my notes here intended for a more comprehensive article. For those who have been paying attention however, the tangible experimental observational proofs and the according calculations are published already. These are not my ideas, i only bring them to light again now in this most crucial time in humanity’s quest for understanding and truth. Arrogance is a blindfold, humility is enlightening.

I’ve been told by physicists that they don’t use the term field, it is ‘reudctive’ and would never be used in a scientific debate. Don’t you find that interesting?

I ask them very simply “How does one define a ‘Field’ necessitatively? And by that i mean, can you give me the absolute denotation of the quantification of a field in principle?” – As blunt, precise, and straight-forward as that question is, apparently it’s filled with jargon and makes no sense. So i simplify it down again to the best of my ‘reductive’ capabilities and put forth that I’m merely asking for the scientific definition of a field.

It seemed to me like a significant term to truly comprehend in our modern era on science. They use terms like magnetic field, gravitational field, electromagnetic field, quantum field… all these different types of ‘fields’ and yet asking these highly trained academics what a field actually is in principle is fascinating because you never get a straight answer, because they don’t know. I’m told that i must chose a type of field, and only then can they define what a field is. So for the sake of debate i chose ‘magnetic field’ which is a vague and inaccurate term in and of itself by the very denotation of a field, but for simplicity and communication i have to make these sacrifices.

Here is the definition i was offered: “It’s a region around an object or force when speaking of magnetism also when speaking of electro-magnetism.”

Oh i see, different fields define in different ways apparently. haha, how can you explain something or claim to understand it if you use the term itself to define itself to accommodate merely a description? Talk about a cop-out. If i had said gravitational field what do you think the response would be? Let me hazard a guess; “The region of space surrounding a body in which another body experiences a force of gravitational attraction”

Do you see the issue with this? It’s not just a scientific fallacy but a linguistic one also. Hypothetically if you knew nothing about animals and had never seen one before, and i introduced you to one cat a time, each a different breed, and i called them black cat, white cat, fuzzy cat, tabby cat, ginger cat etc. How long before you ask me what a cat actually is? Would you buy my explanation if i told you the word cat doesn’t mean anything by itself but is only applied when speaking of the attributes of a cat?

What is a ginger cat can be answered by “A cat which has the properties of ginger fur” but a child can tell you that, not only are these kind of definitions vague but they are purely descriptive not explanatory. The are NOT scientific denotations or quantifications. They tell you nothing.

If you do the sensible thing and gather up all these separate definitions you can reduce their understanding of a field to “A region of space” and nothing more. NOTHING could be further from the truth. Describing types of fields and defining them by their own attributes matched against the principle term itself is utter nonsense.

Understanding the truth of how all the technology around you works is to understand the secrets of nature. What’s inconceivable to most people is that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work. They understand them well enough to replicate a technology, and they seem to be somewhat capable of DESCRIBING what is occurring with that technology, but as far as explaining the fundamentals go, they mostly (the humble ones) admit to being clueless along with the rest of the scientific industry.

Anybody can follow a manual and build an electromagnet and give you a description of all the parts and what they do, but that tells you nothing fundamentally about what is actually occurring. Descriptions are not explanations. The technology of these electrical giants was swindled and consequently their true understanding lost.

uni field modalities final final one 0

What is Gravity? Light? Magnetism? Electricity? Dielectricity? Electromagnetism? What is A FIELD? Fundamentally in principle if you can not denote these things by a scientific explanation you have no right using them at all. They are not arbitrary concepts, and they ARE unified. There is no need for a unified field theory; all fields are already unified. What is not unified is human comprehension of the nature of field modalities in relationship to one another. It’s embarrassing i admit, but the irony softens the blow and it’s time to see reason and stop digging ourselves deeper into a hole of nonsense that bares no relevance to reality.

Modern science is biased by design, there is no incentive for debunking, in fact that would potentially interfere with the funding of your colleagues, let alone open yourself up to ridicule. The scientific industry is controlled just like all other information. The main method which this is accomplished is through the design of the system itself which psychologically and emotionally manipulates the individuals towards biased, un-scientific behavior. Peer reviewed circle jerks for example. I’ll give your paper the stamp of approval if you give one for mine. Nobody in their right mind would attempt to publish a paper discrediting Einstein’s bunk theories of relativity because of the backlash of repercussions and lack of funding you’ll receive for challenging the status quo. What we understand as the true and humble scientific method is NOT being implemented in modern society, get it out of your heads that the industry is receptive to new information and quick to admit their mistakes and invalidate their life’s work based on new evidence. It does not work that way,

QM and GR do not explain fields, they denied Tesla’s understanding of the universe even though the EM greats gave us all our technology, and Einstein gave us none of that. He knew jack about electromagnetism, his role was only to plug in the math to turn their bunk theories with bunk mathematics into bunk theories with accurate mathematics. Let me tell you friends, math is not reality. Not unless it actually has applicability first and foremost. If everything in nature worked in trinities for example, society would herald the mind who first thought up the equation 5 – 9 = -4, but scoff at the mind who said 1+2=3. In this scenario, while both sets of math are correct and work out within their own context, only one can be applied to nature with relevancy, and it would explain everything but be dismissed in it’s simplicity. That is the situation we have in my opinion.

Dark matter for another example, is simply QM’s attribute reification fallacy of inertia, the ether, counter-space. They must turn everything into a ‘particle’ otherwise it will not plug into their paradigms because it can not be quantified. Refer back to Tesla’s point about non-physical phenomena, frequency and vibration. Everything is fields, not particles. They are all one field, in truth. Gravity, dielectricty, magnetism, and electricity, are all simply just different attributes of how the reciprocating torus field moves and works.

Fields are not physical, they can not be ‘quantized’ and you can’t measure them in the way QM wants to understand everything, because not everything is phenomena, and not everything is within ‘space’. – They don’t even really understand space.. thanks to Einstein. Wave-particle duality was a false conclusion that we never let go of. I’ve covered that extensively already. The grand unified theory is simple, you just need to know what a field is, that is what unified all these seemingly separate forces… it’s the same thing. All fields are already unified.

Having said that, now you should be able to completely understand the responses i get from the physicists. They are clueless and battling with their own cognitive dissonance. They deny the intrinsic nature of a field, they deny the existence of the ether, and then propose the grand unified theory is so complex its beyond anyone.

We don’t understand what we ‘see’ because we have no real comprehension of the cosmic metaphysical reality, that compliments our physical ‘space’ we observe. We’re all like fish in an ocean, and sometimes we see bubbles in front us, and we say those bubbles are things, they exist and are physical.. but then sometimes we see them vanish, and we don’t really know why or how that is possible, but we know is has something to do with oxygen. Hmmmmm.

Fatal flaw for the fish, they have NO idea they are in an ocean, their comprehension of space is abstract and undefined. They don’t understand the ‘wholeness’ of the medium they exist within therefore they can never truly explain their observations, only describe them.

That’s modern science in a nutshell, for me anyway. Separating the field modalities and denying the ether is akin to saying steam, ice and water are all different things entirely and then denying the existence of the hydrous oxide molecule. Then they call those people who say “it’s all just water”, crazy loons.

In my next article I’ll focus on debunking the religion that is quantum quackery, specifically wave-particle duality and explaining in greater detail what a field actually is in principle.

Also, refer to: Debunking Relativity


LIGO Fraud – ‘Gravity Waves’ Debunked

Was the “gravitational-wave experiment” worth its $1.1 billion cost to the tax payer ? Is there any substance to the outlandish claims seen across MSM headlines recently about those elusive “gravitational waves” supposedly detected? The answer is, of course, NO.

The detailed rebuttal below proves the whole thing is yet another money-making scam courtesy of government sponsored “science”.


Where are all the expected “orbiting black hole merger” LIGO Events? Why all the LIGO hype after only just one supposed black-hole-merger event?

This paper states that we should be expecting 40 events/year now:

That means that we should have seen at least 15 more events since September 15th.

Where are they? Just one more event LIGO! Why not wait for just one more tiny little single event? Especially when you’re expecting over three events every month!

The LIGO team was obviously asking the same question. And since they hadn’t seen any more events as month after month dragged on, they naturally concluded that more events probably wouldn’t be seen over the next few months nor years either.

And so they panicked as their hype window was closing fast, and they pulled the trigger and held a press massive conference centered about the one and only signal they would likely ever receive.

In football this is called a Hail-Mary! And it doesn’t always work:


Gravity Waves of Propaganda – the Sequel

By Miles Mathis

The discovery of gravity waves has been announced. Again. In this exposé I will first analyze the mainstream announcements. I will then look at the actual scientific paper, showing you how to read it.

I have to say this for them: these people never quit. If they get caught in one spectacular lie, they just wait a year and a half and come back with another one. I guess they are relying on the short memory of most people, but when I heard this announcement of gravity waves today, I said to myself, “Didn’t they already do this? Didn’t we get a huge announcement of gravity waves in early 2014? Didn’t Alan Guth win a million-dollar prize for that?” In fact, he did. He—along with Alexei Starobinsky and Andre Linde—won the Kavli Prize in July 2014, so 3 million was allegedly paid out.

According to mainstream stories at the time, the proximate cause of these prizes was the discovery of gravity waves by BICEP2 on March 17, 2014. Of course all those stories from 2014 have been rewritten, downplaying the claim of gravity waves and playing up the alleged discovery of cosmic inflation. However, within a few months (after the publication of my rushing paper of March 18) they had to admit this announcement was not only horribly premature, it was flat wrong.

To save face, they claimed that dust in the Milky Way exactly mimicked the signature of gravity waves. This despite having claimed in the peer-reviewed papers in March that they had ruled that out and claiming a positive detection at sigma 7.

A sigma of 7 indicated that BICEP2 only admitted a .0000000001%  chance they were wrong. That’s 1 in 10 billion. Funny, then, that they had to admit they were wrong only a couple of months later. Strange how it always works out that way, whether they are claiming faster-than-light detections, dark matter detections, or whatever.

At the time, we were told BICEP2 beat out their main competitors in the search for gravity waves, the LIGO team. LIGO congratulated the BICEP2 team for their earth-shattering discovery. Well, it is LIGO’s turn now, since they have now claimed a gravity wave detection. Do they have a third team in the wings, I wonder, just in case this one also ends up in ruins?

They had better, because I can already tell the whole thing is manufactured from nothing. The first clue is that the paper is once again hiding behind 1,000 authors. We saw the same thing with the manufactured Higgs detection, which I believe had even more authors than that. The truth doesn’t need such a large bandwagon.

But I knew even before the first clue, since I know gravity waves don’t exist. I assume all these “physicists” know it, too, but the truth doesn’t butter anyone’s bread. Einstein knew it. They admit in the articles that Einstein twice told the world gravity waves don’t exist. They tell you he flip-flopped both times, saying they did exist, but they don’t tell you why Einstein flipped. He flipped under pressure from the mainstream, who didn’t like him telling the truth. We see this all the time in all subjects: someone blows the whistle on some big project, the spooks visit him and twist his arm, and suddenly he changes his mind. This is what happened with Einstein.

Gravity waves can’t be a vindication of General Relativity as they claim, since in General Relativity gravity isn’t a force: it is just curved math. Beyond that, according to Einstein, GR isn’t mediated by particles and has no background. In GR there is no ether, remember? So what are gravity waves supposed to be made of? What is waving? We get no sensible answer to that to this day. Physics today is nothing but a huge pile of ever-growing nonsense. Since I know you can’t detect something that doesn’t exist, I know this detection is manufactured without further study.

Here is all it says concerning that in the announcements: According to the equations physicists have settled on, gravitational waves would compress space in one direction and stretch it in another as they traveled outward. But according to Einstein, there is no space in that sense. According to the stated postulates of GR, space is not something that could be compressed or stretched, since it is neither an ether nor a physical background of any material sort. For Einstein, space could be curved, and it could be curved simply by applying the tensor calculus to it—which already contained the curves. But the tensor calculus has no mechanism for stretching or compressing space.

To say it another way, there is no possible mechanism for gravity to work on space in that way. The theory of gravity waves is outrageously non-mechanical and non-physical. This is why they used to search for gravitons. Although GR also has no use for gravitons—since gravity as curved space does not require a mediating particle—the mainstream used to look for gravitons because they knew they needed them to sell this gravity wave nonsense. To compress space, you need something in the space to be compressed.

With gravitons, you can say that individual gravitons are getting nearer, indicating compression. Compression is then a function of particle densities. But as it is, “compressing space” has no physical meaning. You can’t compress a vacuum, because there is nothing to respond to pressure. It is words without physical content. In this latest announcement, we are told mirrors in the arms of LIGO moved .004 the diameter of a proton, indicating that two black holes were colliding somewhere in the distance. Where? We aren’t told. We are only told that one of them was 36 times as massive as the Sun and the other 29 times as massive. In the collision three Solar masses were released.

Where did they get those numbers? They just made them up out of thin air. OK, but what indication do we have the movement of the mirrors was caused by that rather than anything else? The signal conformed precisely to the predictions of general relativity for black holes as calculated in computer simulations, Dr. Reitze said. Really? That’s all we get? You can see why I now think this is all a joke.

These people don’t even try to fake the scientific method anymore. In that method, you would have to cross off all the other causes of that tiny motion. Since you can’t possibly do that in this case, assigning the motion to hypothetical black holes is just a farce. At The Guardian, it says, The finding completed the scientific arc of prediction, discovery and confirmation: first they calculated what they should be able to detect, then decided what the evidence should look like, and then devised the experiment that clinched the matter. Which is why on Thursday scientists around the world were able to hail the announcement as yet another confirmation of their “standard model” of the cosmos, and the beginning of a new era of discovery. They missed something there, didn’t they? That isn’t the “arc of science”, is it? It is missing a couple of important steps. After deciding what the evidence might look like, they should be required to show that the evidence they have found is coming from the source they claim. That have utterly failed to do that.

There is zero evidence this came from a collision of black holes, and they don’t even try to point to the black hole that was allegedly formed by the collision. In addition, they should be required to show that the evidence found isn’t coming from any other more likely sources.

To start with, how could you possibly damp this machine from all other tiny wiggles? LIGO’s antennae are 2.5 miles long. So in the first instance, it should act like a gigantic seismometer, reacting to every least motion on the surface of the Earth, from whatever cause. Since you could not possibly damp it from that, you would have to monitor seismic activity in another way and subtract it out. Could you do that down to the level of a proton? No.

But even if you could, you would be up against an infinitude of other problems. What about the charge field of the Earth? Even if you don’t believe in the charge field, I can get you here by just renaming it heat. You don’t believe in the heat of the Earth? Well, the heat emitted by the Earth varies over both time and place, so again you would have another large variation you would either have to damp or subtract out. Could you do that down to the level of a proton. No.

LIGO’s antennas are L-shaped, with perpendicular arms 2.5 miles long. Inside each arm, cocooned in layers of steel and concrete, runs the world’s largest bottle of nothing, a vacuum chamber a couple of feet wide containing 2.5 million gallons of empty space. At the end of each arm are mirrors hanging by glass threads, isolated from the bumps and shrieks of the environment better than any Rolls-Royce ever conceived. Does that answer either one of my questions so far? No, it just begs thousands of others. Creating a vacuum chamber is meaningless, either as a matter or damping, seismic effects, or heat effects. The only effects addressed by a vacuum chamber are effects of air moving in the tunnels. Since these long concrete arms are surrounded by earth and air, they must respond to it.

And since the mirrors are connected to the tunnel walls by threads, they will react just as the walls do. This set-up just guarantees that whatever is felt by the walls will be felt by the mirrors. That is the opposite of damping. Given the variability of the Earth’s environment, we should be very surprised to find zero motion of the mirrors in these tunnels. We would expect to see ripples of many sorts, none of them caused by a compression of space or by distant black holes. As just one example, you can’t create a charge vacuum. Even if they empty these tunnels of all ions and molecules, the tunnels will still be stiff with charge.

Why? Many reasons.

One, both charge and heat pass through material, including concrete.

Two, the walls themselves emit charge.

Three, the Earth is recycling charge through its body all the time.

This is what creates the ionosphere, the magnetosphere, and the atmosphere itself. This recycling, though fairly steady, is not a constant. It is determined by input from the Sun, the galactic core, and even by charge returning to the Sun by the big outer planets. All these factors cause variations in the charge field, and it is far more likely this is what we are seeing with LIGO (assuming we aren’t just seeing minor local seismic activity—activity which is itself caused by charge field variations).

You begin to see the enormity of the problem. Remember, mainstream physicists admit to being ignorant of the make-up of 95% of the universe. That is what they call dark matter. Dark matter doesn’t just exist “out there”. It exists everywhere, which means 95% of the matter here on Earth is— or may be—unknown. With an unknown of that size in the local field, how can these physicists know that what they are detecting is distant black holes? It might be dark matter ripples in the tunnel vacuum for all they know. The point is, with an unknown that large, there is simply no way to cross off other possibilities. You cannot cross off dark matter as the cause of this detection if you don’t even know what dark matter is, can you?

In fact, this is probably why they ignore large parts of the scientific method now. With unknowns of that size in the field, they can’t do any sort of theorizing, much less claim detections with a sigma of 7. A sigma of 7 in a field of 95% ignorance is impossible by definition. Now, I have shown that things aren’t really that bad. Since I have shown that dark matter is just charge, I am able to resolve that 95% error and do theory with some amount of confidence. But since they have not figured out what I have figured out, and do not accept my equations, they cannot.

Not only can they not do any sensible theory, they cannot begin to look at other causes of this current detection and subtract them out. If they don’t know about charge recycling by the Earth, they cannot possibly model it and cross it off as the cause of this detection, you see. I am not saying they aren’t detecting something here. I find the antennae interesting, and assume the wiggles are caused by something other than “random” fluctuations. But my first assumption would be these “hiccups” they are detecting are coming up from the belly of the Earth, and are caused by charge variations there.

Or they could be caused by hiccups in the belly of the Sun (or corona), which then cause charge ripples that travel through the Earth. Either way, the likelihood is very high the hiccups are caused locally, and I doubt we will have to look beyond the Sun to find them. In the actual scientific paper, we are told The detectors’ susceptibility to environmental disturbances was quantifed by measuring their response to specially generated magnetic, radio-frequency, acoustic, and vibration excitations.

See, nothing about charge there. Nothing about heat, either. Yes, charge flux normally causes magnetic flux, but only in the presence of ions. Since we are in a vacuum chamber here, there are no ions, so you would expect no magnetic fluxes. But there can still be heavy charge fluctuations, hidden from magnetic detectors by the lack of available ions. Therefore, specially generated magnetic excitations would not rule out charge excitations. This is especially critical since the level of motion being monitored is 10-21, which is in the quantum realm. Charge can interact directly with electrons at that level, with no need to monitor larger ions. It can even excite bound electrons, which are not really ions themselves and which would not show up as magnetism.

Although we are sold the opposite, this new claimed detection is even worse than the last one. In just 18 months, physics has gotten noticeably worse. Compared to this claim, the one in 2014 looks like a miracle of rigor. To try to hide that fact, the new announcements turn up the volume of the horntooting and mention as little of the facts of the experiment as possible. You wouldn’t have thought they could make the PR any louder or less subtle than in 2014, but somehow they have managed it. Instead of just a few famous people telling you it is important, they now have a barrage of video presentations, schooling you on every least facet of fake modern theory—including an Idiot’s Guide to Relativity. They want to lose you in this maze of manufactured details so that you won’t be able to ask sensible questions.

In fact, they have now gone past the sigma 7 bluff. Tim Radford at The Guardian tells us this latest discovery is “unequivocal”. Once this detection is admitted to fail, he may want to look up the meaning of that word. Writers for major newspapers used to be required to know what words meant before they used them. He may also wish to look up the meaning of the word “science”. No detection like this is ever “unequivocal”, since if it were, they wouldn’t need sigmas, would they? Royal Astronomer Martin Rees at The Telegraph is almost as illegible: Sadly it is not unknown for hyped-up scientific claims to be mistaken or exaggerated – claims of particles going faster than light, gravitational waves from the big bang, and so forth. I count myself a hard-to-convince sceptic. But what is being claimed will be the culmination of literally decades of effort by scientists and engineers with high credentials, and this time I expect to be fully convinced.

This hard-to-convince sceptic expects to be fully convinced this time. Shouldn’t he tell us why? He doesn’t, his next sentence being, “This detection is indeed a big deal”. His subtitle for the article is this: Einstein was right – and this announcement is the scientific highlight of the decade. Sounds like a hard-to-convince skeptic to me! His only reason for losing his skepticism would appear to be that “scientists with high credentials” are involved. But weren’t they involved in all the other hoaxes? Yes. Weren’t they involved in BICEP2? Yes.

Alan Guth had bigger cred than Kip Thorne, for instance, which is probably why BICEP2 was initially allowed to scoop LIGO, although LIGO had been at it for far longer. Was Martin Rees skeptical of the 2014 announcement that ended up crashing? If so, I don’t remember seeing his name in the list of vocal critics in March 2014. It is pretty easy for me to remember that entire list, because this is it:

  1. Miles Mathis

I don’t see Martin Rees’ name there next to mine, do you? His name wasn’t there because he is a mainstream physicist/astronomer, and they were all ordered to play along. LIGO was also ordered to play along, which they initially did. It wasn’t until my paper poked a big hole in BICEP2 that a few of these other people felt they could make a peep. Unfortunately, I don’t know that anyone is left to make a peep this time. We may assume some of the discontented in LIGO helped BICEP2 fall, but who will speak out to make LIGO fall? Those that were in BICEP2 can be dismissed as having bad blood, and anyway they have been permanently embarrassed. So we don’t expect to hear from them. Does anyone else have any reason to wish for this LIGO announcement to fail? In my experience, mainstream physics is not a realm of truth-lovers. It is also not a venue that attracts the courageous. But we will have to see. Not everything that is promoted is accepted, so maybe the wheels will continue to turn in ways unknown to me. I honestly would not have guessed that BICEP2 would be admitted to fail— even after I destroyed it—so possibly some hope remains. The midlevels of physics may retain some hidden power.

However that may turn out, this announcement is just more indication to me that the upper levels of physics have become a zombie-physics.

It is made up of thousands of people like this, who will lie right to your face without blinking an eye. Is there any possibility these people believe they have detected gravity waves? To believe that you would have to believe they don’t know the first thing about the scientific method, about the definition of physics, or about anything else. I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they do know up from down. But that just makes things worse, because it means they aren’t just mistaken, it means they are lying. It means they are trying to pass something by you for money.

It means that physics has devolved to the point where all its name people are flying on fumes. They can’t do real physics, so the only thing left is this highly promoted pretend physics. Just look at that picture. It doesn’t look like they have any problem with that, does it? Zombies. Yes, the world has been taken over by these smiling people—physics-actors playing a part and collecting a paycheck. They may not eat your face off, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. They have sucked over one billion dollars from the national treasury via the National Science Foundation.

The LIGO project has been the largest science project of NSF: By mid-September 2015 “the world’s largest gravitational-wave facility” completed a 5-year US$200-million overhaul at a total cost of $620 million.[2][5] LIGO is the largest and most ambitious project ever funded by the NSF. So it is no surprise to find LIGO announcing a detection now. Despite just being a money pit for decades, this huge investment required some sort of actual finding at last. This is why you seem to get conflicting statements from the LIGO pages: we are told LIGO detected nothing for decades, despite a huge team and large investments; then, suddenly, after BICEP2 went down in flames, an overhaul was completed and the antennae immediately got a detection. In the new announcement, they tell us On Sept. 14 [2015], the system had barely finished being calibrated and was in what is called an engineering run at 4 a.m. when a loud signal came through at the Livingston site.

That by itself is the sign of a fudge, since if we do some digging we find that the expensive overhaul only increased sensitivity by four times. Since the initial sensitivity was claimed to be four parts in a billion trillion, increasing that by four times should have been meaningless. That’s not only down to the size of the proton, that is below the size of the electron, which I have shown has a radius of about 10-17m. Do you really believe those mirrors hanging in those tunnels were still down to that level relative to one another, so that they could detect such tiny fluctuations? I don’t. Nothing in any real experiment ever run was ever that still, especially things hanging by threads. I suggest you compare what you are being told here with LIGO to what you are taught about the Cavendish experiment, the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment, and every other similar experiment, old and new.


Even conventional academia finds it questionable, and rightly so if these ludicrously bold claims don’t strike alarm bells with you then i am concerned for your cognitive discernment  faculties. [  ]

Subject: Re: LIGO data interpretation – Debunked by an Aussie with Perfect Articulation
Reply-To: HARRY RICKER <kc…>
I met Wal Thornhill and had lunch with him at the NPA Conference at College Park in 2011. The problem has to do with what you consider the words proven, verified, confirmed and predicted to mean in the context of science. If you use a strict definition of proven in science then this event proves nothing, since it is not repeatable, or independently verifiable. That is not the definition of proven or scientific proof being used by mainstream science today. Their use of the word is more like how that word is used in political discourse. There something is proven when it is claimed to be so by someone who wants you to believe it is true, when it is likely not true at all. This is the like of proof we have for climate change and such other politically claimed truths of science.



Editor’s Notes:

To understand what Gravity actually is one must move away from the (rehashed) atomistic fallacies of the cult of quantum that propose the universe is a big bag of particles bumping into each other. Mother Nature is not a cross-eyed crack whore with a calculator processing some mathematically ineffable chaos. On the contrary, nature is simple and works of simplex pressure gradient meditations. Everything in the universe is fields fundamentally and fields are nor particles, they can not be quantified because they are incommensurable.

Some of this has already been briefly touched upon in previous articles however there is much more to come. As you may have noticed, my entire blog revolves around challenging the scientific dogmas of the day, and applying reasonable logic and scrutiny to the grandiose claims made by our leading authority figures, whether they are highly regarded as great intellectual minds, spiritual philosophers, or otherwise.

There is no such thing as gravity, incoherent dielectric acceleration is (so called) magnetic attraction and is (so called) gravity, they are one and the same thing, the only difference is coherency.

If you feel skeptical that your chosen branches of science are failing you, please refer to my article The Big Question

If you want a glimpse into my upcoming articles about gravity and electromagnetism, please first watch the 6 hour documentary PROJECT MINDBLOWN Part 0 (out of 3). You can download the full file, or watch a 15 minute preview: [ CLICK HERE ]

I’ll be continuing with that series once my PC is fixed.


1. rarefaction – a decrease in the density of something; “a sound wave causes periodic rarefactions in its medium”

What LIGO reported to have seen is likely nothing more than electromagnetic phase-shift retardation. Phase voidance of dielectric acceleration of a binary object. IE; a binary object causing phase cancellation as it’s mutually revolving around a null point of maximum acceleration.

This ties nicely into black holes which i’ll cover more soon. If you can’t wait check out the following article: Filming a Black Hole – Magnetism Bends Light

Watch this space, and stay sharp, Friends.