Scientific Authentication Of The Bible: What The Angels (aliens) Know That Our Scientists Do Not! g4zw

SCIENTIFIC AUTHENTICATION OF THE BIBLE

WHAT THE ANGELS (ALIENS) KNOW THAT OUR SCIENTISTS DO NOT!

Franklin Nolle Williams

Copyright © 2013 by Franklin Nolle Williams.

ISBN: Softcover 978-1-4836-7557-2 Ebook 978-1-4836-7558-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Rev. date: 08/22/2013

To order additional copies of this book, : Xlibris LLC 1-888-795-4274 www.Xlibris.com [email protected] 139905 fpart

Contents

Part I

The Real Intelligent Design Of The First Six Days Or How The Angels (Aliens) Did It!

Chapter One What Is Truth?

Chapter Two The First Day

Chapter Three The Second Day

Chapter Four Days Three, Four And Five

Chapter Five The Sixth Day

Chapter Six Summary And Conclusions

Appendix

Part I A Case For The Unified Field Theory And Equation!

Part II All Systems Relative!

Part III Fudging The Truth!

Part IV Mathematically Derived Values for the Universal Constants

Part V The Golden Ratio, Φ, And The Fine Structure Constant, α

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

I N AUGUST OF 1994 a paper was published in the scholarly Statistical Science, a journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, entitled “Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis.” The paper was written by three internationally respected Hebrew Scholars and mathematicians, Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg. Their assertion is that there is a hidden, underlying text in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. The following is an excerpt from their abstract of the paper which can be found in the appendix of Michael Drosnin’s book, “The Bible Codes”; “It has been noted that when the Book of Genesis is written as two-dimensional arrays, equidistant letter sequences spelling words with related meanings often appear in close proximity. Quantitative tools for measuring this phenomenon are developed. Randomization analysis shows that the effect is significant at the level of 0.00002.”

The arrays are rows with an equal number of letters with all the punctuation and spaces removed. The sequences they are referring to are words like hammer and anvil, table and chair, rain and umbrella. These words go together and are usually found close to one another in the arrays. The tools they are referring to are the tools of mathematics involved. The randomization analysis is two onehundred thousandths. In other words, it could only be two in one-hundred thousand chances that this occurred by the accidental random sequences of letters in this text. Most scientific experiments only require one in a hundred, 1/100 or .01, as being within validity.

It was the occasion of the Bible Codes that it occurred to me that if there was an underlying code, then it would be ludicrous for the surface text to be invalid. Scribes had been specially trained to write the surface text verbatim, without one jot or tittle changed. If there was one mistake they were made to rewrite the whole page again. It was written contiguous, without punctuation or spacing between words. It was considered heretical if anything was changed. Because of

this I began to study the surface text very carefully to find any hidden meanings that may have been there.

PART I

THE REAL INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF THE FIRST SIX DAYS OR HOW THE ANGELS (ALIENS) DID IT!

CHAPTER ONE

WHAT IS TRUTH?

W HEN JESUS WAS brought before Pontius Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus if he were king of the Jews. Jesus answered him in this manner;

“Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

Pilate then asked Jesus, “What is truth?”

Truth is an illusive quest. Webster’s dictionary defines truth as; “That which is true; a statement or fact that corresponds to the reality.” It defines reality as; “The fact, state, condition or quality of being real or genuine.” And it goes on to define real as; “Having actual existence; not theoretical or imaginary; objective as contrasted with subjective.”

However, the concept of truth is different things to different people. To the mathematician, it is a mathematical proof and can have only one logical solution; to the scientist, it is a sound theory that provides answers to multitudes of natural phenomena and can only be shaken with undeniable experimental results that prove an opposing hypothesis; to a religious person, it is spiritual insight and enlightenment found through much prayer and faith and can only be shaken by an epiphany or revelation from God and in a court of law, it is the

story that is ed by the greatest preponderance of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

Still this is the question that drives and motivates most human beings and all scientists. Jesus was saying that you already have answers to the truth if you only look for them. Still this truth has to be a truth that can accommodate all the seekers, be they mathematicians, scientists, religious persons or lawyers or any other layperson of any other walk of life. So let us take a closer look at this book, the Bible.

The investigation has to be under the premises of two fundamental concepts, 1) ‘With God all things are possible,’ and 2) ‘All things must be logical and plausible (true), for nature proves that God is not illogical.’ The term ‘with God’ does not mean ‘for God all things are possible’ because religiously we already assume that God can do all things, but with God’s involvement with man all things are possible for man or aliens for that matter. Plausibility may be questioned with respect to science, but it must fall within the range of technically possible, if not today then some time in the future of science. If some of the information seems beyond the realm of probability then it is allowed that we simply have not developed the knowledge of the logic and technology to understand what the true reality is in such a case, but that it would be forthcoming in the near future.

Miracles, for instance, are considered beyond the realm of rational or reasonable explanation or occurrences outside the natural order of nature. However, I think this is a shortsighted explanation of miracles. It should be that miracles are beyond the realms of rational or reasonable explanation for the time when they occur. For instance we can do today most of the miracles performed by Jesus. We heal people of diverse diseases, make the lame walk, the blind see, the insane sane again, even bring people back to life. In truth, we live in the day and age of miracles, but they are so common place that we take them for granted. Because we can understand how to do all these things and have the knowledge to move mountains, this does not make them any less a miracle.

Because the things we do today are so miraculous, compared to ancient Biblical times, we are numbed to the truth because they are so common place. Now we look for miracles beyond the realm of reality or the rational; beyond the natural events of nature. This is ludicrous.

We have mapped the entire human genome and will in the near future be able to cure diseases we thought were incurable before. We have walked on the moon and will eventually be living in space; we have mapped our neighboring planets and discovered new solar systems. We have cloned sheep and animals of all types and can even eventually clone human beings. We can transplant human body parts from one person to another and in the near future will be able to grow specific body parts for each individual. All the information and knowledge in the world is at our fingertips. The personal computer makes it available at the touch of a button in everybody’s home. We can talk to and see people on the other side of the world, instantly, at the touch of our fingers.

We do indeed live in the day and age of miracles and should not be so intellectually arrogant as to think this has all been on our efforts. After all, was not the knowledge always there waiting to be discovered, and we have just now discovered it? Did not the universe work by God’s laws and design before we discovered the methods to explain how it was done? It is only new to us!

Mario Livio, a senior astrophysicist and head of the Office of Public Outreach at the Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, has written a book entitled, “Is God a Mathematician?” In this book he approaches the argument of Eugene Wigner’s enigma, “Is mathematics discovered or created?” He states in his book “. . . Does mathematics have an existence that is entirely independent of the human mind? In other words, are we merely discovering mathematical verities, just as astronomers discover previously unknown galaxies? Or, is mathematics nothing but a human invention? If mathematics indeed exists in some abstract fairyland, what is the relation between this mystical world and physical reality? How does the human brain

with its known limitations, gain access to such an immutable world, outside of space and time? On the other hand, if mathematics is merely a human invention and it has no existence outside our minds, how can we explain the fact that the invention of so many mathematical truths miraculously anticipated questions about the cosmos and human life not even posed until many centuries later? . . .”

Mr. Livio in his last chapter states, “. . . Is mathematics created or discovered?” is the wrong question to ask because it implies that the answer has to be one or the other and that the two possibilities are mutually exclusive. Instead, I suggest that mathematics is partly created and partly discovered… .” This answer fundamentally allows that God is indeed a mathematician; upon who’s knowledge all other mathematics is founded and created. Like the master builder who teaches his apprentice all he knows and gives him his tools and the apprentice goes on to be a master architect. The builder did not teach the apprentice how to be an architect, but the tools and teachings gave the apprentice the ability to create beyond being a master builder.

All scientists know that there is an underlying truth to all fundamental questions in physics. For years physics have sought the Grand Unification Theory, GUT for short, that would unify all the forces of nature into one theory, one equation; one underlying TRUTH. This is a daunting quest, for it undertakes to explain all natural phenomena with a single equation and theory. So far, they have failed. (Where they have failed, I believe I have succeeded which lead to the writing of this book. It will be discussed later in detail in the book and in the appendix.)

It is obvious that many of these scientists are hearing the call of the voice of truth about which Jesus spoke. But somewhere along the way many have lost the voice in their inner being. They have become intellectually arrogant, and blinded by their own reason supposing they know more than they really do. They turn a blind eye to the very truth they are seeking and replace logical reality with a surreal reality designed by mathematics. They forget that mathematics is a tool to help explain reality but is not the fundamental reality itself. If reality does not fit into the mathematical models then it is the fundamental logic upon which the

mathematics is based is wrong, not the reality.

Most religions have done no better. They have clouded the truth by their unforgiving and unwavering rigidity. They interpret the scriptures into the modern concepts of reality they have formulated in their short lifetime and ignore what is before their eyes.

They say that God can speak and it is created. This is true and not in debate, but what they forget is that with respect to God time is insignificant; it does not exist for Him. Time has no meaning whatsoever to God, but to man, who is a mortal, material being, and lives in a temporal universe, it is everything. It is how we know of our existence. So when God speaks it becomes so, this effort takes no time with respect to Him, but with man in his temporal universe it may take billions and billions of years.

Although they may bear the call of one truth, that of the soul and spirit, they hamper the discovery of the truth of knowledge. They tell their constituents and followers that scientific knowledge is wrong, and in worse case scenarios that it is evil. They subvert the efforts of God to let people understand the beauty and uniqueness of His universe. Many young minds are lost to religion every year because of this, and may never be regained.

Turning back to Genesis with an eye toward science and an ear to the truth, it is a wonder to behold. Not only do you see a new and wondrous book but you can see a slender thread of truth through all the different books of all the religions of the world, with the Bible being a beacon to that truth. Of course, this thread only becomes apparent when you open both your heart and mind to all possibilities.

To one’s surprise you will find that the Bible s many of the great scientific discoveries and conclusions that we have only gained in the last two

centuries. It will give some insight to perhaps new scientific discoveries in the near future. Since the advent of the Bible Codes, a literal interpretation of the surface text as a synopsis of reality is the best. What one will also find is a book of unique insight into our modern knowledge that is three thousand years old or older. This lends more credibility to the Bible than to any other book, and even more so since the discovery of the Bible Codes. How could a book three thousand years old be so precise about what science and the world would discover in this day and age unless it had authenticity? Transforming a phrase of Mr. Livio’s from his book we can ask,” . . . how can we explain the fact that the Bible miraculously anticipated questions and discoveries about the Earth and human life not even posed until many centuries later?”

The following is just a few of the things ones finds contained in the first six days of the Book of Genesis;

1) The “Big Bang” 2) The formation of the Solar System 3) The early development of the Earth 4) The for the origin of species on earth 5) The evolution of plant life on the Earth and the extinction of the dinosaurs 6) Evolutionary man 7) Recombinant genetics and cloning

And there is much, much more.

This book will cause controversy, and it may raise more questions than it

answers. However, it does reconcile the arguments that have raged between science and religion for the past two centuries.

What follows is the interpretation of one who has the utmost respect for science and a deep abiding love and faith in his God and the Bible.

CHAPTER TWO

THE FIRST DAY

T O SEEK AN understanding of the Biblical concept of creation one must first accept the story of creation is a literal story, albeit synoptic, and not allegorical. This may rankle scientists and scholarly persons and many religious people that believe the story of creation is a nice allegory and not meant to be taken seriously. They also suppose it to be written by different people, but they will see why it is a literal story when our analysis is complete.

When we say literal one must understand that this is not in of what we perceive as virtually verbatim, but literal in a synoptic sense, in the same way someone would write a synopsis or summary of real events. They would write it in such a way, like a code, so no one, at its initial writing would have the knowledge or inclination to comprehend it. They would leave it in this form until someone came along with the tools for deciphering and understanding and the key to know what it was all about and that it was, indeed, a true recording of actual events.

What is the key and how do we know these events are true in the beginning of Genesis? Let me take an excerpt from Jeffrey Santinover’s book “Cracking the Bible Codes,”

“. . . First control had foreseen the possibility of this very problem – how to that a communication was genuine – and had devised some subtle means to solve it.

Second, control has always been superbly logical and of the highest intelligence.

Third, control’s mysterious solution requires no further information than what lies at hand.

After some reflection, our agent deduces the following: there must be some method of determining – beyond any doubt – which of the sets of instructions is genuine. That method must be such as to require no outside validation. There is only one way this could happen: The genuine text must contain some kind of authentication within it – like the faint watermark on paper currency. The existence of such a “fail-safe” necessarily requires the following to be true:

1. There must be at least one additional level of meaning hidden in his instructions, a level of meaning he had never before notice or looked for, because there was no need for it – even if its existence had in fact been hinted at long ago. 2. Any such additional level (or levels) of meaning must be disguised, for otherwise it could conceivably be detected, mimicked, and distorted by the enemy, just as they had mimicked and changed the surface meaning of his instructions. 3. Any further level of meaning must contain information that would validate the authenticity of the genuine instructions and no other. In other words, it must be information of a kind available to the genuine author – control – and to no one else.

From this, our agent reasons further: Any kind of meaningful information (plaintext) deliberately embedded in the surface text of his instructions (cipher text) must itself be in the form of a language . . .

There is only one parameter left, the subtlest and most difficult one: meaning itself. The whole must be connected by a meaning that unites the parts . . .”

Mr. Santinover used this demonstration for a secret agent’s way of determining whether a message sent to him from his control after many years of not having was true or not. It is also very pertinent to our situation. There is no way anyone could have known what the surface text of the story of creation could have meant until the twentieth century or even until the last two decades of the twentieth century. The evidence is found every day in the arguments between evolutionists and creationists who still have different interpretations of the surface text. Evolutionists discard it right off hand as ridiculous, and creationists want to adhere to their literal interpretation, and discard the science, which is absurd by any stretch of the imagination.

No one had the knowledge to understand the surface text until now. Therefore we can deduce that the surface text was not meant for anybody else except for the people of this century and time; a text that was written more than 3000 years ago.

Let us take an in depth look at this text. What then does the Bible mean by the word create or created? This can be found in the second chapter of Genesis and in the first three verses, but mainly in the third verse;

Gen: 2; 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Most believe that created and make have the same meaning, but this cannot be the case. In the interlinear Bible with the actual Hebrew literal translation the last

phrase of this sentence reads “. . . which God created to make.” In either case it demonstrates the two words have different meanings.

Supposedly Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible from information received from the angels (aliens) on Mt. Sinai; or it was handed down already written; or memorized verbatim to be ed down by word of mouth. Whatever the case, it would also be believable that the angels (aliens) would be trying to convey a surface massage to us by leaving subtleties we could recognize. For instance, the definition of ‘made’ is given to us in the first two verses in the second chapter of Genesis;

Gen: 2; 1 – Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Gen: 2; 2 – And the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and rested on the seventh day form all his work which he had made.

It is obvious the word ‘made’ is the final, ‘finished’ product, the completion of a project. If the word ‘made’ is the finished product the word ‘created’ is the idea stage, the planning, blueprinting stage. Therefore we can say ‘created’ is the same as “let there be” which is a future tense. Created is a planned event or goal, and accordingly, “and it was so” and ‘made’ has to be the final outcome, the ‘finished’ work.

With this in mind we can understand the first verse of Genesis:

Gen: 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heaven and earth

Gen: 1:2 – And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen: 1:3 – And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

There are two basic concepts of how the universe was formed. One is the ‘Big Bang’ theory and the other is that of continuous creation or the ‘Steady-state’ theory. This quick synopsis from the Popular Science Encyclopedia, The Origin of the Universe by George Field will give you a fair insight to these theories; “. . . Exponents of the first idea, called the ‘big-bang’ theory, believe that all the matter in the cosmos once formed a compact mass, . . . This mass then exploded, forming a vast fireball. In a few minutes, perhaps, matter was scattered across immense stretches of space. Today, the stars, galaxies, and planets that were formed from this material still have the motion that resulted from the explosion… the different elements developed from the primitive matter that exploded.

On the other hand, followers of the continuous-creation, or ‘steady-state’ theory, say that the universe has always been much the same for long ages, and that matter, namely hydrogen, is constantly being created, apparently from nothing. This material forms the stars and galaxies and arises more or less uniformly throughout the cosmos…”

The ‘steady-state’ theory was the inspiration of Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold and was created as an alternative to the Big Bang theory. It had a large number of ers among cosmologists in the 1950’s and 1960’s and the very religious accepted it immediately as it fit into their concept of their God and the Bible.

Fred Hoyle, (1915-2001), a noted English astronomer, made a prediction about the nucleosynthesis of the element of carbon in stellar reactions, and the amounts of energy it would take for this nuclear reaction to occur. He made a prediction of the energy levels in the carbon nucleus that was later borne out by experiment. Hoyle initially an atheist came to believe in god and was a er of the panspermia concept of the universe. From the Wikipedia free encyclopedia on line, “Panspermia is the hypothesis that “seeds” of life exist already all over the universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these “seeds”, and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.

The related but distinct idea of exogenesis is a more limited hypothesis that proposes life on Earth was transferred from elsewhere in the universe but makes no prediction about how widespread it is. Because the term “exogenesis” is more well-known, it tends to be used in reference to what should strictly speaking be called panspermia.” If Panspermia is, indeed, a valid concept this would mean that the Universe is truly a living organism in and of itself.

Although theoretical calculations showed that a static universe was impossible under general relativity and observations by Edwin Hubble in 1929 had shown that the universe is expanding, this does not exclude panspermia as a viable hypothesis.

The ‘big-bang’ theory is the more accepted theory and for good reason. There is ample proof to substantiate its claims. In 1965, two scientists, Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, two Bell Lab scientists doing microwave research, discovered a strange phenomenon. Their discovery is widely believed to be the microwave afterglow from the big bang, although this was not what they were searching for at the time. They later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery.

The reason the ‘earth was without form, and void’ is because it was. It was lost in the primordial soup, the verse call the waters, and the elements or elementary particles that form into matter were not even “made” yet. ‘Darkness was upon

the face of the deep’ because emptiness exists at this time and all is, indeed, dark. There is nothing to give off light and there is nothing to reflect any light. Nothing has been formed.

This begins the first real similarities between science and the Bible. Also, it is where there are some differences beginning to appear with respect to Dr. Schroeder and the generally held beliefs of the scientific community as he expressed them in his book, “Genesis and the Big Bang.” As Dr. Schroeder states the most commonly held belief of the scientific community is that prior to the Big Bang you had a zero point of infinite density. The Bible refers to it as “the deep” or literally translated the “the abyss,” which the dictionary defines as a ‘bottomless gulf; a deep pit or mass of waters.’

No scientist knows what caused the ‘Big Bang,’ except that it was caused by the forces of nature somehow. There are a number of theories; the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem requires that general relativity be absolutely correct, but supposedly general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature; others models include

1) the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite – no need for a singularity 2) brane cosmology in which inflation is due to movement of branes (membranes) in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model where collisions happen periodically. 3) Chaotic model where inflation happens in a random fashion leading bubble universes expanding from there own big bang.

These last two envision the Big Bang as a part of a much older multiverse and not the literal beginning.

Another theory is that the soup reached maximum collapsibility, and the shock waves reverberating through the soup shattered it apart. All these scenarios require a condition of time existing before the Big Bang which theoretical physicists say is impossible, but which the Bible alludes too. In any case suffice us to say it was natural events that caused the “Bang.”

In the Bible all natural events are caused by the Spirit of God, or literally the Wind of God, which makes the next line perfectly understandable. “The Spirit of God (forces of nature) moved (a temporal event) upon the face (literally surface) of the (waters) rather than the emptiness (the deep). Also because the event moved upon the (sur)face of the waters it would indicate that the event was exterior to and apart from the primordial soup.

Entropy is one of the fundamental realities of our universe. What that means is the universe is slowly but surely winding down. Entropy is the law that says chaos increases and order decreases with time or in other words you cannot get something for nothing, each moment in the universe is more chaotic than the last. Because our universe is very ordered as the laws of physics tell us, it means that there had to be an intercession, something interjected into the primordial soup to cause order to be born out of chaos. Something had to wind the universe up before it could wind down. In short, order was created out of chaos and that takes a great expenditure of time and energy, and that is the Wind of God. (Dr. Schroeder refers to this age as the inflationary part of the universe.) This requires a ‘time’ to exist before the Big Bang which physicists say is impossible.

Then, of course, the ‘bang’ occurs; “And God said, let there be light;” – BANG – forming a vast fireball… “and there was light.”

The fourth and fifth verses of the chapter are also clear now;

Gen: 1; 4 – And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen: 1; 5 – And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The more literal translation states that God ‘separated’ the light from the darkness. The stars, galaxies and planets, all matter, were formed from the material of the explosion; therefore, the stars, galaxies and planets divided space into light and darkness.

(An interesting note is that scientists have discovered that the universe is largely, approximately ninety-five percent, made up of dark matter and dark energy as compared to visible matter, matter that gives off light. Light and dark are, indeed, in reality, separated.)

Here is what Dr. Schroeder says about the evening and the morning; “. . . The Hebrew word for “evening” is erev. This is the literal meaning of the word, although the root of erev carries with it implications far beyond that of a setting Sun. What is the visual sensation of evening? Darkness begins. Objects become obscure, blurred. The root of erev means just that, “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly.”

“The Hebrew for “morning” is boker. Its meaning is quite the opposite of erev. Morning brings the first light. Objects, visually mingled by the dark of night, become distinct entities and this is the root meaning of boker, “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly.”

What Dr. Schroeder is saying and the Bible is telling us, as stated above, is that it takes energy to create order out of chaos. When order is created out of chaos entropy has been reversed. Entropy is virtually the measure of disorder in any system and is continually increasing throughout the universe. To reverse this process it takes energy and effort and time.

The fifth verse contains one of the greatest controversies that exist between science and religion. The Bible, however, seems to always be in consistent accord with scientific discoveries.

One assertion of theoretical physicists is that time as we understand it did not come into existence until the occurrence of the ‘big-bang.’ Let us take an excerpt from Robert M. Wald’s book, “Space, Time, and Gravity,” section 4.3;

“. . . What happened before the big bang? This is a natural question to ask within the context of pre-general relativistic notions of space and time. But within the context of general relativity, this question does not make sense since there was no such thing as space and time “before” the big bang. The nonsingular points in a solution of Einstein’s equation represent all events that occur in the universe so it does not make sense to ask about other events.”

This is strictly a mathematical analysis and is nothing that can be proven in reality at present. However, this is tantamount to scientists posing the question to proponents of intelligent design, “Who designed the designer?” Taking a clue from Dr. Wald the obvious answer to that question is, ‘it doesn’t make sense to ask this question because before the designer there was nothing.’ But as we will see there are two temporal coordinates, and one pre-existed the Big Bang.

What many physicists forget is that mathematics is a tool to explain reality, but it is not the reality itself. A mathematical principle is only as sound as the logic upon which it is based. If the logic is sound the principle will be sound, but if the logic is flawed the mathematical principle will be flawed also. No matter how many predictions of the math are found to be accurate and no matter how many physical realities it may describe, eventually it will reach its limit of reliability if its fundamental logic was flawed. Then the logic must be reassessed to find the flaw. This is true of computers and of Einstein’s principles of relativity also, both the special and general theories. In computers it is called debugging the program. It has not been done to Einstein’s theories.

The Bible demonstrates two temporal dimensions. Notice that the concept of our measure of time, “And the evening and the morning were the first day;” time as we measure it locally, Einsteinian time, did not exist in the Bible until God said, “Let there be light.” But note there was also a time before the ‘big-bang,’ a common or Newtonian time for all things, as, “The Spirit of God moved . . .” indicates. (See the appendix for a more comprehensive explanation.)

I used the concept of Newtonian time because Newton who was considered one of the greatest physicists in history, developed the idea of absolute time, “. . . Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external,” and that it was equal for all things in the universe.

The possibility of dual time coordinates has not gone unnoticed by some deceased but notable physicists such as Arthur Milne (1896-1950) and Nobel Prize winner P. A. M. Dirac (1902-1984), one of the founders of quantum mechanics.

Paul Davies, Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Adelaide in Australia, writes in his book, “About Time,” about Arthur Milne and Paul Dirac’s concepts of time, as referenced above. Of Milne, Davies writes;

“. . . Central to Milne’s whole approach was the conviction that the laws of physics ought to follow from the nature of the universe and not the other way about, as is conventional. He reasoned that, if you start with the way matter is distributed through the cosmos, the way the universe expands, and so, then things like the laws of gravitation and electromagnetism ought to follow from these facts as logical deductions…” But he also adds in the same paragraph,” . . . If such a scheme worked, it would short-circuit the usual processes of science, such as experiment and observation, and enable the laws of the universe to be derived more or less by pure thought alone.” I think this is short-sighted of Mr. Davies. After all observation is what leads to experimentation to establish proof of the laws derived from pure thought. Einstein’s greatest achievements were only reduced to mathematics after much thought and observation. It has been the experimenters that have sought to prove Einstein’s thoughts and observations.

He goes on to say about Milne, “. . . Based on his assumptions about the way the universe is put together, he deduced that there are two time scales of special significance, which is one more that normal. The idea was that certain physical processes operate according to one time scale while other processes are governed by the second time. Milne labeled the two times by the Latin and Greek letters t and τ. The former is allegedly the time told by atomic processes and light, so it applies to atomic clocks and the frequencies of light waves for example. On the other hand, τ time is supposed to apply to gravitational and large-scale mechanical processes such as the rotation of the earth and its motion around the sun. The distinctive feature of the theory is the t and τ may start out the same but they gradually slide out of step… For mathematically inclined readers, τ is the logarithm of t.

“What does the multiplication of time scales mean in practice? Most significantly, it implies that atomic clocks gradually march ahead of astronomical clocks, which determine the Earth day and the year. But “gradually” is the word. From Milne’s formula, it follows that the accumulating discrepancy at our epoch is only about one part in ten billion per year. It would take thousands of years for the difference to add up to one second. Therefore, we

wouldn’t feel any temporal disorientation. On the other hand, if we go back over the past cosmological epochs, the differences mount up, . . . In fact, as t approaches zero, which you might have been fooled into thinking was the beginning of time, τ goes to minus infinity – that is, it stretches into the infinite past. Measured in Earth years, the universe is infinitely old! . . .”

“Does Milne’s theory solve the age-of-the-universe problem? On the face of it, the answer is yes. Milne clearly thought so: “It thus appears that the paradox into which contemporary physics is led in discussing the age of the universe… is due to the confusion of the two scales of time…”

Davies does not agree with Milne because this theory does not answer the radioactive half-lives in radioactivity, and whether the Earth’s age is measured in t or τ time.

Davies goes on to talk about Dirac’s concept of time; “. . . Like Milne, Dirac concluded that atomic clocks get out of step with astronomical clocks. As I explained above, viewed in atomic time (the one by which we set our watches and presumably the one by which our brain activities go), the planets slowly change their orbital speeds. It turns out that a slow variation in astronomical time mimics a slow variation in the strength of the force of gravity between all bodies, so that as time goes on the sun’s grip on the Earth and the Earth’s grip on the moon predicted an alteration in the orbital periods of the planets of a few parts in one hundred billion per year…”

Later tests with Viking probes on the surface of Mars proved this particular theory to be inaccurate. Davies goes on to say, “. . . it merely show that the specific theories of Dirac and Milne are flawed… .”

We have only begun to understand how time must be considered when we

calculate space-time events with respect to our existence. In fact, with respect to today, we actually use two temporal dimensions to determine our local positions here on Earth. It is called the Global Positioning System, which uses gravitational time and motional time as described above by Dr. Milne.

One of the major constraints of Einstein’s relativity is the temporal dimension. According to the general theory traveling faster than light allows one to go into the past. Therefore most physicists will not even consider the idea of traveling faster than light because they cannot explain this phenomenon. The time coordinate can move forwards or backwards, mathematically, without reason. However the aliens know this is not the case in reality, and for good reason. The temporal dimensions are simply added together along with the other dimensions in the coordinate system.

You do not believe me? You just have to look as far as your GPS. The Ground Positioning System (GPS) uses two temporal properties to locate anyone at any time on the face of the Earth. One is called motional or coordinate time (electromagnetic time according to the special theory of relativity) and the other is called proper or gravitational time (as according to the general theory of relativity). There is the time dilation of the clock involved with coordinate or motional time and the relative positional time dilation involved with the position of the clock in the gravity well. The professional journal NATURE just recently published an article that showed that cesium atoms, the atoms by which we set up our atomic clocks, vibrate at different rates just one meter apart in a gravity well. (A gravity well simply meaning different depths and gravitational densities.) In other words, the cesium atoms on the ground at the bottom of your meter stick will vibrate slightly slower than the ones one meter off the ground on the top of your meter stick.

Of course this being true then it means that our universe is five dimensional just as Theodore Kaluza suggested in 1920 and the angels (aliens) already know. The only difference is that Kaluza never thought of the extra dimension as a temporal dimension.

How do we reconcile a day in the Bible and the billions of years it took to form the universe? Interestingly, the same things that lead theoretical physicists to predict that local time did not start until the ‘big-bang’ is one answer to this question. According to Hebrew tradition we will see there exists more than one answer.

, Moses is considered the author of the first five books of the Bible. It is ludicrous for us or anyone else to believe that he actually wrote the first five books of the Bible. It is true that Moses was the author or authority of the laws laid down in the Torah, but he did not physically write these books. If he did, why would he refer to himself from a third person point of view starting in Exodus and going through Deuteronomy? He could only physically have written the Book of Genesis. It is considered by most Hebrews that he was the author and the giver of the laws. They were handed down by word of mouth for generations until it was finally written down by scribes around 500 B.C., just before or after the Jewish captivity into Babylon. They decided to write it down for fear their identity would be lost in the captive culture. Much of the stories referring to Moses are to demonstrate the situations and reasons that lead up the laws laid down and why they should be observed.

Whatever the circumstances, as one reads the first chapter of Genesis, you will notice that the first three days seem to be from the perspective of someone observing events from the position of being in space. The events happening down on Earth and the space around it are from the angels (aliens) point of view. After the third day, starting with the fourth day the descriptions that follow are apparently from the perspective of someone standing on the surface of the Earth.

Taking into consideration Einstein’s theory of relativity, one can understand how one day for one can be billions of years for someone else. In 1905 when Einstein (1879-1955) proposed his theory of relativity he also proposed an equation that simplifies this dilemma. The equation was one that changed the concepts of time, as well as space. Einstein, today, is known as the father of modern physics.

According to the equation, the perspective of the observer and observed has a great deal to do with the concept of the age of time for both. The following is as simple as an explanation as can be used. If the angles (aliens) are zipping around the universe at velocities close to (or greater than) the speed of light, then time slows down for them in relation to the Earth’s local time. (Of course physicists say nothing can travel faster that light, but in the appendix I offer A Case for the Unified Field Theory which does not violate the theories of relativity and does indeed allow for velocities that are greater than light. In a simple explanation, if the electro-magnetic field and the gravitational field are separate but additive fields, this allows for velocities greater than the speed of light and dual time coordinates.) While the Earth is aging by local time measures, the angels (aliens) essentially, are not aging at all with respect to that time. If time has slowed down for the angels (aliens), then in the measure of their time standards as they zip around the universe, when a twenty-four hour period has ed for them, billions of years could have ed for the Earth. Each time they return to the Earth after a day es for them, millions or billions of years have ed for the Earth and the universe. Yet, in all, only six days have ed for the angels (aliens) during this phase the Bible refers to as the period of creation; only six days for God and the angels (aliens). A side note of interest; in the Bahgavid Gita, the Hindu’s religious book, a day of the Lord Shiva, called a Kalpa, is equal to 4,300,000,000 (four billion, three-hundred million) years of man. This is not too unlike the situation just described above. It would have taken less than four days for the Lord Shiva to create the whole entire universe.

In Mr. Sitchin’s book, “The 12th Planet,” he s the Nephilim age only one year for 3600 earth years which would make them to appear to live forever compared to us. He s for this as a genetic phenomenon and that genetics can lead to the difference in life spans. This is observed here on Earth since children who have parents that live to a ripe old age, barring no extraordinary circumstances, will also live a long life.

Jewish traditions have another for the six days in the Bible. In Jeffrey

Santinover’s book, “Cracking the Bible Code,” he states;

“. . . Sod Halbbur identifies certain critical moments in the unfolding biblical of creation, especially to the moment – according to the oral tradition – when God created time by setting everything in motion. Documented references to this moment – and to the calculation based upon it – can be found as far back as the writings of Rabban Gamliel the Elder who died in about A.D. 50 (who states that he is only writing down what was told him by his grandfather). The largest body of Gamliel’s teachings concerns the precise details for calculating the “times and the season,” and the dealing with those who err in this regard – leniently, since mistakes are so easy to make…

“. . . If there is such a thing as an original “starting date,” it would be very useful. With it, the correct long-term average for the lunar cycle would be added month after month to predict the moment of each successive new moon…

“. . . But where could one find such a date – the year, month, day of the week, hour, minute, and second of the “first” new moon ever? From the scientific point of view the question itself is absurd.

“. . . Nonetheless, the oral tradition maintains that there is such a date. As expected, it looks to be the biblical creation as an explanation… The tradition states – counter intuitively – that the first-ever new moon occurred at a specific moment on the sixth morning of creation, when man was created, not when the sun and moon were suspended in the heavens on the fourth day. And it states when this was: exactly at the end of the second hour on the morning of the sixth day of creation (fourteen hours after sunset of the fifth day) . . .

“. . . The precise moment when the lunar-clock started ticking has been ed down from sage to sage throughout the millennia, and was recorded in

innumerable locations. From that point forward, the time of any subsequent new moon may be calculated by taking the total number of elapsed months (by now roughly 70,000) and multiplying it by 29.53059…

“. . . But where is the indication on the Torah itself that this traditional date and time for the first new moon is correct?

“. . . First, there is an ancient understanding that God was mysteriously active for a period time before the creation itself – and that of this activity we have been given certain glimpses…

“. . . Second, the kabbalists claim that God’s 42-lettered name alludes specifically to the precreation activity. So, even though the world did not yet exist physically (it was still tohu v’bohu, formless and void) there came into being, as it were, a concept – “in the mind of God” – of what the ideal year ought to be… In the Jewish tradition, it is simply called the “primordial” or “formless” year – and it is directly linked to God’s 42-lettered name.” (This, also, alludes to a time before the big bang which physicists say is impossible as I stated above. My emphasis).

Santinover, in his book, also answers the question of the age of the universe with respect to Jewish tradition. He goes on to write;

“. . . The kabbalist whose studies of the creation in Genesis are the most precise and authoritative was Nechunya ben HaKanah. Among other matters in which he was expert, Nechunya specifically asserted that the 42-lettered name allowed one to deduce from the creation the correct age of the universe. Because in his day this kind of information was considered religiously sensitive (as it is today), Nechunya’s own explanation of the numbers involved was somewhat sketchy. But another Kabbalist who followed closely in Nechunya’s

footsteps – Rabbi Yitzhak deMin Acco – Laid out the calculations precisely. These make it doubly clear that the calculations of the synodical “starting date” for the first new moon and of the “primordial year” (which values both Nechunya and deMin Acco used) were to be understood literally only insofar as the numbers produce accurate results. They were not meant to be taken literally as indicating the age of the world.

“Thus, Nechunya claimed that if you properly understand how to use the 42lettered name, Genesis provides for a period of time between the origin of the universe and the creation of man, namely 42,000 “Divine Years.” But a “Divine Year” isn’t 365.25 of our days; it is 365,250 of our years. (Christians should be familiar with this reference to 2Peter 3:8; “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day;” or also from the reference in Psalms 90:4 “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it has past, and as a watch in the night.” My emphasis). So, between the origin of the universe and the creation of man there transpired 42,000 x 365,250 years. In other words, says Nechunya, Genesis tells us that the universe came into existence 15.3 billions years ago.

“Did Nechunya (or deMin Acco) obtain this number from some other source and then retrofit the information into complicated “permutations” of Genesis? It’s hard to imagine how: DeMin Acco lived in the thirteenth century A.D.; Nechunya himself in the first century A.D.”

It is completely understandable that there has been much controversy over the concept of a day in the Bible. Until this past century we did not have enough information to decipher this dilemma. The fact the Bible holds this information and was handed down from Moses and then written down over twenty-five hundred years ago leads one to believe this book has an authenticity and authority that cannot be matched by any other religious text.

CHAPTER THREE

THE SECOND DAY

T HE THEORY OF gravity in physics was first developed by Isaac Newton and then enhanced by Albert Einstein. In Newton’s theory of gravity it was an attraction between neutral masses at a distance; Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity proposes that the force we call gravity is caused by the distortion of space-time by the presence of mass.

But here in the second day the gravitational force is described as the ‘firmament.” It would appear from the Bible that gravity is an integral part of the structure of mass, that is to say that mass and gravity are unique in that gravity, referred to as “firmament,” is an extension of mass. This is more inline with Rene Descartes and James Clerk Maxwell’s concept of mass being vortices in the gravitational field of space. This could certainly lend credence to the general concept of curved space as Einstein predicted, but it is contrary to current scientific beliefs. The following will demonstrate;

Gen: 1; 6 – And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters

Gen: 1; 7 – And god made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which above the firmament and it was so.

Gen: 1; 8 – And God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the

morning were the second day.

The fact that the “firmament” formed “in the midst of the waters,” considered as mass from the primordial soup in the first day, s a concept as mass and gravity as being inseparable. This particular concept is untenable in physics today because of two main events in recent history. One is the Michelson-Morley experiment and the second is the Special Theory of Relativity.

Let us discuss the second reason first. In 1905 Einstein published his paper, “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES,” which contained his principle of relativity (it was not called the special theory until the publication of the General Theory in 1916). In this paper Einstein states; “. . . The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.” The reason for this statement was because until his paper the current held beliefs in physics were that all matter in the universe floated in an “ether” through which light, and electromagnetic energy, traveled in waves. Thomas Young, (1773-1829), British Doctor, physicist, and Egyptologist, had proven the wave effect in 1803. Thus physicists formulated that there must be something to wave because light was nothing more than an energy wave traveling through a medium. The medium must therefore be ether.

They also reasoned if light traveled through this medium at a certain speed and that if the Earth was also floating in this same medium then they should be able to measure the speed of the Earth through the medium using the speed of light. It is similar to measuring the speed of a boat in the water or the speed of an airplane traveling through the air. You do this by measuring the speed of the water ing around the boat or the speed of the air ing over the fuselage of an aircraft assuming the water or air is relatively stationary. This brings us back to the first reason, the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Albert Michelson, (1852-1931), and Edward Morley, (1838-1923), two American physicists, set up their experiment in a way to test the “ether wind” ing over, around or through the Earth. The idea was that if light traveled through the “ether” with constant speed, and the “ether” is relatively stationary then an “ether wind” should be produced with respect to the Earth when the Earth is traveling in any given direction. Therefore, they should be able to find interference patterns of light waves by comparing any two directions.

They did this by an experiment that is known as a split-beam experiment, using an instrument known as an interferometer. They took a single beam of light and split it with mirrors along two separate paths at 90o from each other and then brought it back together along a third path to see if there was any interference in the wave patterns. No matter which way they turned the experiment’s legs parallel to the surface of the Earth they found no interference significant enough to for the Earth’s velocity through the ether. This led them to conclude that there was no ether wind and therefore, no ether. Although renowned theoretical physicist George Francis Fitzgerald formulated a theory in 1889, and H. A. Lorentz formulated an equation in 1900 to explain this anomaly Einstein’s Principle of Relativity placed the final death blow to the concept of the ether. The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction equation was also the very same equation Einstein used in 1905 to formulate his Principle of Relativity, although he claimed not to be aware of it at the time.

We find that the first and second days of the Bible disagree with science on two fundamental, but very important issues. In the first day we see that the Bible alludes to the concept of time before the ‘big bang’ with which science disagrees, and the second day the idea of an ether called “firmament” which is also in disagreement with current theories in science. If there is indeed a second temporal dimension and there is also ether then it is possible to formulate a unified field equation. (In fact, this equation has been formulated for many years, in 1834, when Sir William Rowan Hamilton first formulated it. It simply needs a theory to make it cohesive. I cover this in the appendix.)

We previously said that Milne and Dirac’s theory of two temporal dimensions was disproved by experiment, but I feel this is because they had formulated it under a misconception. Even Einstein’s Principle of Relativity was formulated under this same misconception. This misconception has been perpetuated in physic circles even until today. The misconception is that the ether does not exist because of the supposed proof of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

It may not exist, but it was not disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment or any of the other succeeding experiments that have been carried out up to 1990 using masers and lasers.

The premise, as we , was based upon the idea that the ether and the Earth are separate phenomenon. That is, the Earth and ether exists independent from each other just as a boat exists without water or an airplane exists without air. However, the question never asked or answered is whether the ether and Earth are inseparable phenomenon or are just different manifestations of the same phenomenon. (Physicists should be completely aware of this concept since they continually talk about the wave-particle duality of light.) That is, does the Earth or every type of mass for that matter, exist because of the ether and vice versa? In other words, is mass a vortex in the ether like a whirlpool in water or a tornado in the air, just as Rene Descartes and James Clerk Maxwell first believed?

While tornadoes are real enough they cannot exist without the air that makes them. The same is true of whirlpools in water. If mass is somehow a whirlpool of the ether then the basic concept upon which the Principle of Relativity was formulated is flawed, as is the Milne and Dirac’s two temporal dimensions theory. It now becomes obvious that the Michelson-Morley experiment is the greatest incomplete experiment in history.

The vortex concept is not a new idea, as I have said. The great 19th century theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed the idea in formulating his equations of electromagnetism. Let me take an excerpt from John Gribbin’s book, “Schrödinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality.” In his discussion about James Clerk Maxwell, Dr. Gribbin says, “. . . He developed what now seems a bizarre physical image of the forces of electricity and magnetism being conveyed through the interactions of whirlpool-like vortices spinning in a fluid that filled all of the space between material objects – the ether… But the physical image Maxwell worked with in those years was not so important as the equations he was deriving. The same mathematics could describe different

physical systems, as the analogies to water and heat and snow; and Maxwell’s equations, whatever image they conjured up, did accurately describe the way forces between electrically charged or magnetized objects worked – provided the properties of the vortex medium (the ether) were chosen in the right way.

“His next leap of imagination was to consider what would happen if the vortex medium could be squeezed and stretched – if it was elastic. Obviously, waves can travel through an elastic medium. The speed those waves moved at depends on the properties of the medium, and in 1862 Maxwell found that, with the choice of properties needed to explain the forces of electricity and magnetism, the medium would transmit waves at the speed of light…

“There was still a lot of work to do to refine the mathematical description of electromagnetic phenomena and light. Maxwell found that he could abandon the concept of the vortex theory altogether, and explain every known electrical and magnetic phenomenon in of A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, the title of a paper published in 1864. The theory summed up everything there was to say about electricity and magnetism in a set of four equations, now known as Maxwell’s equations…”

Dr. Gribbin is a noted astrophysicist and author, but I feel he must have forgotten the right hand rule in vector analysis of electric flow. Vector analysis is a useful tool in physics and has been developed most specifically for the analysis of electromagnetic forces. This is what the right hand rule states in brief; if two vectors, two different lines with magnitude and direction, lie in a plane with a common point of origin and if we rotate one vector to the other so that the fingers on the right hand, when curled into a fist, point in the direction of rotation then the thumb is pointing perpendicular to the plane and in the direction of the product of the two vectors. The product of the vectors, along the thumb line, is the direction a right-hand screw (tornado) advances and electrons flow if turned in the direction the fingers are pointing. Maxwell’s equations, in essence, describe an electromagnetic tornado where the vortex is the path the electrons take in the direction of the thumb while the magnetic field swirls

around the wire. One should also note that nowhere in Maxwell’s equations does he use neutral mass. It is an electrical and magnetic phenomenon as Dr. Gribbin describes.

Einstein’s Principle of Relativity was based upon the concept of two independent systems (the observer and the observed) and their relative relationship with one another. But if the ether does exist, which I believe exists as dark energy and dark matter as scientists’ call it, then this particular concept is impossible to . It is possible to have one system, such as the primordial soup, or three systems when it is split into two or even more, but not just two systems. You have system one, the observer, and system two, the observed, and then you have system three, that the systems one and two make as a composite, the observer plus the observed. System three acts as a conveyance for all events shared between system one and system two. A prime example of this is the Earth and the Moon. They orbit the sun about a certain center of gravity as if they were a unit mass. The Moon does orbit the Earth, as well as the Earth orbits the Moon; however, the Earth’s rotation is faster than the Moon’s orbit so the Moon appears to rise and set. On the other hand the Earth’s orbital speed around the Moon is exactly the same speed as the Moon rotates, so, the Earth is locked into a lunar centric orbit so the same face of the Moon is always facing Earth. They both orbit the same center of gravity which is the same center of gravity that orbits the sun. An excerpt from Newton’s Principia de Mathematica will explain how this is;

PROPOSITION LXI, THEOREM XXIV. IF TWO BODIES ATTRACTING EACH OTHER WITH ANY KIND OF FORCES, AND NOT OTHERWISE AGITATED OR OBSTRUCTED, ARE MOVED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, THOSE MOTIONS WILL BE THE SAME AS IF THEY DID NOT AT ALL ATTRACT EACH OTHER MUTUALLY, BUT WERE BOTH ATTRACTED WITH THE SAME FORCES BY A THIRD BODY PLACED IN THEIR COMMON CENTER OF GRAVITY; AND THE LAW OF THE ATTRACTING FORCES WILL BE THE SAME IN RESPECT OF THE DISTANCE OF THE BODIES FROM THE COMMON CENTER, AS IN RESPECT OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE

TWO BODIES.

In Einstein’s 1905 paper, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon Its EnergyContent?” the third system plays a major part. Let us take an excerpt from that paper; “. . . H and E are energy values of the same “body referred to two systems of coordinates which are in motion relatively to each other, the body being at rest in one of the two systems (system(x, y, z)) . . .” it is obvious in the statement that the ‘body’ is, itself, an independent third system that is at rest in a common system that has another system in motion with respect to it. In truth the ‘body’ could be in motion with respect to both systems since it is independent of either system. It is only by the arbitrary determination of the observer, in this case Einstein; that determines with which system the ‘body’ is at relative rest. But it is totally essential for the common system, the observer, to be present for Einstein’s analysis to work.

Systems diagram showing one or three systems, but not just two.

In a proper analysis we can say that all systems in a state of equilibrium are in uniform motion and that ‘rest’ or ‘uniform linear translation’ is determined by a third independent system. ‘Rest’ is uniform motion where the relative velocity of the ‘body’ with respect to the observer is equal to zero, and ‘uniform linear translation’ is uniform motion where the relative velocity of the ‘body’ with respect to the observer is unequal to zero. Both are just different states of equilibrium determined by the observer. In short, Einstein’s principle requires an observer for his equation to work. If we formulate Einstein’s principle around the concept of states of equilibrium and eliminate the observer we find the equation changes slightly from Einstein’s original equation.

Perhaps if Einstein had formulated his now famous equation, E=mc², along this line of thought he would have come to the same conclusion, unfortunately he was working with the convention of his day. In fact, using the three systems and the concept of relative motion as states of equilibrium as just described above and eliminating the observer the equation would have worked out more like this, [(2+n²)/2]mc²=E. In this equation all the symbols remain the same as in Einstein’s original equation, except that n is equal to any partial or whole number whatsoever times the speed of light, so that nc = v. While this equation looks more exotic that Einstein’s original, it is not. This equation simply states that, as in the original, the total potential energy of a mass is mc² and still maintains the equivalency of mass and energy. However, its determined state of equilibrium, whether at relative rest with any other body, or its relative velocity with respect to any other mass, becomes a part of its total energy. But unlike Einstein’s theory, this equation allows velocities greater than the velocity of light. One cannot see an object going faster than light, but one can measure increases in its total energy.

This equation is not new, however. It is the Hamiltonian function, first published in 1834 by Sir William Rowan Hamilton, (1805-1865). My variation is a slightly

different interpretation. One variation of this equation is the equation for which Einstein won his Nobel Prize. It is known as the photo-electric effect. Another variation of this equation was used as recently as 1996 in the Physical Review’s Rapid Communications by Timothy Krishner to show the gravitational redshift in a local freely falling frame. This equation in another variation shows the Hubble constant divided by the square root of two, whenever it is finally deciphered, and yet another variation shows that Maxwell’s equations can be derived from this equation, which also incorporates the inductance field. (For those mathematically minded the equations and explanations are in the Appendix.)

Yet science requires proof that such a thing as two temporal dimensions and ether exists. There is a simple experiment that can deduce whether there is or is not an ether. It is a variation of the Michelson-Morley experiment including a variation of the Robert Pound and George Rebka experiment of 1960.

The Pound-Rebka experiment was set up to show the time dilation effect of general relativity. Using Iron-57 gamma radiation and the Mossbauer Effect they were able to show the blue shift and red shift of the resonance of the ray by using an elevator shaft of more than 73 feet and by varying the speed of the emitter and the scintillation receiving device.

These experiments have already been incorporated into practice with what is now known as the Global Positioning System (GPS). The Ground Positioning System (GPS) uses two temporal properties to locate anyone at any time on the face of the Earth. One is called motional or coordinate time (electromagnetic time according to the special theory of relativity) and the other is called proper or gravitational time (as according to the general theory of relativity). There is the time dilation of the clock involved with coordinate or motional time and the relative positional time dilation involved with the position of the clock in the gravity well. The professional journal NATURE just recently published an article that showed that cesium atoms, the atoms by which we set up our atomic clocks, vibrate at different rates just one meter apart in a gravity well. (A gravity

well simply means different depths and gravitational densities.) In other words, the cesium atoms on the ground at the bottom of your meter stick will vibrate slightly slower than the ones one meter off the ground on the top of your meter stick.

They GPS system uses cesium clocks on the surface of the Earth and cesium clocks orbiting the Earth. This experiment shows that mass and ether – as an extension of mass – are inseparable phenomena; and that the gravitational field exists as a distortion of the ether or dark energy; and also the fact that there does exist dual time coordinates. It has also been found that the cesium clocks on Earth have an annual variation of about .0017 seconds due to Earth’s orbital apogee, slowing down or greatest distance from the sun, and perigee, speeding up or its closest approach, in its orbit around the sun.

There is more ing evidence for this concept in Einstein’s theories of relativity, both the special and the general theory. Scientists and physicists have been using the mathematics of Einstein and his theories but they have overlooked some fundamental logic. Let us take an excerpt from Einstein’s On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, (the special theory), section 4; “. . . A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion – viewed from the stationary system – the form of an ellipsoid of revolution…

Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension, (the diameter), appears shortened…” Now let us take an excerpt from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, section 3; “. . . We suppose that the circumference and diameter of this circle have been measured with a unit measure infinitely small compared with the radius, and that we have the quotient of the two results. If this experiment were performed with a measuring-rod at rest relatively to the Galilean system K, the quotient would be π. With a measuring-rod at rest relatively to K’, the quotient would be greater than π. This is readily understood if we envisage the whole process of measuring from the

“stationary” system K, and take into consideration a Lorentzian contraction, while the one applied along the radius does not… .”

We actually have two naturally occurring events that these scenarios that Einstein just described above; the Earth and the Moon. If we could take a snapshot of the Moon and get a just measure of the Moon’s width, we could then set a measure of its track across the sky. However, according to Einstein’s first description we would find that the Moon’s track would be slightly greater than would be expected from the measure of its diameter as measured from Earth because of its contraction due to the Earth’s steady rotation of a thousand miles per hour. This makes the Moon to appear to be contracted moving across the sky at a steady linear velocity. Truly, though, this is really too short to measure, but it is the same analogy. This is ed by the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction equation and the special theory of relativity.

Now, conversely if we are standing on the Moon and looking down on the Earth and watch as someone takes this same measuring rod we used to measure the Moon’s track across the sky and measure the circumference of the Earth we would expect them to get a greater measure than π. This is envisioned as we are standing on the Moon watching as the measuring rod contracts in the direction of the Earth’s rotation. We can do this because the Earth is lunar-centric and while the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, the Earth will rotate on its axis with respect to the Moon. This is ed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, Einstein’s time dilation equation and the general theory of relativity.

The two following diagram’s, system K and system K’, will demonstrate these scenarios described by Einstein. Consider the one on the left similar to the Moon and the one on the right similar to the Earth in rotation with clocks in the center and on the circumference. In Einstein’s example of the rotating disc, the centrifugal force acts similarly as the gravitational force on Earth.

Let us now take one more excerpt from Einstein’s book, Relativity, the Special and General Theory, from Appendix III; “. . . we represent the difference of potential of the centrifugal force between the position of the clock and the centre of the disc by Φ, i.e. the work, considered negatively, which must be performed on the unit of the mass against the centrifugal force in order to transport it from the position of the clock on the rotating disc to the centre of the disc, . . .” He follows with the equations to show that an atom in a gravitational field vibrates at a different rate as one in free space, which demonstrates time dilation in a gravitational field.

However, what Einstein seems to forget and every physicist and mathematician seems to forget is that a clock located on the periphery of any disc does not travel in just one direction. Einstein was trying to maintain what is known as a four-dimensional Minkowski space-time. Hermann Minkowski, (1864-1909) was one of Einstein’s professors when he was in college and was the author of the four dimensional space-time continuum. But Einstein’s scenario requires five dimensions as the following diagram, system K”, will demonstrate;

As Einstein suggests, if we actually apply work to move the clock in a straight line along the radius to the center of the disc then two things happen; it must contract with respect the special theory along the radius and in the same motion it must contract with the rotation along the periphery as in the general theory. In fact, if the disc simply stayed stationary on the circumference, it travels this vector continually, only not to as great a degree. The Global Positioning System is based exactly upon this phenomenon. However most scientists have a difficult time understanding or accepting that there are indeed two temporal dimensions, even though, the two dimensions are called by separate names, gravitational or proper time and motional or coordinate time.

If we follow the clock’s motion from the periphery of the circumference to the center, from the stand point of the disc at relative rest, it will appear to follow a spiral into the center. With respect to one rotating with the disc the clock simply seems to take a straight line shot to the center. We see this happen every time we launch a space shuttle into outer space. Everybody and everything, without exception, follows this same track through space and time. However, in nature the forces are reversed from the disc, it is the centrifugal force that pushes us away from the Earth and the centripetal force is the gravitational force that pushes us back down.

The diagram above s the concept of two contractions and therefore two temporal dimensions and is derived from Einstein’s own logic. It is also because of the diagram above and the Pythagorean Theorem that the temporal dimensions are additive.

However, the most interesting thing about this phenomenon is the tangent, the hypotenuse. Anyone familiar with trigonometry recognizes that the hypotenuse is the tangent to the slope of the spiral at any given point. To explain let us take another excerpt from Mario Livio’s book, The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, The World’s Most Astonishing Number; “. . . Some of the greatest mathematical minds of all ages, from Pythagoras and Euclid in ancient Greece, through the

medieval Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa and the Renaissance astronomer Johannes Kepler, to present-day scientific figures such as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose, have spent endless hours over this simple ratio and its properties. But the fascination with the Golden Ratio is not confined just to mathematicians. Biologists, artists, musicians, historians, architects, psychologists, and even mystics have pondered and debated the basis of its ubiquity and appeal. In fact, it is probably fair to say that the Golden Ratio has inspired thinkers of all disciplines like no other number in the history of mathematics…”

Euclid in his book, Elements, provides the first known written definition of the Golden Ratio, “A straight line is said to have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the less.” Here is an example taken from Wikipedia on line of just what Euclid was talking about. But it has much greater significance that one supposes from just its definition.

The Logarithmic Spiral of the Golden Ratio where the sides of the rectangle are cut into extreme and mean ratios.

This logarithmic spiral phenomenon is found throughout nature from the spiral galaxies in the universe to quantum mechanics; from animals in the sea to plants and animals growing on Earth including man himself; used by architects and artists alike and found in the scales of music. The ratios of the Fibonacci sequence, made famous from Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Codes, actually produce the Golden Ratio.

This phenomenon is so prevalent throughout nature that one might call it the mathematical signature of God. It certainly has mystified every philosopher, mathematician, physicist and who discovered it throughout history. It can even be linked to the Holy Trinity. If we accept that, ‘a’ equals alpha, ‘Α,’ for the Son, ‘b’ equals omega, ‘Ω,’ for the Holy Spirit, Enlightenment, Knowledge, Wisdom, Insight and Understanding of the Truth, and ‘a + b’ equals alpha and omega, ‘Α + Ω,’ for the Father, this would then be God’s signature equation; (1+√5)/2 = ϕ = 1.6180339887… This is the firmament of the heavens and the universe.

All well studied Christians are familiar with the concept of the Godly Mansions from the following verses of the New Testament;

John: 14: 2 – In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you.

14: 3 – And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive

you Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

14: 4 – And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

If, indeed, the Father’s house (His dwelling place or habitation) is the universe then there must truly be many solar systems in many galaxies. Scientists are recently aware of over five hundred other solar systems in our own galaxy alone; and there are billions of galaxies. And in just recent discoveries they have found hundreds that are Earth similar that is to say at the “Goldilocks” distance from their star that would allow life to form just like here on Earth.

The event described in the second day is the formation of our solar system. The following excerpts from the Encyclopedia Americana will demonstrate what is really happening in these verses;

“. . . According to the dust-cloud theory, the solar system was formed from a slowly rotating cloud of dust and gas that contracted and started to rotate faster in its outer parts, where eddies formed. These eddy were small near the center of the cloud and larger at greater distances from the center…

As the clouds cooled, materials coalesced near the edged of the eddies and eventually formed planets and asteroids, all moving in the same direction. The slowly rotating central part of the cloud condensed and formed the sun, and the sun’s central temperature rose as gravity further compressed the material. When nuclear actions eventually began in the sun’s interior, about five (5) billion years ago, much of the nearby gas was blown away by the pressure of the sun’s emitted light. Nevertheless the earth retained an atmosphere consisting of methane, ammonia, carbon monoxide, water vapor, and nitrogen, with perhaps some hydrogen…

Although free ashes near the sun were blown outward 4 to 5 billion years ago, according to the dust-cloud theory, the giant planets were too distant to be much affected. They are large, therefore, and contain a great amount of hydrogen…

An important conclusion to be drawn from the dust-cloud theory is that similar events undoubtedly take place in the formation of other stars, depending on the mass and angular momentum of the contracting nebula. About 50% of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy may have planets of some kind.”

It is interesting to see just how the Bible coincides with this description of the formation of the solar system. The dividing of the waters from the waters by the firmament is a perfect description of the gravitational forces causing the dustcloud to coalesce, forming eddies or currents that formed the planets.

When God calls the firmament heaven we realize He is referring to the solar system which acts as a unit mass with the sun as its center. We only see the unique individual effects because we are small compared with the solar system as a whole, and it is as if we were looking from the inside out so to speak. We can see its effects on us and the planets around us, but in the overall scheme of things it acts as a single, undivided unit of mass out into the far reaches of space as we referred to above with reference to Newton.

How can we be sure this phrase was referring to the solar system? The above analysis is fairly conclusive, but the following verse from the Bible will help clarify;

Gen: 2:1 – Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them.

This single verse is clearly in agreement with the conclusion. In this verse the reference to a plural ‘heavens’ leads one to believe that there are multitudes of solar systems that formed exactly the same way ours did. The actual literal translation for the phrase ‘all the host of them,’ is ‘and all their armies.’ Most probably, this is a reference not only to the multitude of stars, galaxies and planets that have formed in the universe, but also of the many other life forms on other planets as well. The Bible alludes to this and it is hard to believe the Lord would only make one planet in this large universe with life on it. As we said previously, in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, we know of at least five hundred solar systems other than ours.

This particular concept also gets from Lawrence M Krauss, noted Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics and Professor of Astronomy and Chairman of the Department of Physics at Case Western University. He writes in his book, “The Physics of Star Trek,” the following, “Finally, what about planets? . . . Certainly a fair fraction of observed stars have another stellar companion, in so-called binary systems. Moreover, many young stars are observed to have circumstellar disks of dust and gas which are presumably the progenitors of planets. Various numerical models for predicting the distribution of planetary masses and orbits in such disks suggest (and I emphasize the word “suggest”) that they will produce on average at least one Earthlike planet at an Earthlike distance from its star…

. . . It is almost miraculous that the normal laws of physics and chemistry, combined with an expanding universe more than some 10 billion years old, lead to the evolution of conscious minds that can study the universe out of which they were born. Nevertheless, while the circumstances that led to life on Earth are special, they appear to be by no means peculiar to Earth. The arguments above suggest that there could easily be over a billion possible sites for organic life in our galaxy. And since our galaxy is merely one out of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, I find it hard to believe that we are alone. Moreover, as I noted earlier, most Population 1 stars were formed earlier than our Sun was – up to 5 billion years earlier. Given the time frame discussed above, it is likely that

intelligent life evolved on many sites billions of years before our Sun was ever born. In fact, it might be expected that most intelligent life in the galaxy existed before ours. Thus, depending upon how long intelligent civilizations persist, the galaxy could be full of civilizations that have been around literally billions of years longer than we have… As one researcher cogently put the issue over 20 years ago, “The question of whether there is intelligent life out there depends, in the last analysis, upon how intelligent that life is.”

The second day is a “very-to-the-point” kind of day. It points out that the reference of mass as waters has certain significance. The word ‘waters’ denotes certain fluidity. The mass at the beginning of the big bang and the dust-cloud which formed the solar system were fluid, or, at least, had the capability of being pliable and malleable, with continuity like water. Also significant, a major part of water is hydrogen, the fundamental element of the universe. It is significant so one will not be confused with the use of the word, ‘waters,’ in the following or third day. Here the fundamental element of the universe, hydrogen, combines with one of the major elements of Earth, oxygen, to form the waters of Earth, seas.

CHAPTER FOUR

DAYS THREE, FOUR AND FIVE

T HE NEXT THREE days are probably the most significant in being convincing of the authenticity of the Bible. The similarity in these three days and the actual events of the geological and early developmental history of the Earth are astounding in many respects.

The first verse of the third day involves knowledge that could only have been discovered in one of two ways. You either had to be there when it happened to observe it; or, it had to be deduced the same way our scientists and geologists did. That could not have been done until the whole Earth had been mapped.

The continental drift theory of the land mass of the Earth was not seriously proposed until the twentieth century. It has gained acceptance because of mapping of the Earth, measurements of the Earth’s mantle, satellite pictures of the Earth, and fossils found on the different continents. Take this excerpt from Collier’s Encyclopedia, Continent; “. . . The idea of “continental drift” developed by the German meteorologist Alfred Wegener during the first quarter of the 20th century, was based on the remarkable fit of the coastlines of eastern south America and western Africa, and on the similarities of the rocks and fossils on either side of the south Atlantic.”

The first verse of the third day is as follows;

Gen: 1; 9 – And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

How does this demonstrate the continental drift theory? If the water are gathered together into ‘one place,’ a superocean, and not divided onto the oceans and seas as they are today, then it is a simple and logical assumption that the land was also gathered onto one place, a supercontinent.

In the early development of the Earth when the seas gathered unto one place the early continents formed. This formation took place just before the Paleozoic era of the Earth. This is a period of time extending from about 240 million years to about 570 millions years ago. During the Paleozoic era the northern continents merged to form Laurasia, which merged with Gondwanaland to form what was called Pangaea. The Earth was one land mass, the dry land appeared. In fact, this was the third such happening, the first was Rodinia and the second was Ponnotia. But Pangaea was the last and the largest and broke up into our continents of today. Here is a short excerpt from the Encyclopedia Americana, The Earth’s History, describing the event;

“. . . Between about 400 and 250 million years ago the supercontinent of Laurasia became fully consolidated and collided with Gondwanaland to form a single supercontinent, Pangaea…”

The seas were gathered unto one place and so was the dry land.

More of the third day description in the Bible seems to the concept that this was indeed the Paleozoic era.

Gen: 1; 10 – And God called the dry land Earth: and the gathering together of the waters called He seas: and God saw that it was good.

However the next three verses seems to be referring more the Mesozoic era and the Cretaceous period.

Gen: 1; 11 – And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1; 12 – And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1; 13 – And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Many things happened during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic era of the Earth. During these periods of development early invertebrate animals, early fishes, sharks and rays appeared; mammals and reptiles also appeared, as well as dinosaurs. Many, in fact, most of these animals became extinct before the end of the eras.

TABLE

ERA

PERIOD

APROXIMATE TIME BOUNDARIES LAND MASS Epoch

Precambrian Paleozoic Cambrian Ordovician Silurian Devonian

4.6 Ga – 700 Ma 700 Ma – 570 Ma 570 Ma 500 Ma 430 Ma 395 Ma Mississippian 345 Ma

Rodinia Ponnotia Pangaea* “. . . . . . .” “. . . . . . .” “. . . . . . .” “. . . . . . .”

Pennsylvanian 320 Ma 280 Ma 225 Ma 195 Ma 136 Ma Paleocene 65 Ma** Eocene 54 Ma Oligocene 38 Ma Miocene 26 Ma Pliocene 12 Ma Pleistocene 2.5 Ma Eocene 10,000 years ago*** Holocene Current

“. . . . . . .” “. . . . . . .”

Carboniferous[ Permian Mesozioc Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Cenozoic Tertiary

Quaternary

Begins Breaki Continues Bre Continents of Forming Up Continents as know them to

Continues stil Today

Ga – Billion years ago * – Period of time referred to in the Bible on the third day(Microsoft Table copy) Ma – Million years ago **-Period of time referred to in the Bible on the fourth day ***Period of time referred to in the Bible on the fifth day

When the Earth was very young the first type of life to form was plant life. This included algae, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are one-celled animals with a cell wall and prokaryotes were those one-celled animals without an external wall. These first types of life first formed in the oceans of the Earth. These eventually evolved into the vascular land plants and the first seed bearing plants. The actual literal translation for the word ‘seed’ in this age is ‘semen.’ In other words these were plants that ed their seed through the water and the air similar to dandelions or cattails. Spore bearing plants and fern forests appeared around the middle of the Paleozoic era. This excerpt from the Americana Encyclopedia, The Earth’s History, will explain;

“. . . During the early Devonian the first unequivocally terrestrial organisms – seedless vascular plants and amphibians – appeared and quickly diversified. During the Carboniferous, lush swamps of seed ferns and lycopsids flourished on extensive floodplains adjacent to major mountain basins. Peat deposits in these swamps gave rise to the major coal deposits of the carboniferous coal measures…

“. . . In Laurasia, calamites (giant horsetails) and protoconifers began to displace the plants of the coal measures. In Gondwanaland, however, a distinct temperatezone plant life developed, characterized by Glossopteris, possibly a flowering plant…”

Near the end of the Paleozoic era and on into the Mesozoic era conifers and trees bearing fruit appeared. Another excerpt from the same page;

“. . . Primitive conifers and gingkos dominated the Mesozoic landscape until the mid-Cretaceous, about 100 million years ago. At that time forests of broadleaved trees appeared abruptly. These trees were angiosperms (flowering plants) similar to modern broad-leaved trees, and they were pollinated by insects similar to modern insects. Both groups – trees and insects – are still thriving.”

As time evolved all these plants became more sophisticated and from the midCretaceous through the Cenozoic era finally developed into the grasses, herb yielding seed and fruit trees we have today ing life on Earth.

It is easy to draw a line on a graph and say this is the beginning or the end of an era, but in reality there is no exact end of one era and the beginning of another. However, there are certain events, mass extinctions and repopulations in some cases that mark the changing from one era to another, and these three days demonstrate significant and recognizable changes that can be linked to these eras.

The order in which the third day describes the sequence of plant life development on earth is consistent and necessary. It was completely necessary for plant life to develop before animal life could be successful. Plants are responsible for the oxygen in our atmosphere as well as the greatest source of food. Without plants almost all animal life would soon die off from the face of the earth as we will see in the fourth day.

There is also another reason that the Bible deals with the plant life development rather than the animals. Dr. Schroeder states this observation in his book, “. . . A gradual or slow, evolution of a new species from one that predates it, is never

seen in the fossil record. In fact, an of the fossil record shows that as far as macroevolution is concerned, stasis, not change, is the trend with all species yet formed.”

Just as tree rings give a history of the life of any tree; good years, bad years, drought years, even disease and fire, it is the plant life that holds the evolutionary record of the earth, not the animal life.

Just because the Paleozoic era came to an end it did not mean that plants ceased to evolve or to change throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras. Likewise, because the third day only describes the Cretaceous period of the evolution of plant life did not mean that some kind of animal life was not also evolving as the graph above demonstrates.

Let us refer back to Mr. Santinover’s book, “Cracking the Bible Code;” “. . . The “garden” of meaning hidden within the Torah was designed upon a set of principles only hinted at in the ancient manuscripts. The researchers were not much closer to a complete description. Eliyahu Rips proceeded to test the principles arrived at so far by looking for unusual clusters of different but related words in locations where – if the phenomenon was real – they “ought” to occur. Two convenient examples to test in Genesis consisted of lists of : the “seed-bearing plants” and the trees with “seed-bearing fruit” given to man for food in the Garden of Eden. Both the plants and the trees were mentioned in Genesis, but neither group was listed expressly there; all were named specifically, however in the oral tradition, as species encoded in Genesis, as ELSs, close to one another, at relatively small skips between their letters – just as the length of the lunar cycle needed for religious purposes had been.

“In fact, all seven edible species of seed-bearing fruit in the Land of Israel were found encoded in just the age of text that alludes to them, at a range of equidistant intervals smaller that the same list could be found encoded elsewhere in Genesis; and in a smaller amount of overall text: (1) Barley; (2) Wheat; (3)

Vine; (4) Date; (5) Olive; (6) Fig; (7) Pomegranate.”

Santinover goes on to add that Rips also found all twenty-five of the fruit bearing trees according to oral tradition. This age shows us the uniqueness of the surface text as well as the underlying code of the description of the third day.

The fourth day has always been an enigma. No one could figure out exactly what it was referring too. Was there no sun, no moon, no stars or seasons until the fourth day? Even Jewish scholars do not count the sun as appearing until the fourth day. We have just seen in the third day how the plants developed on the earth, and they need the sun for growth. How could this be logical? It was not until the decade of the eighties that we can finally understand. During this decade a theory was proposed that helps explain not only the disappearance of the dinosaurs and the previously unexplained massive extinctions in evolutionary history but what the fourth day is talking about.

As stated above each day depicts a specific event which can be associated with an era to identify it. This particular day is referring to an event that brought to a close the Mesozoic era and the oncoming of the Cenozoic era and specifically the Tertiary period and the Paleocene epoch, and perhaps it occurred in other eras before them, which is described by the fourth day. Let us take a closer look;

Gen: 1; 14 – And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for season, and for days, and years;

1; 15 – And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1; 16 – And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also.

1; 17 – And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.

1; 18 – And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

1; 19 – And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

This event literally describes the end of the Mesozoic era; the beginning of the Cenozoic era, the Tertiary period and the Paleocene epoch. as previously stated the first three days spoke as if an observer were suspended somewhere in space describing the events as they took place here on the Earth, but the fourth day appears as if the observer is now standing on the surface of the Earth looking up to the sky. It is this point of view that is critical in understanding what is being said and how it refers to the Paleocene epoch.

During the Mesozoic era dinosaurs reigned supreme as kings. Smaller mammals also developed but were not the prolific and gigantic animals the dinosaurs were. Dinosaurs reigned for nearly one-hundred fifty million years. We would consider these a very successful species of animal. Then in just one fell swoop dinosaurs disappeared from the face of the Earth, or, at least, in a period of time too short to be attributed to natural evolution. Scientists were mystified as to why, until the following theory was developed. The theory states that a meteor, about six miles in diameter, struck the Earth causing a massive cloud of debris to surround the Earth for a period of about three years or more. It completely blocked out any

light from the sun, moon, and stars causing the temperature of the Earth to drop rapidly and drastically killing much of the vegetation that ed the herbivorous dinosaurs. When the plant-eaters died off the meat-eaters soon followed. In only a few short years most of the great and majestic animals died from starvation, leaving only the smaller mammals to survive. After a span of time, the clouds surrounding the Earth begin to clear and plants begin to grow again. Hence the sun, moon and the stars were once again visible from the surface of the Earth. This theory has recently been substantiated by scientists. A thin layer of iridium exists all over the Earth and on the ocean floors at the approximate layer of where the Mesozoic era ends and the Cenozoic era begins. This thin layer of iridium could have only been deposited by the meteor when it impacted the Earth. Here is an excerpt from the Collier’s Encyclopedia, Dinosaurs, which will explain;

“. . . In the late1970’s Luis W. Alvarez and other scientists at the University of California in Berkeley began a chemical analysis of the clay as a possible means of dating it… The scientists found unexpectedly that the concentration of rare heavy metals – especially iridium – was much higher than in the sedimentary rocks below and above it. The shallowness of the clay bed, which is only about 1 to 2 inches (25-50mm) thick, indicates that the event that deposited the iridium was sudden and brief on the geological time scale…

The peak concentrations of heavy metals found in the Cretaceous-Paleocene clay is much higher than those found in other sedimentary rocks on the earth. However, such concentrations are characteristic of many meteorites…

Alvarez and others calculated that a meteorite – probably an asteroid with a diameter of about 6 miles (10km) could provide the amount of heavy metals found in the Mesozoic-Cenozoic boundary layer worldwide. If such an object hit the earth, it would create a massive crater, disintegrate, and throw up a dust cloud that might obscure the sun for months. This would lead to the death of many plant-eating animals and eventually to the death of the carnivores that feed on them. The absence of sunlight would also bring about an unusually cold

winter that might kill off some of the surviving species…

Most biologists believe that a disaster of this kind caused by the impact of a large asteroid is the most likely explanation for the sudden disappearance of the dinosaurs…”

Evidence for this impact has been found in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. The impact crater appears to be approximately 124 miles in diameter and extends into the Gulf of Mexico. An ejecta sheet, a spray of debris from the edge of the crater, has been found over vast regions of North America. Cometenriched material from the fiery explosion has been found all over the world.

We wonder at the mystery and the awesomeness of the dinosaurs; the majesty of these giants that roamed our earth for millions of years before man was even born.

Other events took place during the Mesozoic era to which these verses also refer. During the Mesozoic era the earth began to break up into the continents that formed the Earth the way we know it today. The reference to seasons, days and years as we know it today is insinuated here, mainly because herbaceous plants are seasonal plants which cycle with the seasons that are determined by the relationship of the Earth to the sun, moon and stars. Another excerpt from the Encyclopedia Americana will help demonstrate this;

“. . . Between about 245 and 65 million years ago the super-continent of Pangaea broke up progressively, divided by rifts that broadened as a result of spreading of the seafloor that created the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. North and South America, Africa, and Eurasia rapidly began to assume their present size, composition and approximate relative positions…”

The reference, “signs,” in the above quote could be referring to the astronomy, as well as the astrology, used by primitive man but is most likely talking about seasonal changes. The equinoxes and solstices are very important in early human history with respect to planting and harvesting, and still are today. As we will see later, it was the study of these ‘signs’ by primitive man that helps him in his agrarian life as a farmer.

‘Heaven’ is referring to our solar system, as the Bible depicts it, and not only are the sun, moon, and the stars all visible from the Earth, but also the other planets in our solar system. It was the study of these planets in the solar system that lead us to discover the meteor belts that exists between Mars and Jupiter and just beyond Pluto. Scientists believe that it was a meteor from one of these belts that fell from orbit and finally struck the Earth causing the dramatic end of the dinosaurs’ reign.

The reference, ‘ruling over the day and over the night and dividing the light from the darkness,’ is indicative of the end of the cloud that had covered the Earth for some length of years. It also marked the end of the fourth day and the Mesozoic era, beginning the fifth day and the Cenozoic era.

The fifth day is very obviously a reference to the Cenozoic era, but more than that it holds some insights that have been a bone of contention for creationists for years. Let us take a look at the following verses;

Gen: 1; 20 – And God said, Let the waters bring fourth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1; 21 – And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1; 22 – And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

1; 23 – And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

Why is this an obvious reference to the Cenozoic era? Although birds arose in the Mesozoic era (some paleontologists believe them to be the remnants of dinosaurs today and probably are) they began to flourish during the Cenozoic era. Not only that, but this is the era of the mammals. Although the actual literal translation of the words ‘great whales’ used here are more like alligators or crocodiles, which also arose in the Mesozoic era, whales, large land animals and mammals became the reigning species of the Cenozoic era. The most interesting aspect of these verses is that it settles the argument between the creationists and evolutionists.

Charles Darwin, (1809-1882), who wrote the book, “Origin of Species,” promoted the idea that all life sprang from the sea and diversified from there onto land. Creationists have never been able to accept that the origin of all life came from the sea. However, this verse states that all ‘Moving creature that hath life,’ was to be brought forth by the waters (seas) abundantly. The actual literal translation of this verse is more like “. . . Let the water swarm with swarmers having a living soul . . .” (We will see shortly that the creature is named by God and is called man).

Who should better know if all life came from the seas or oceans than the angels (aliens)? They were here from the start as the scriptures indicate and, in fact,

they may have even been the ones who started life on this Type 1 planet as Dr. Krauss stated his book. So this is statement of fact that all life was developed from the seas in the Precambrian period and continued through the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic eras until the Cenozoic era, the era in which we now find ourselves. Many get this verse confused with a verse nearly the same in the sixth day. In that verse in the sixth day the earth is to ‘bring fourth the living creature after his kind’ which could literally be translated to this; ‘ . . . Let the earth bring fourth the living soul after its kind . . .” This is an example of the life being spawned on earth after it is already living. It starts its life in the sea and later evolves to spawn upon the earth.

This gives the very idea that all living creatures and perhaps all animals have a soul. The very definition of a living soul is given in the second chapter of Genesis. It states; “. . . and blew into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living soul . . .” Something every Pediatrician knows is that when the fetus is first formed the brain has to work because of the autonomic nervous system. This is the part of the nervous system that works to control all the automatic functions of the body that function without conscious thought. The heart has to start pumping to begin supplying all the functioning body parts with oxygen supplied by the blood, even if at the time it is the mother’s blood. But the major contributing factor to sustaining the life of a newborn child outside the womb is the development of the lungs. No matter how much a newborn has brain activity or a heart beat it cannot live if its lungs cannot sustain its life. This is why premature babies are put in incubators and force fed oxygen until their lungs develop enough to their life independent of the machines. They are not a “living soul” until they can breathe on their own.

This leads us to another interesting quandary. It is an argument among some scientists that life spontaneously generated in the seas during the early development of the Earth. However, we have numerous, every day, examples that living, animated matter generates both living, animate matter as well as nonliving, inanimate matter. There are absolutely no examples of any form of inanimate matter spontaneously generating living, animate matter. So how would an inanimate Earth, even in its early days of development when the stage is set properly, generate living, animate matter such as the one cell animals and algae

that developed into the world we know today? Let me quote what Dr. Schroeder has to say about it in his book, ‘ . . . The advance from single-celled to multicelled organisms was a complex orchestration of events. But how much more complex was the transition from the nonliving to the living, from inert mineral compounds to the extraordinary complexity of DNA and RNA found in even the most simple bacterium! The transition from single-celled life to multicellular life took 2.5 billion years. The fossil record shows that the transition moving from the nonliving to the living was accomplished in onetenth of that time. Could this have happened so rapidly if random, unguided events were the creating forces? Statistically, even logically, it is so highly improbable that the likelihood is close to zero.

The evidence of the fossil record implies that either life was brought to Earth or that it was manufactured here by nonconventional forces (a Superintelligence or Creator?) or chance has played a trick on the statistics of mankind…” Some scientists believe that living organism must have come from some other planet through meteorites or spores that could survive the extreme cold of space and fell to Earth. But even this requires that life had to begin somewhere else in the universe even if not on this planet; but where and how? The answer is far simpler, as we will discover.

Let us look at another excerpt from the Encyclopedia Americana, Geology; The Earth’s History; “. . . Among land animals the mammals almost completely replace previously dominant reptiles as the result of an explosive diversification in the Paleocene and Eocene epochs. Whales appeared in the Eocene and diversified greatly. Primitive mammals had largely died out by the middle of the Tertiary, and grazing animals appeared in the late Miocene following the development of grasslands and savannas. Both rodents and primates expanded greatly in the Miocene and Pliocene, including the oldest known hominid precursor in the Miocene…”

During this era the first hominids also form. That is to say that the first creatures that resemble man developed and begin to appear. Many creationists disagree

with the concept that they and apes have the same origin, but you will see that the Bible agrees with this to a degree. This will be seen in the sixth day.

Panspermia is a hypothesis that ‘seeds’ of life exist all over the universe and that those seeds of life are delivered not just to Earth but to other habitable planets. There is as yet no evidence to or contradict that Panspermia exists. Panspermia does not suggest that life originated only once and then spread throughout the Universe, but instead once started it spreads to other habitable environments suitable for replication.

If this is true, because of the logic mentioned earlier, where animated matter generates both living, animate matter as well as non-living, inanimate matter, this would mean that the Universe is itself a living organism; for only living organisms can regenerate living organism. Therefore the Universe would be alive.

What the Bible suggests is another concept that is a derivative of Panspermia; exogenesis. This related idea proposes that life on Earth was transferred from elsewhere in the Universe. Since the angels (aliens) have been working with the Earth from the beginning it is possible that they initiated life and continued to work with the life on Earth throughout Earth’s history.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE SIXTH DAY

T HIS IS THE most controversial of the seven days and the one with which creationists take greatest exception. They vehemently protest that man’s origin and that of monkey’s is the same. God created man in His own image therefore God would have to be a monkey if man and monkey originated from the same origin. Neither their protests nor their assertion that God would have had to be a monkey are true. The sixth day will demonstrate that even though evolution was in progress with the early development of man, God uses this to bring forth a man very similar to what we have today. And still the angels (aliens) formed a man of advanced genetics to infuse into the race of man developed here on Earth. Let us take a look at the sixth day:

Gen: 1; 24 – And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1; 25 – And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The actual literal translation of this age is probably more accurate today than in the days when it was first translated into English. The literal translation goes something like this;

Gen: 1; 24 – And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living soul after its kind, cattle, and the insects, and the animal of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1; 25 – And God made the animal of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and all insects of the land after their kind: and God saw that it was good.

We notice the difference in the reference to the ‘living creature after his kind’ in the sixth day and the fifth day reference to ‘every living creature that moveth’ or more precisely ‘the living soul after his kind’ on the sixth day and ‘every living soul that moves’ on the fifth day. The fifth day holds the secret to the origin of all living souls and the sixth day holds the solution to their development.

But what is even more conspicuous here is in verse 1:24 we have a reference to ‘the living soul after its kind,’ and in verse 1:25 there is no reference to ‘the creature’ or ‘the living soul’ at all, but only a reference to cattle, animals and insects. Most interpreters of the Bible presume that the cattle, animals and insects are the creatures to which the previous sentence was referring, but the reference to living souls begins in verse 1:26. What these two verses are saying is that the cattle, animals and insects that have life are now thriving and spawning of the face of the Earth. Prehistoric man, the creature or living soul, is also a part of this evolutionary development; this is very true of the Cenozoic era.

Gen: 1; 26 – And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

This verse, now referring to the creature or living soul of verse 1:24, indicates that there is a plan to alter the evolutionary development of the prehistoric man that has already developed. Why? First, because the actual literal translation of ‘let us make . . .’ is more likely “was made . . .” or “became . . .” Secondly, the previous verse intentionally skips the mentioning of the ‘creatures’ or ‘living souls,’ which indicates that man is already alive, and they intend to deal with ‘the creatures’ separately (this is a generic ‘man’ which includes both male and female). The intent is to alter man’s evolution, to make him dominant over ‘fish of the sea, . . . the fowl of the air, . . . the cattle, . . . the animals of earth, . . . and over the insects . . .’ What change can make evolutionary man more dominant over lower species of animals; a change in brain capacity and intelligence. In the next few verses it talks about this alteration and then says ‘be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.’ The actual literal translation is, ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’ We can actually see how the intervention affects the evolutionary man. Let us look at a few excerpts from the Encyclopedia Americana, Hominid Evolution:

“. . . A number of skeletal features of the subspecies ‘Neanderthalensis’ can be found to occur in isolated cases or low frequency in modern human populations. However, the total morphological pattern of the subspecies reflected in the braincase, face, dentition, and limb bones is clearly distinctive and is recognizable in Neanderthal children.”

This particular excerpt shows there are residual traces of the prehistoric man in some modern men, but only traces. The trait changes of the Neanderthal are predominantly in their children, and only minute characteristics are present in the men of today.

“. . . The first modern European peoples are often termed Cro-Magnon for the locality in where their remains were first discovered. They are well known for their associations in Europe and in western Asia with material cultures in stone and bone and a diversity of artistic manifestations, all subsumed under the inclusive term Upper Paleolithic. These peoples and their initial

material culture… appear with seeming suddenness just over 30,000 years ago, probably earlier in eastern than western Europe. In some of the sites in both areas there were previous occurrences of Neanderthal peoples and Mousterian tools. Neanderthals may have persisted, perhaps briefly, along with Cro-Magnon folk. Nonetheless the utter, almost abrupt disappearance of Neanderthal peoples remains one of the enigmas and critical problems in studies of human evolution.”

This excerpt above from the Encyclopedia Americana “. . . appear with seeming suddenness just over 30,000 years ago . . . ;” seems to the Biblical suggestion that there was some type of intervention in the genetic development of man. Let’s take an excerpt from the Bible;

Gen: 1; 27 – So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1; 28 – And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1; 29 – And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

1; 30 – And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and It was so.

1; 31 – And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Another excerpt from the Encyclopedia Americana;

“. . . The Cro-Magnon peoples all exhibit changes in form, height and proportions of the braincase, shortening and broadening of the face, reduction and shape changes of brow ridges, and reduction of the incisor and canine teeth. The trunk lacks the Neanderthal rounded chest and short, heavily muscled vertebrae, limb-bone curvature and massive t-surfaces, and robust hands and feet with short fingers and toes. Although anatomically modern in skull morphology, the first of these “new” peoples – best known from the skeletal remains at sites in central Europe – preserve relatively robust cranial features compared with those of their descendants.

“The successive adaptations of these Cro-Magnon populations are reflected in their rapidly changing and elaborated material cultures. Their successful and intensified adjustment to a diversity of Late Pleistocene environment resulted in expanded populations and intensified settlements in previously unoccupied areas of Europe, including far northerly latitudes. Other features of Cro-Magnon culture were the elaboration of art, ritual symbol, and numeration, and overall appreciation and exploitation of the natural world.”

This seems to be an almost exact paraphrase of the Biblical verses just preceding it. It is obvious in these verses of Genesis that the image and likeness referred to is the intelligence and morphology changes brought about in the Cro-Magnon man. While creationists think that this was also a reference to ‘Adam’ in the second chapter of Genesis, there are some distinct differences between the descriptions of the two. It should be noted that the word for man and Adam is exactly the same, that is Adam is the Hebrew word for man and soil. Dr Schroeder makes a statement about this in his book, “. . . indeed, so intimate is mankind’s connection with the Earth that the name chosen for the first of the

species is Adam, which means “soil” in Hebrew.” We will see the significance of this a little later.

Many Biblical scholars think that the tone and writing between the first and second chapter of Genesis demonstrate that it was written by two or more different people. I think that the differences were for a more specific reason. With the advent of the Bible Codes it becomes quite obvious that the surface text had to be selected with precision. The surface text being altered too much one way or the other then the underlying Bible Codes would be obliterated. Let us take another excerpt from Santinover’s book, “Cracking the Bible Codes.” “. . . Letter-skip codes are well-known to the art of cryptology. And they are a form of encoding that requires a text to preserve as intactly as possible not only the “surface,” word-by-word structure, but the precise sequence of underlying letters. Change “color” to “colour,” and everything that follows is shifted one letter out of sequence.”

The description of the ‘man’ in the first chapter fits well with the description of the Cro-Magnon man. They are both scavengers, hunter-gathers; they lived off what the Earth naturally yielded and they had dominion, superiority over all the animals. They were not farmers and knew very little or nothing about agriculture, but listen to the description of ‘Adam’ or ‘man’ in the second chapter;

Gen: 2; 5 – And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground . . .

2; 8 – And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

2;9 – And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil . . .

2; 15 – And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress and keep it . . .

These verses not only suggest but clearly state that Adam was to be an agriculturalist, or in other word, a farmer. He was a man to ‘till’ the ground. Also note that these verses refer to plants of the ‘field’ and herb of the ‘field,’ not plants and herbs of the Earth. This is an obvious reference to cultivated fields that can be tended by a farmer, like ‘Adam.’ As these verses stated, ‘Adam’ was placed into the ‘Garden of Eden’ and taught how to ‘dress and keep it,’ or literally ‘to till it and keep it.’ Agriculture places ‘Adam’ a step above the prehistoric man because it shows a greater intelligence and understanding of nature that the Cro-Magnon man did not have.

Another note, the Cro-Magnon man appeared about 30,000 years B.C., according to our time, but the closest estimate of the birth of ‘Adam’ on the face of the Earth is approximately 5,000 to 10,000 years B.C. This, of course, is an open debate between creationists and evolutionists. There also another serious distinction between the two types of ‘man’ that show that they are not one and the same.

Gen: 2; 6 – But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

2; 7 – And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

What is the difference? ‘Adam’ is a ‘formed’ man and the ‘man’ in the first chapter is a ‘made’ man (not as in reference to the Mafia). So what does this mean? The ‘made’ man is a race of man developed from an already existing strain of hominids that naturally developed on Earth. The ‘formed’ man is one that was specifically designed genetically for a specific reason and outside of the main stream, or, that is to say, not necessarily from any races on the Earth.

On Monday, June 26, of the year 2000 all the news services announced that science and technology had mapped the entire human genome. We have discovered the entire genetic code of mankind. All that is left for us to do now is to find how the sequences of the 43,000,000 genes work and in what combinations they do what jobs in the human body. We are at the brink of human genetic engineering. What we have happening in the Bible is the epitome of human genetic engineering.

The ‘made’ man in the first chapter of Genesis is the process of engineering a lower species of a hominid, the Neanderthal, into a higher species of a hominid, the Cro-Magnon. This was the meaning of the statement ‘let us make man in our image after our likeness . . .’ The ‘man’ already exists, but to cause it to evolve into a higher being one must know the exact sequences of the genetic codes and how to recombine them in order to produce a higher species of man; one that will have intellectual dominion over all the Earth.

But why? Why do you need an upgraded species of man? Although the apes and man have a genetic code that is almost 98% alike it is totally impossible for man to crossbreed with an ape. This is because ape and men are a different species of mammal. In order for hybridization, cross-breeding, to take place both species of animal have to be genetically compatible. It is hybridization that is the ultimate goal of the angels (aliens). This is seen in the ‘formed’ man.

The ‘formed’ man is different from the ‘made’ man. It is the genetics of the angels (aliens) themselves they incorporate into the evolutionary strain. It is a type of clone but not exactly. The now famous Scottish sheep “Dolly” is this type of clone. The scientists took a skin cell from a donor seep, removed the nucleus from the unfertilized egg of a host sheep to eliminate its DNA, then the skin cell from the donor sheep was fused with the unfertilized egg of the host sheep. The egg, now with a full compliment of genes, was introduced into the uterus of yet a third surrogate mother sheep. The embryo developed normally and was delivered safely.

While Dolly has most of the genetic characteristics of the donor sheep, she is not a true clone. There are a few dozen genes that reside in the mitochondria outside the nucleus in the cell’s cytoplasm of the donor sheep. These become a part of the genetic makeup of Dolly. This is why man in the first chapter had to be upgraded, so it could be genetically compatible with the angels (aliens) DNA.

Let us restate the following verse;

Gen: 2; 7 – And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

In this age the Hebrew word translated for dust could also mean ashes or ground but in reality indicates the dirt, and the Hebrew word translated for ground is actually land or soil of a country. The actual literal translation would be more closely to this; “And formed the Lord God the man of dirt from the land, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul.” In this verse ‘the man of dirt from the land’ is not a reference to forming a man from the dust on the ground but rather to the development of the agrarian farmer, the man of dirt, (Adam is the root word for soil). Adam is to be formed from the men already in the land. He will do this by upgrading the species of man He has already developed by interjecting another more highly intelligent species of man. One specifically genetically engineered for this purpose.

Here is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica; “. . . Many have found this an objectionable form of “playing God,” which diminishes the mystery of life. The nightmare of “mad geneticists” using these techniques to permanently alter the phenotype of the human species or to “clone” humans to genetic specifications may be possible in the distant future. To guard against much abuse requires careful regulation of various types of research on human embryos.”

I do not consider the angels (aliens) to be “mad geneticists,” nor do I question their moral endeavors. It is more than probable that recombinant DNA was used by the angels (aliens) to change the existing race of ‘man’ on Earth to develop the Cro-Magnon race: and likewise, genetic engineering was used to develop an almost pure genetic strain like ‘Adam.’ The infusion of these two races produced the races of men we have today. Take this excerpt from the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia;

“After roughly 10,000 BC, human beings entered a remarkable phase of life, known as the Neolithic revolution. They still did not know how to read or write. They could not saddle a horse, play a harp, or even grow potatoes. But their developments provided some of the most important steps in establishing civilization.

For millions of years human beings and their ancestors had been hunters and gatherers. They had gown adept at slaying mammals for food and clothing, and they knew which roots and berries they like to eat, but they had no crops or livestock of their own. They were totally dependent on the forces of nature to provide for their needs. After 10,000 BC, however, human beings began to domesticate plants such as wheat and rye in the Old World and corn in the New World. They also began to domesticate sheep, goats, and cattle. These innovators learned to live in villages, some with several thousand inhabitants. Brought into regular with one another, they perfected their speech and exchanged ideas. They learned to weave baskets, manufacture linen and pottery, and design weapons and jewelry from copper, bronze, and gold.

Each of these innovations was part of a larger innovation. Human beings were learning to create their environment and to modify their behavior to suit the worlds they created. Learning the value of trade, they established customs for the exchange of goods. Coming together to build towns, they learned to live in larger communities and to develop patterns of rule and subservience.

These changes occurred almost simultaneously in Mesopotamia, China, India, and the Americas, and spread rapidly from section to section. Because these first agriculturalists could not write, we know them only by their graves and the ruins of their buildings. But from their midst would arise the true founders of civilization.”

Compare this excerpt from the Encarta with this excerpt in the Bible after Cain has been cast out of the Garden of Eden:

Gen: 4; 19 – And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

4; 20 – And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

4; 21 – And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

4; 22 – And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

This most surely is a reference to the Neolithic age called the Bronze Age, as demonstrated above by the Encarta Encyclopedia. It was always unclear to me why Cain’s lineage was even put into the Bible after his expulsion from the Garden of Eden until I realized it gives us a fairly approximate time in history of the infiltration of these genetically superior descendents of Adam. Dr. Schroeder in his book agrees with this analysis; “. . . Using a midpoint of the age of Noah for the time that Tuval-Cain invented forging we can place the early Bronze Age at approximately 1350 years after the appearance of Adam, or 4400 years… before the present.

The archaeology section of the Israel Museum houses examples of early brass tools. Their first appearance is dated at approximately 2400 B.C.E. or approximately 4400 years ago. It is of great interest for our discussions that during the last 100 years archaeologists have discovered that the early Bronze Age coincided with Tuval-Cain’s lifetime, the biblical inventor of bronze tools.”

With recent discoveries in archaeology concerning the Black Sea and the communities that developed around these areas, the dates might be slightly off that are given by Dr. Schroeder. It is now believed by a few archaeologists that the flood may have occurred near 5000 or 5500 B. C. when the Bosporus Straits opened and flooded the entire valley that is now the Black Sea. If this is so then there should be found in or around the Black Sea communities with early evidence of bronze or copper use predating that of Israel.

And in fact this has occurred in 2008. During the construction work to build the Yenikapi subway station and the Marmaray tunnel in Istanbul a previously unknown settlement dating circa 6700 BC was discovered; the first human settlement on the Anatolian side from the Copper Age with artifacts dating from 5500-3500 B.C.

However, there is another theory that the flood may have actually been caused by a tidal wave pushed by a typhoon in the Persian Gulf that swept over the Mesopotamian Valley. This would for the fountains of Earth and the windows of Heaven opening up for the deluge. This theory is ed from comparisons of the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian myth, and the Biblical of the flood. In the Epic of Gilgamesh the flood only lasted six days, but in the Biblical it lasted ten times longer. This particular , however, could fall within the range of Dr. Schroeder’s time line.

Further evidence for genetic engineering comes in the history of blood types. Let us take an excerpt from Dr. Peter D’Adamo’s book, “EAT RIGHT 4 YOUR TYPE;”

“By 30,000 B.C., bands of hunters were traveling farther and farther in search of meat. When a shift in the trade winds desiccated what had been fertile hunting land in the African Sahara, and when previously frozen northern areas grew warmer, they began to move out of Africa into Europe and Asia.

This movement seeded the planet with its base population, which was Blood Type O, the predominant blood type even today.

By 20,000 B.C. Cro-Magnons had moved fully into Europe and Asia, decimating the vast herds of large game to such an extent that other foods had to be found…

Type A Blood initially appeared some where in Asia or the Middle East between 25,000 and 15,000 B.C. in response to new environmental conditions. It emerged at the peak of the Neolithic period, of New Stone Age, which followed the Old Stone Age, or Paleolithic period, of the Cro-Magnon hunters. Agriculture and animal domestication (my emphasis) were the hallmarks of its culture.”

I believe Dr. D’Adamo gives too much credit to the Cro-Magnon for depleting the supply of game. Most likely natural forces, like the forming of the Sahara Desert and the recession of the Ice Age, were probably responsible for the migration of the game from the Cro-Magnon hunting areas. It is highly unlikely that the Cro-Magnon could have depleted the game supply. This still does not explain why their blood type should almost change over night. Another question that must be answered is what was the blood type of the Neanderthal? Did he have a blood type that would be compatible with ours today?

Under one of the captions in the book showing the actual timeline of the blood types evolution, Dr. D’Adamo states, “. . . Interestingly, the evolutionary changes in blood type have almost a biblical time frame . . .” The timeline shows that Type O was the only blood type until about 10,000 B.C. at which time Type A appears in the Neolithic or agriculture revolution; then Type B appears around 3,500 B.C. and finally, of course, Type AB appears around 500 B.C.

Another excerpt from the Bible;

Gen: 6; 1 – And it came to , when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

6; 2 – That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

6; 3 – And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

The ‘Adamic’ genetic strain, here called ‘the sons of God,” are in-breeding with the Cro-Magnon genetic strain, here called the ‘daughters of men.’ (It is interesting that the only other time that the term “son of God” is used in the Bible is after the birth of Jesus Christ.) But listen to the description of what happened when these diverse genetic traits were mixed;

Gen: 6; 4 – There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There was a definite cross-breeding taking place. The hybridization produced dynamic changes in the races here on Earth. This cross-breeding was complete in just over one thousand years, according to the Bible. However, although the cross-breeding and hybridization were expected the actions of these offspring did not please the Lord. The intention was to crossbreed, and to upgrade the lower strain of men to the point of higher intelligence, versatility, and to integrate the two genetic strains. It accomplished a whole lot more. Instead of just upgrading the engineered ‘Cro-Magnon’ strain of man it turned the cloned ‘Adamic’ genetic strain into a race of people that were far superior mentally and physically and some in physical stature, being called Nephilim. They were also more carnal and lustful with greater physical prowess, more self-indulgent, arrogant and power hungry.

Why was the Lord or Jehovah displeased? If this was His intent all along why should He be displeased with His creation, man, and that it took such a short time? We can better understand if we take a look at the literal translation of this age;

Gen: 6; 1 – And it came to that men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them

6; 2 – The sons of God (literally Alohim) saw the daughters of men, that they were good and they took for themselves wives from all those whom they chose.

6; 3 – And said Jehoveh (literally Yahweh), My spirit shall not strive with man always in their erring; he is flesh: and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

6; 4 – The giants (Nephilim) were on the earth in those days, and even afterwards when the sons of God (literally Alohim) came into the daughters of men and they bore children to them; they were heroes who existed from ancient time, the men of name.

The actual literal translation gives an insight as to why the Lord, Jehovah, was displeased. It becomes apparent there are two races of men; one, the ‘men’ who multiply on the face of the Earth, the prehistoric race, and second, the ‘sons’ of God, the pure genetic race. The ‘sons’ are erring in supposing themselves to be above the ‘men’ of Earth who are bearing these daughters, and they are placing themselves in the positions of being gods over these ‘men.’ This next verse describes why the Lord is angry;

Gen: 6; 5 – And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

If one is familiar with most mythologies of the Middle East, such as Greek, Egyptian, Sumerian, Roman, or even mythologies not of the local region such as Norse and Hindu then you can understand Jehovah’s anger. The ‘sons’ of God have usurped the worship of one God, subjugated man, set themselves up as gods and take any woman or man they fancy for their pleasure. They have set themselves up as gods to be worshipped by, in their opinion, the ‘lesser’ men, the prehistoric strain, and to seduce any of the women as they want and see fit and

the goddesses to seduce any man they want. Jehovah says they err and they are wrong because they are flesh also, and he numbers their days.

The worship of these supposed gods did not cease until centuries after this occurred, but they were the instigators of it. They were the legends of Old, the men of name of the mythological stories that abounded. It angered Jehovah and He was going to do away with it. Still He needed to have a trace of the pure genetic strain to survive, but not as gods to subjugate the other men on earth.

By the time most of it came to a stop with the flood only Noah was left with a pure genetic background and still obedient to the ways of God. Even Noah’s wife and sons were hybrids. The thing Jehovah wanted to do was completely integrate the two divergent and diverse races or strains of ‘man;’ eliminate the remnants traces, but leave a system for tracking man’s development throughout history. This excerpt from the Bible speaks of both genetics strains and of the pure genetic background of Noah;

Gen: 6; 7 – And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air: for it repenteth me that I have made them.

6; 8 – But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

6; 9 – These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Here the reference to the ‘man whom I have created from the face of the earth’ is a specific indication of the mixed genetics of man who have usurped the worship

of the one God and have diversified throughout the land. The more literal translation would be; “I will wipe you, the man whom I have created, from the face of the land; from both species of man to beast to creeping things to the fowl of the heavens.” The words, ‘the man whom I have created, from the face of the land,’ is an obvious reference to the genetic man of the hybridized race. ‘Both man’ is an obvious reference to both species of man that exists at this time. The reason Noah has found favor in the sight of God is because he is still ‘perfect in his generations,’ making him a pure-bred of the ‘formed’ race; a ‘pure-bred son of God,’ as well as an obedient servant to God. Another translation in Hebrew of the word ‘perfect’ used here is ‘flawless.’ In other words Noah had a flawless genetic history or background. He still carried the true genetic characteristics of the pure genetic strain. From this source God could maintain a trace of His perfectly, genetically, formed descendants through their genetic history.

It is obvious that the ‘man’ described in the first chapter of Genesis and the ‘man’ described in the second chapter of Genesis are two different beings. This argument between creationists and evolutionists has raged for years and it would seem that both sides may have had their points. There was an evolutionary man, albeit genetically altered, and there was a genetically ‘formed’ or engineered man.

In his book, “THE 12TH PLANET,” Zechariah Sitchin takes a similar but very different take on the Nephilim. His claim is that the Nephilim were aliens called Anunaki from a planet called Nibiru which was a planet that orbited in our solar system that had a cycle of 3600 years. Its orbit was so extreme that it spent most of its time far from the sun in deep, cold space but would come close to the sun orbiting through the asteroid belt just beyond Mars and then back out again. The Anunaki lived on this planet but mostly underground where they kept warm.

They would venture to Earth looking for gold which helped their life systems to function whenever their planet made its perihelion to the sun. They established cities and landing bases here on Earth. The major cities were established in the Middle East in Iraq. Because Dr. Sitchin was a linguist and

learned to decipher the ancient Sumerian language he was able to discern or, at least, interpret this from Sumerian texts.

A day to the Anunaki was 3600 years by our calculations which made them appear to live forever. Because many of the Anunaki became tired of mining the gold according Dr. Sitchin they decided to upgrade the living species of hominids on the planet to use them to do the manual labor. They did this by using recombinant genetics to make the hominids into the men of today. They set themselves up as Gods so they could control the human population.

Dr. Sitchin has written a number of books about the mythological Gods and how they all interrelate to this theory. The ancient Gods were actually these Anunaki who were using the Earth and mankind for their labor and pleasure. They began to interbreed with them, which was forbidden, but happened anyway and their offspring became many of the mythological heroes written about in mythology.

In some ways I may agree with Dr. Sitchin, but I do not believe these were the aliens talked about in the original text of the Bible. These were usurpers, aliens which tried to subjugate mankind and bend them to their will and pleasure and did for many years, until the advent of Christ, whose primary purpose was to unbind us from this subjugation. Let take an excerpt from “BUFINCH’S MYTHOLOGY;” . . . “Schiller in his poem “Die Gotter Griechenlands,” expressed his regret for the overthrow of the beautiful mythology of ancient times in a way which has called forth an answer from a Christian poet, Mrs. E. Barrett Browning, in her poem called “The Dead Pan.” The two following verses are a specimen:

“By your beauty which confesses

Some chief Beauty conquering you,

By our grand heroic guesses

Through you falsehood at the True

We will weep not! Earth shall roll

Heir to each god’s aureole’

And Pan is dead.

“Earth outgrows the mythic fancies

Sung beside her in her youth;

And those debonaire romances

Sound but dull beside the truth.

Phoebus’ chariot course is run

Look up, poets to the sun!

Pan, Pan is dead.”

These lines are founded on an early Christian tradition that when the heavenly host told the shepherds at Bethlehem of the birth of Christ, a deep groan, heard through all the isles of Greece, told that the great Pan was dead, and that all the royalty of Olympus was dethroned and the several deities were sent wandering in cold and darkness…”

Christ, a son of God and a direct descendent of the ancient aliens, as the Nativity suggests, came to end the usurpation and subjugation of mankind. To lift them up to understand that they are as great or greater than the gods they worshipped and that our true purpose was to be like the ancient aliens that had created us.

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

B IBLICAL SCHOLARS WILL tell you that the theological myth of the beginning of the earth was most likely taken from ancient Sumerian mythology. I am not debating this. In fact, it is not in doubt. It is more than likely that the Sumerians and the Hebrews got their of creation from the same origin. While the Sumerians embellished and grew myths around their as did all the races that branched out from there, the Hebrews took great pride in keeping their as close as possible to the original and, indeed, were commanded to do just that.

It is always odd to me that the scholars of today are so intellectually arrogant that they seem to think that the scholars of yesterday were more ignorant than they. The truth may be quite the opposite seems to have been the case. The ancients were aware of the seasonal changes, the first five planets of our solar system and had an extensive astronomical understanding of the way nature worked. They built pyramids and ancient structures that rival our best architects today. There is a lot our scholars of today have yet to learn about the knowledge of these ancient people.

A prime example of this intellectual arrogance is demonstrated in the story of Heinrich Schliemann; today considered a great archaeologist. Actually, Mr. Schliemann was a rich Russian industrialist who loved the stories of the “Iliad” written by Homer, the blind Greek poet. His father used to read them to him when he was a little boy. When archaeologists said they had discovered the ancient city of Troy in Turkey, Mr. Schliemann had to go and see the city of the stories he loved so much. He was greatly disappointed because it did not fit even

close to the description of the city in the “Iliad.” The archaeologists pointed out that the “Iliad” was a book of mythology written by a blind poet who was not a historian. This did not deter Mr. Schliemann. Using the description from the stories in the “Iliad” and his own money he found a hill in Turkey where he thought the city of Troy should have been. Digging, he found thirteen cities built on top of one another, one of which was Troy.

When we look back of the first seven days with our eyes turned to science and our minds turned to the truth, we find an astounding revelation. The Book appears to be filled with advanced knowledge that we have only begun to understand in the last two hundred years.

All the days of the Bible hold, in synoptic form, the scientifically theorized events that produced our universe, solar system and Earth, even up through the advent of man.

The Bible even goes so far as to tell us this in the second chapter of Genesis in 2:4 and 2:5;

Gen: 2; 4 – These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

2; 5 – And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground . . .

The actual literal translation is more like this: “These are the birth (or histories) of the skies and earth when they were created, in the day of the making of the

Lord God’s earth and skies; and every shrub of the field (cultivated field) was it not yet on the earth and every herb of the field, (cultivated field), it had not yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain of the earth and there was not a man to till the land.” A simpler more to the point translation may be like this, “These are the histories of the universe and the earth and man before the advent of agriculture.”

Both scientist and Biblical scholars will probably winch and scoff at the idea, but let us look at the implications. Many Biblical scholars say man should not play at being God, but without the advent of agriculture all men would still be scavengers and probably starving to death. The Earth does not naturally produce enough natural grains and fruit to feed the billions of people on the face of this planet. Without agriculture, the very thing God taught to Adam, and Adam and his descendents playing the part of God to make the world produce the amount of food it does, we would all be starving to death or would have long been dead. This interpretation better fits the Biblical analogy than any other that has ever been theorized.

In the first day we saw the universe before it was the universe we know. The ‘Big Bang’ occurred and then it became a universe dividing light from dark. If we take the of the ancient Biblical scholars of the Torah, this occurred 15.3 billion years ago. (Today’s scientists only believe the universe to be 13.7 billion years old.) This was found by multiplying the 42 lettered name of God by 1000 times a Divine year, which is 365,250 years. The first 42 letters of the creation story in Genesis are an anagram of God’s 42 lettered name. By Jewish tradition God has many names, one each to describe different aspects of His personality.

This brings us to an interesting division in the creation story. The first two days talk about universal developments. The last four days speak of development on the earth ignoring those things happening in the surrounding universe or solar system. We can also divide the days in the Bible similarly to find the respective age of events.

The second day shows us the dust cloud that formed that coalesced into our solar system with its sun and planets revolving around it. The number 42 is equally divisible by 6 or 7. Since we are only dealing with six of the seven days until the arrival of man on earth, let us divide universal developments by fractions of the six days to find their age with respect to the universe. We note that one-third of six days is two days; and one-third of 15.3 billion years is 5.1 billion years which is how long scientists say it took our solar system to form. Is our solar system only one-third as old as the universe?

The third and fourth days take us from the early development of the earth, from the Precambrian Period when life began on earth, through the Paleozoic era and up to the Mesozoic era. We know from the preceding paragraph that scientists believe these whole events only took about 5 billion years to happen. So how do we decipher the time? If we add the third day and fourth day together, they are equal to two days and are still only one-third of six days. The very beginning of the first day through the end of the fourth day equals a little over 10 billion years if taken sequentially.

Science seems to think that the forming of the universe took 13 to 15 billion years and that probably the dust cloud and solar system took 5 to 10 billion years to form up after the big bang. It is quite possible that the coalescing of the dust cloud into the solar system may have taken as much as 5 billion years and the earth formed up during the last stages. The earth is nearly 5 billion years old. The actual formation of the universe and solar system including the earth may have taken between 10 to 15 billion years from start to present. This is within science’s best guess. They figure between 10 to 15 billion years is the best scenario for all this formation to have occurred.

The third day shows us how plant life describes the precession of life on the newly developed land that arose from the seas. This enabled the animal life to be able to survive because of the oxygen the plants produced. Still, this does not tell how life began on the planet; except that God said ‘Let it be so.’ The fourth day

tells how the early life was killed or died off to make way for the abundance of mammal life and the beginnings of ‘man.’

The fifth day tells how the animals, springing from the seas, began to take possession of the earth and land setting the stage for the early development of ‘man.’ Scientist’s best guess for the beginning of the development of man is approximately 2 million years ago. Referring back to chapter two, Jeffery Santinover related the Jewish tradition for finding the beginning of the first New Moon. We find that if we multiply approximately 70,000 months (the approximate number of new moons that have occurred from the beginning of man until the present) times 29.53059 days in a lunar cycle, it equals just slightly over 2 million years. This is the length of time it took from the very first appearance of man on the earth and until man could observe and know what a new moon was. Although man’s creation was not finished until the morning of the sixth day, when he was given dominion over the earth, (enough intelligence to rule over the animals) his beginnings were much older.

Finally the sixth day happens and we are into the birth of the Cro-Magnon man. A semi-intelligent humanoid that flourished on the earth about 30,000 years down to around 10,000 to 6,000 years ago. Part of our unique heritage, this man was recombinant-genetically designed from the existing hominids that roamed the face of the earth at the time. The evening and the morning were the sixth day to God.

Where then is the seventh day? If God rested from all his work on the seventh day; when did Adam come into existence? There is only one true way to answer this question. ‘Adam’ was not created or made! He was a specifically, genetically ‘formed’ or engineered man for a specific reason, and he was formed by the ‘Lord God,’ not God, at the beginning of the seventh day. This may seem confusing at first, and many Biblical scholars, as we said before, believe Genesis to have been written by different people. But let us take an excerpt from the New Testament;

John: 1; 1 – In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1; 2 – The same was in the beginning with God

1; 3 – All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

These verses seem to make clear the concept that creation was the function of God and the final product was the responsibility of the ‘Lord God’ and the host of angels that worked with him. It also makes clear the verse when God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” This plural designation is obviously a reference to the ‘Lord God’ and his host of angels.

Now let us take a look back at the ‘forming’ of ‘Adam.’

Gen: 2; 6 – But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

2; 7 – And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Let me take an excerpt from a book by Stephen Langdon; ‘Mythology of All Races’ – ‘Semitic;’ this book was first published in 1931. “. . . It was an idea common to all primitive Semitic tribes that they descended from their patron deity, . . . but in the sense that he was their divine creator… This idea of a god as

father or ancestor of a tribe reveals itself in proper names over the whole Semitic area…

“It must be itted that any Semitic deity could be addressed as the “brother” of the worshippers, in the same way as he was called ab, “father” or ammu “uncle,” “ancestor,” . . . it is difficult to explain this aspect of Semitic mythology, in which the gods as “brothers” appear as creators of their people.”

Let us again refer to Mr. Santinover’s book. On a page where Mr. Santinover is explaining the marvel of quantum cryptography, he places a footnote; “The astounding announcement of quantum cryptography should have greatly excited the world’s media-but it was overshadowed by another report in that same issue of Nature. Scientists had shown a genetic difference among the Jews of today between “Cohanim” (the ancient biblical “priest” from the tribe of Levi) and “Israelites” (laymen from the other eleven tribes) consistent with the oftconsidered legendary claim in Scripture that all Cohanim are descended from one person: Aaron, the brother of Moses. Apparently, the orally transmitted tradition of one’s tribal origin was startlingly accurate.” If they can trace their lineage to Aaron, then they can trace their lineage all the way back to their true ancestral beginning and to Adam.

Is this so startling that Jewish mythology believes that they are true descendants of their God? Let us take another excerpt from Dr. D’Adamo’s book; “The blood type characteristics of the various Jewish populations have long been of interest to anthropologists. As a general rule, regardless of their nationality or race, there is a trend toward higher-than-average rates of Type B blood. The Ashkenazim and the Sephardim, the two major Jewish sects, share strong levels of Type B blood, and appear to have very few differences. The pre-Diaspora Babylonian Jews differ considerably from the primarily Type O Arabic population of Iraq (the location of the biblical Babylon) in that they are primarily Type B, with some frequency of Type A.”

It would seem that if this analysis were correct that the early descendants of Adam would be mostly Type A since this blood type was developed about 10,000 years ago. If the Adamic race of Type A was interjected into the CroMagnon race of Type O about then it would be logical to assume that their descendents’ major blood type would develop into Blood Type B.

Let us read what Dr. D’Adamo says about Blood Type B; “Type O and Type A seem to be polar opposites in many respects. But Type B can best be described as idiosyncratic-with utterly unique and sometimes chameleonlike characteristics. In many respects, Type B resembles Type O so much that the two seem related. Then, suddenly, Type B will take on a totally unfamiliar shape – one that is peculiarly its own. You might say that Type B represents a sophisticated refinement in the evolutionary journey, an effort to together divergent peoples and cultures.

On the whole, the sturdy and alert Types Bs are usually able to resist many of the most severe diseases common to modern life, such as heart disease and cancer. Even when they do contract these diseases, they are more likely to survive them. Yet because Type Bs are somewhat off beat, their systems seem more prone to exotic immune-system disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, and chronic fatigue syndrome.

In my experience, a Type B who carefully follows the recommended diet can often by severe disease and live a long and healthy life.

The Type B diet is balanced and wholesome, including a wide variety of foods. In the words of my father, it represents “the best of the animal and vegetable kingdoms.” Think of B as standing for balance-the balancing forces of A and O…”

According to Dr. D’Adamo’s timeline chart Type B began to come into existence beginning around the 10,000 year marker and came into its own before 3,500 B.C. It was during this time that the “sons of God” were coming into the “daughters of men.” We must that Noah was the last of his generation, but his wife and sons were hybrids. Let us take another excerpt from the Bible after the flood;

Gen: 9; 2 – And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands are they delivered.

9; 3 – Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Even the more literal translation is very close to this except they use ‘animal of the land’ and ‘green plant’ rather than ‘beast of the earth’ and ‘green herb.’ Noah was more than likely a Type A. His wife and sons was obviously a Type B. We can infer from the description above, which matches Dr. D’Adamo’s description of Type B diets, it becomes clear that the lineage of the sons of Noah will carry predominantly Type B characteristics.

In view of the foregoing analysis it is not very hard to understand that the pure genetically formed race was, and is, brother to the angels (aliens) and the Lord God. Most of their genetics was not of any of the races that had evolved here on Earth. The fact that the Semites refer to them as ‘brother’ and continually, consistently maintains with these beings throughout the Biblical text, especially in Genesis, assures me that they were indeed real, true-to-life personages, Beings from which the Semites did, in a real sense, descend. In truth I would call the angels (aliens) starchildren; children of the stars of the universe. Real physical beings far superior to what we can imagine.

The author, Erik von Daniken, wrote a book called “Chariots of the Gods.” In it he insisted that the earth had been visited by extraterrestrials, and there are indications of this all over the earth in various lands. He pointed out the cave and cliff drawings left by ancient men; the buildings of ancient civilizations that we cannot match even today; the engravings of the Nazca Plains that can only be distinguished from the air and the name of Lake Titicaca, high in the Andes Mountains, which mean Jaguar, and it can only be seen from the air that the lake resembles a Jaguar. His book seems now to be exceptionally observant.

Von Daniken makes a statement in his book that, if not prophetic, is very insightful, “. . . The texts and fragments still available transmit a great deal of knowledge from the remote past. In all ages the sages of a nation knew that the future would always bring wars and revolutions, blood and fire. Did this knowledge perhaps lead these sages to hide secrets and traditions from the mob in the colossal buildings of their period or to preserve them from possible destruction in a safe place? Have they “hidden” information or s in pyramids, temples, and statues, or bequeathed them in the form of ciphers so that they would withstand the ravages of time? We certainly ought to test the idea, for farsighted contemporaries of our own day have acted in this way – for the future.”

While this is not shades of the X-Files, with Mulder and Scully running around trying to keep mankind from being cross-bred with some dwarf aliens, yet a third race of aliens that study us like lab rats, it would appear that we are indeed real descendants of some form of alien beings we have called angels. It may be that they have kept tabs on us since the beginning of our existence here on Earth. It would also appear our existence here on Earth may be due to their own scientific efforts. I prefer to call them starchildren.

Interestingly enough the word starchild, spelled out in Hebrew, is in the Bible Codes. It is in Genesis with a minimal skip distance of 758 letters. Also in the text in close proximity is the Hebrew word for angel. Even more interesting, this skip distance extends over the story of Joseph in the Bible starting where his

brothers try to kill him until he becomes second unto pharaoh. The first letter is in Genesis chapter 36 verse 21 and the last letter is in the 39th chapter verse 4.

There is yet more ing evidence. Again I quote from Dr. Schroeder’s book, “. . . The appearance of life on the Earth almost as soon as the Earth was able to host life and the improbability of a random development of our genetic code in the available time has led scientists in many disciplines to suggest extraterrestrial sources for life on Earth. Nobel laureates Svante August Arrhenius and Francis Crick and astronomer Fred Hoyle are among those who have looked to space for our origins.

Even if we find that extraterrestrial seeding was the source of life on Earth, this would not solve the question of the ultimate origin of life. As Morowitz pointed out, even 15 billion years are insufficient for unguided, random reactions to produce life.”

Glen Rose is a small, cozy town in Texas about an hour south of Dallas. Its greatest claim to fame is “Dinosaur Tracks.” The Puluxy River, which runs nearby this small town, has embedded in its river bottom dinosaur tracks made by both the meat eaters and plant eaters over 60 million years ago. Another thing of interest men have claimed or alleged to have found along with these dinosaur tracks are the footprints of what some believe to be humanoid beings. Science would say it is impossible for man, as we know of his history today, to have lived alongside the dinosaurs, and I am inclined to agree. However, the humanoid tracks, Jewish tradition, Eric von Daniken’s theory and the quest to find how life began on this planet or in this universe can all be answered simply, if indeed, the angels were extraterrestrial beings or aliens. By extraterrestrial beings or aliens my meaning is simply not born on this Earth or perhaps even from this universe. They have been working with and monitoring our progress and have been a major part in Earth’s development from its beginning as the Bible suggests.

In Dr. Schroeder’s book he explains the research of Dr. Harold Morowitz, a physicist at Yale University. When Dr. Morowitz calculated the possibility of life spontaneously generating in this universe, it is greater than the existence of the universe. In fact, he states, “. . . The likelihood of random processes producing life from a primordial bath of chemicals is even less likely than that of your shaking an omelet and having the yolk and the white separate back into the original form of the egg!”

Dr. Schroeder goes on to add in another chapter, “. . . The strongest evidence for a common ancestor of all life is the similarity of genetic material among all forms of life. DNA and RNA are so complex that the probability of their independent development in the plant, fungal, and animal kingdoms is vanishing small.”

I have read many s of stories of UFOs. One such was written by Gary Kinder, a graduate lawyer from Florida University, in a book called, “Light Years.” This was the story of an uneducated, Swiss handyman by the name of Billy Maier. Mr. Maier claimed to have with aliens from a solar system in the constellation of Pleiades. He even had 35mm photos of these people and more, all of which were suspect because he had let any body see and handle them without proper security measures. Mr. Maier claimed that these aliens looked like us, and that they claimed to have sent an exploration group of aliens thousands of years earlier from their solar system in the constellation of Pleiades. They were simply keeping tabs on their descendants.

I am not sure that I believe the , and I know many skeptics who believe it could not happen. However, let us one thing religion is a learned process and a learned tradition. The idea of GOD is abstract, like the concept of time. We measure the concept of time by motion and the concept of GOD by emotion and intellect. The concept of God and of religion is ed on from one generation to the next. It is embedded in us from our childhood, and it has continued this way through the centuries, but it is not an invention of man.

Why would a primitive man invent a God? It has been said that if there were not a God, man would have to invent one. Many scholars believe that pre-historic man invented the idea of a god to explain what he could not understand or what appeared mysterious to him. Freud suggests that it was planted in our psyche by the nurturing and caring of our parents. In this way we personified the natural things around us and created the concept of God. This seems a strange idea.

Did pre-historic man look up one day; see all these wonders that puzzled him for which he had no solution, and because of the caring and nurturing of his parents, simply say, “There must be a God.” I think not. When a child inquires of these things we tell him or her there is a God that controls powers beyond our reason. If you are a reasonable person you explain it in your own understanding or just say, “I don’t know but there is a logical answer for everything.” If God was the invention of primitive minds then why do we have all the elaborate stories in mythology? These stories show fertile imaginations and much ingenuity and embellishments. Early man was not as stupid as we seem to believe.

When this analysis of the Bible began we said that it must be convincing to the mathematician, the physicist, the preacher, the lawyer and the layperson alike. We have seen that there is ample proof to satisfy all these and many others as well.

We have seen in our discussion that for the mathematician it is not just improbable but mathematically impossible for life to have begun in our universe by accident. It must have started by design, and it has flourished by intervention. The diversity of species and continuation of life against the preferences of evolution and natural selection is proof of this. Mathematicians need to redesign their proofs.

Physicists are hard to convince because of their belief in measurement. These are quantities and values that are repetitive and consistent. The question is how does one measure love, comion, integrity, honesty, or any emotion or judgment

about life? Reality is not always about a specific quantity, a measure of this and a measure of that, and yet their understanding of quantum mechanics gives God his credibility. In quantum mechanics physicists believe that all realities are possible, or as Christ said, “With God, all things are possible.” It is only when you interact with a certain event that makes it real for you. This also makes it real for those events which interact with you. It, therefore, becomes a consensus of comparable events that convinces us of what’s real and what’s not, be they emotional, physical or mental. Physicists need to reanalyze their logic.

For the preacher who believes in the Bible this is not a difficult task. What has been difficult to prove to the preacher is the underlying, fundamental truth of science as a tool of God to substantiate the Bible. We have seen here how the Bible and science go hand in hand. They correlate so well that we must believe that understanding science is understanding the mind of God. Preachers need to reassure their faith in science.

Me, I am a layperson. The reason I believe there is a God is because all the natural events, mathematical and physical evidence of science suggests it. From the theory of the Big Bang to the origin of life surviving in our universe to quantum mechanics, all these things prove the existence of God. Also, these beings, who are able to transcend space and time, travel through space at velocities greater than light, and have developed this Earth from its very foundation (and probably produced the Bible Codes), say there is a God. Who should know better than they?

In final analysis the Bible is an authentic book of authority that s almost all relevant scientific facts that have been discovered in the modern history of man. It s these discoveries better than any religious book to date and points to even greater discoveries. While some persons will say I am making a stretch, even a very long stretch, in logic, I can only respond by saying that the Bible Codes are significant in the binding of this logic. The codes could have only been implanted into Genesis by higher, much more enlightened beings than we are ourselves. In fact, it took electronic computers, a fairly recent invention,

to unlock just the surface of the Bible Codes. We are still a long way from understanding them.

Future discoveries will show that the Bible and the first eleven chapters of the book are probably the most advanced books of scientific synopsis information that has ever been written. I believe the Bible to be the premiere religious book because so much care had been used in recording information by the Hebrews and care in translation taken with the King James Version and even more especially since the advent of the Bible Codes. The translators of the King James Version even used a disclaimer at the beginning of the Bible in order to praise the King. At the same time it was to place the blame on him for the translation just in case God was displeased. The praise was the disclaimer. So their fear of God and their fear of the King’s wrath helped them to translate as close to the original text as possible, although their translation was limited to their knowledge of their time.

Modern day translations take too much for granted in their analysis of what they think the particular age may have meant. This leads to much variation in interpretations. Each translation is the interpreter’s point of view, just as this is mine. It is what he thinks it should mean, hence; we end up reading someone else’s beliefs of what it should be and not what was intended to be in the book at all. But, just as this is my interpretation, it is done with the concept and respect that the Bible must be a book of truth and must conform to God’s laws of nature and of the universe. It must also conform to most of the discoveries of science. Both scientists and theologians alike have a way to go before we have discovered the full truth of the Bible.

You can believe this book or not, take it seriously or not, but the Bible and science are not in contention with each other, and must go hand in hand.

Is it the immutable word of God? I believe it to be. The first chapter of Genesis is a synoptic description of the entire history of the universe and the Earth. Why

was it written synoptically? Mainly, it was not important that we know the history of the universe to live our lives, but only that we know that the writer knew this history and that we would discover this fact.

Its true importance can only be seen today as having meaning to all people; the scientist, mathematician, the religious and the secular and to all laypersons. And it is authenticated by the Bible Codes. More than that, it is a book of history and a descendency of a race of people. Its main intent was to keep track of a specific genetic lineage of people placed upon the face of the Earth. With prophecy, philosophy and lessons on how to live life, survive and grow among many nations, the Bible, as a Holy text, had a better chance of survival than if it had merely been a history book.

Where then is the seventh day? What happen to it? We are still in it. If you were paying close attention and you know your Bible you will realize it is the only day that has never ended. It begins with the birth of Adam and extends to our modern day and includes the history of all the Earth to the present. It contains all our interactions with the angels (aliens) over the many lifetimes of the people of the Bible, even down to the life of Jesus Christ and up to today. It also holds many more mysteries to be revealed, including the virgin birth of Jesus and the Christmas Star, before His return.

Hopefully when man has created order out of the chaos of this world, some day in the not too distant future, perhaps tomorrow, in a year, a thousand years, there will come a time when God will say, “And the evening and the morning was the seventh day.”

APPENDIX

PART I A CASE FOR THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY AND EQUATION!

T HE UNIFIED FIELD equation has been known by almost all physicists and certainly by every theoretical physicist since its first publication in 1834. It is respected by the name of the author, Sir William Hamilton, and is called the Hamiltonian. Sir Hamilton made a simple statement about the energy of any system. He said that the total potential energy, , added to the total kinetic energy, , of any system would equal the total energy, H (q, p), of that system, or simply;

Although this equation was formulated in response to Bernoulli’s fluid dynamics and Newton’s laws of motion, in truth, if every field of any kind is a function of the energy of the system or vise versa, then by logic every field must therefore be covered by the Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian should be derived as a natural function of any unified theory as well as the equation that explains the theory

The following is a variation of the Hamiltonian equation which incorporates relativity, but in a different manner from Einstein’s and many commonly held beliefs; Here mc² = potential energy, mv²/2 = kinetic energy, and ET = total energy; so that;

mc²+mv²/2 = ET

Or further to;

n = v(velocity)/c(speed of light constant) m = mass ET = Total energy (This equation is not new to physics, except here c acts as a standard by which to measure all velocities and is not an upper limit)

Most of the equations in this paper, just like the one above, will not be new to physics, except in the way they are related to the unified field theory in this case. The following paper will demonstrate how this equation and theory was derived through relativity and how this theory best explains and unites all fields into this one equation.

INTRODUCTION

In order to follow the logic and show how this equation unites all currently known fields, this paper must re-analyze some long held arguable beliefs and unproven assumptions that are commonly accepted as fact in today’s physical world. These beliefs and assumptions are not uncommon to any physicist or, in fact, to any student of physics. They have simply never been questioned or properly investigated. The following will be covered in this analysis;

1) A scientific definition for the concept of “rest” or “stationary” and “uniform linear transformation” with reference to the laws of motion and without the necessity of the observer to explain these phenomenon. 2) The long held unproven belief that mass is wholly electro-magnetic in nature with a comparison between electro-magnetism and gravitation as similar but

different and additive forces. 3) The incomplete logic of the Michelson-Morley experiment which was used to disprove the existence of the ‘ether.’ 4) The temporal implications of this equation, Einstein’s theories of relativity and the scientific evidence to two temporal dimensions.

REST AND LINEAR TRANSFORMATION

When Newton formulated the laws of motion that govern physics he made his observations with respect to himself, the observer. This, in and of itself, is justifiable since all observations are made with respect to the observer as the reference point, or zero, for explanation. However, years later when Einstein formulated his special theory of relativity, (it was also an explanation of the law of inertia), he showed that motion with respect to the point of reference, the observer, is relative. In other words rest is defined by the observer just as linear transformation is and that both were of the same nature; both are forms of uniform motion, the only difference being the observer’s relative perspective with respect to the definition of the motion. If an object has no specific uniform linear velocity with respect to the observer then it is said to be at rest, but if the object is moving in a straight line and with constant speed with respect the observer it is said to be in linear transformation.

This is also the case with regards to any other motion the observer may be experiencing. Whether the observer is falling in a gravitational field, rotating on a disc, floating in space or is so far removed from anything else so that only he and the object are present or even if he is standing on a train platform while a train is ing, this will not change. This is inviolate; rest and linear transformation are observer dependent forms of uniform motion. With respect to this argument, ‘rest’ and ‘linear transformation’ have a specific definition;

1) A uniformly moving body where the relative constant velocity of the body with respect to the observer is equal to zero is defined as Rest or stationary. 2) A uniformly moving body where the relative constant velocity of the body with respect to the observer is unequal to zero is defined as linear translation or rectilinear motion.

The key parts to the definitions are ‘uniformly moving body’ and ‘with respect to the observer.’ The observer is paramount in Einstein’s theories, the Copenhagen Interpretation, and all following theories about multiple universes, collapse of the wave function and any theoretical concept involving relativity. We will remove the observer as a third person observer from the equations and make him an observer-participant in his own universe. By doing this and redefining rest and uniform translation as observer dependent motions of the same motion, it gives a whole different spin on Newton’s statement about his first law, the Law of Motion, for if, in fact, one removes the observer from the process the type of uniform motion is indefinable.

Another aspect of ‘rest,’ and by logical extension ‘linear transformation,’ is its quality of equilibrium. When a book rests upon a table, the force of gravity pulls it towards the center of the Earth with a certain force equal to its mass, but the table upon which it rests pushes back with an equal force in the opposite direction. In this way, the book remains at rest on the table. If the book has enough mass that the gravitational force overcomes the resistant force of the table then the table will be crushed. In any case the book will come to rest at some point of the surface of the earth. The point is that the state of equilibrium is where all the resultant forces acting upon the book are equal to zero. The book remains stationary and in a fixed state of equilibrium. By logical extension if the book is at rest upon a table that is on a train traveling at a constant speed with respect to the observer, without going around curves or up and down hills, the book will remain at rest on the table, in a state of equilibrium with respect to the train, taking part in the train’s uniform motion with respect to the observer.

With this in mind one can actually restate Newton’s original laws of motion to be

completely and wholly accurate as statements of force in the following fashion. The third law should have been first with the first and second laws as a logical extension of the third;

LAW III: TO EVERY ACTION THERE IS ALWAYS OPPOSED EQUAL REACTION; OR THE MUTUAL ACTIONS OF TWO BODIES UPON EACH OTHER ARE ALWAYS EQUAL, AND DIRECTED TO CONTRARY PARTS;

+F = -F.

The natural extension of this is the first and second laws with slight variations. The first law being stated in this manner;

LAW I: EVERY BODY PERSEVERES IN ITS STATE OF EQUILIBRIUM, WHETHER AT REST OR OF UNIFORM MOTION IN A RIGHT LINE WITH RESPECT TO THE OBSERVER, UNLESS IT IS COMPELLED TO CHANGE THAT STATE BY FORCES IMPRESSED THEREON;

+F + (-F) = 0;

And the second law thusly;

LAW II: THE ALTERATION OF MOTION IS EVER PROPORTIONAL TO THE MOTIVE FORCE IMPRESSED; AND IS MADE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE RIGHT LINE IN WHICH THAT FORCE IS IMPRESSED;

+F + (-F) ≠ 0 = ma.

Most scientists would say this is elementary physics, an obvious statement of fact and well understood. The problem is that it is so obvious the importance of it is overlooked. In these statements the observer has actually been made a part of the equation and not simply understood to be an observer of the equation. When this is accomplished mathematically it changes the whole complexion of the equation.

For instance, look at Einstein’s energy equation, E = mc²; this equation assumes an equivalence between mass and energy with the velocity of light as an upper limit, but Newton’s original equation, E = (mv²/2), assumes the same thing expressing an unlimited velocity. However, when Einstein formulated his equation he was laboring under certain assumptions of the physical community which have never been proven or, in some instances, misinterpreted, nor ever questioned.

A review of Einstein’s 1905 paper, ‘DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPENDS UPON IT ENERGY-CONTENT?’’ will reveal some previously unexplored subtleties. In his paper he states that there are two systems, one system called (x, y, z) and another system is in uniform parallel translation called (ξ, η, ζ) with respect to the first. Then he introduces a body which he states is stationary with respect to the first system, (x, y, z). This body’s energy in system (x, y, z) is equal to E0. Then he states the body’s energy measured with respect to the system in uniform linear translation, (ξ, η, ζ), traveling with velocity v with respect to system (x, y, z), is equal to H0. From here he goes on to state that the body sends out a wave of light that travels along the x axis to be received by the moving system.

Einstein states that the energy values of H and E of the same body are referred to two different systems, system (x, y, z) with which the body is to be supposedly at rest and system (ξ, η, ζ) with which it is supposed to be in motion.

However ‘the body’ introduced into Einstein’s analysis must be a separate system. ‘The body’ is measured in, but independent of both systems, [unless ‘the body’ is system (x, y, z) itself], so therefore it is a separate system, system (x’, y’, z’). By introducing ‘the body’ into the system (x, y, z), Einstein actually converts the system (x, y, z) into a third system, or in this case the observer system. We will refer to system (x, y, z) as system A, and to system (ξ, η, ζ) as system B and to ‘the body,’ system (x’, y’, z’), as system C.

In Einstein’s analysis above there is no absolute way for system C to be aware of its relative motion with respect to system A without something with which to compare its motion. Only the third person observer, such as Einstein, who sets the scenario, can make that determination. System C can be aware of system B’s motion if it receives a signal from that system, but on the whole, system C cannot state with certainty that it is at rest with respect to system A, only that system B is in motion with respect to itself. Neither can system B make that determination about its motion with respect to system A without a comparative measure. The only thing that system B and system C can agree on is that they are in motion with each other, according to the theory of relativity and system A most probably contains the common center of gravity between them if they both have mass. The system A acts only as a conveyance of information between the systems B and C. Because of the two definitions about uniformly moving systems and the common center of gravity between both systems one could rewrite the energy equation for rest in this manner where the center of gravity acts as the origin of system A;

If we let for released energy from a uniformly moving body, whether at rest or in linear translation, our equation becomes;

Then when vC = 0 the equation reduces down to Einstein’s equation for a system at relative rest, but that determination must be decided by a participant observer by setting a standard for comparative measure.

The equation for the system in motion with respect to system A, which is system B, has the same dilemma as system C. Therefore, in order to for any change in the energy in system C, if there is any, with respect to system B, the equation must change in this manner;

Rewriting the equation in this manner will for any change in energy of system C with respect to system B. System C’s energy is already incorporated into the system A as EC, but had not yet been incorporated into energies H0 and H1. By subtracting the two equations and following Einstein’s lead by letting H0 - E0 = K0 and H1 - E1 = K1 and following through with Einstein’s simple logic the equation turns out to be

If we let [K0 - K1] = ∆K, the change in energy of the body with respect to system B and system A, then the equation will reduce to the following when using the binomial theorem on both sides;

This equation reduces to Einstein’s simple equation of a system truly at rest with respect to the observer, because ∆K/c² is [K0 - K1]/c² = ∆m and EC /c² reverts to L/c², the measure of diminished mass when giving off energy in the form of radiation, whenever v²C = 0. Our equation not only explains the energy lost by system C when giving off radiation, but any energy gained by its relative motion with respect to system A as well as with respect to system B. It gives not only the potential energy of system C, but also its kinetic energy, with respect to system B. Obviously, a change in mass or a change in velocity of the body (system C) with respect to system B will cause a subsequent change in the kinetic energy. It also reduces the endless infinities of Einstein’s equation because all subsequent orders of fourth order and higher cancel out.

And, of course, this equation is the unified field equation with which we started. When carried through letting ∆K equal mc², the equation becomes;

Most university text use Einstein’s relativity formulation of kinetic energy in this manner. They define the relativistic generalization of kinetic energy K as;

.

When using the binomial theorem we finish with the classical ½mv² whenever v is much smaller than c, but this leaves us with two problems. First, this is an electromagnetic equation, only written in differentiation for kinetic energy, and does not take into neutral mass. Secondly, this is the Hamiltonian written in relativity form and it relegates mc² to the total potential energy, not the kinetic energy of motion, in the following manner;

By way of proof for our equation above let ∆K = Φ for the work function, the amount of energy lost by the electron escaping the surface of a metal, and [½( ) v²]C = max, the maximum kinetic energy with which a photoelectron emerges from its shell, and [½( ) v²]B = Etotal = hν, where h stands for Planck’s constant and ν, nu, is the frequency of the photon captured by the electron, so that hν equals the total energy and our equation becomes

This is Einstein’s Nobel Prize winning equation for the photoelectric effect derived from a logical, analytical approach of the theory of relativity.

From this equation the equations of James Clerk Maxwell can also be derived which unify the entire electro-magnetic field. That can be done in this manner; let mv²/2 = Ek for kinetic energy, and mc² = ε0Ε²Αi r, where ε0 is the permittivity constant, E is the electric field, Ai is the initial area and r is the distance the area travels in space along any axis and can also be written as c∆t; where c is the speed of light and ∆t is the change in time. ET, (total energy) = ε0Ε²Αf r where everything remains the same except Af is equal to the final area after the addition of the energy Ek. We can show the following;

mc² = ε0E²Af r

Or

And to

But since (Af - Ai ) can also be rewritten as c²tEtB and because the electric field (E) and magnetic field (B) expand at the exact same rate perpendicular with one another, , and contrary wise for tE, and if ct is the distance from one corner diagonally to the other corner of the area of the plane, we then have;

Which we can reduce further to;

We find that is actually equal to the charge, Q, of the electric field so we have;

This is Gauss’ Law of the electric field when we realize that is nothing other than 4πr (R²-r²)¹/², or simply 4πdr² and our equation becomes,

Q/ε0 =4πEdr² = E dA.

From this particular equation, , all of Maxwell’s equations can be developed which includes the concept of the inductance field of the magnetic field.

Our initial equation, mc²+mv²/2 = ET, is also the equation Millikan used to discover the charge to mass ratio between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields by balancing the fields. The equation also does something else that is not apparent right away. It establishes the necessity of system A as a third system.

THE ELECTRO-MAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS; SIMILAR BUT DIFFERENT

In comparing Einstein’s 1905 paper, “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES,” and his 1911 paper, “ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT,” it is interesting to note that the energy of motion is drawn from two different but similar fields. In his 1905 paper he states, “. . . the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron.” In his 1911 paper he states, “. . . the quantity of energy M’γh/c²-Mγh/c² has been conveyed to the system in the form of mechanical work.”

It is unfortunate that Einstein did not recognize this relationship and continued to

insist upon the speed of light as an upper limit that no mass could exceed. Even in his 1911 paper he had trouble explaining the falling of light in a gravitational field as being maintained as an upper limit, he states, “The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.” What is obvious is that they are similar but different fields. Similar, in that both obey the inverse square law, which has been proven to be a universal law for all fields, and different in that electromagnetism is accompanied and divisible by both positive and negative charges while gravitation is neutral in nature ignoring the charges altogether and accompanies only mass. They could not possibly be the same kind of field.

Einstein should have incorporated this into his theory of relativity in this paper and his equations would have worked out from the beginning. For instance, in his 1911 paper he compares two systems which are rigidly connected by a distance of h, as system, K, that has a gravitational field. He states, “We judge of the process of the transference of energy by radiation from S2 to S1 from a system K0 which is to be free from acceleration . . . .” It so happens that free from acceleration does not mean free from uniform motion. And as we have stated above rest and linear translation are observer dependent forms of uniform motion. Since K’ is at rest with K0 at the moment the energy is released, this could mean that K’ and K0 are moving uniformly and parallel with one another in the same direction, and if S1 and S2 are rigidly connected then both of them are in uniform translation and the distance h between them, with respect to the original theory, will be contracted. Therefore, the time elapsed to travel the distance is no longer h/c, but rather a distance, h (1-v²/c²)¹/²/c. Likewise, the velocity of S1 relatively to K0 is γh (1 - v²/c²)¹/²/c = v or γh/c = v/ (1 - v²/c²)¹/², which can also be written, using the binomial theorem, in this manner v (1+v²/2c²+ . . .). When the energy arrives at S1 it does not possess the energy of E2, but a greater energy, E1, related to E2 in this way;

If we replace γh by the potential Φ of the gravitational vector we then have the equation;

.

This, of course, produces our unified field equation as above in the previous equation in the preceding section as follows;

And by letting E1 - E2 = ∆E, then our equation changes to;

Here we realize, in this case, that Φ represents the total change in velocity as v²/2 + . . . indicates, because this incorporates both velocities, vB and vC, as both continue to change. The reason for this is that this is a field similar to, but different from the electrostatic field. Because it is a neutral field dealing with neutral mass the velocities are not limited to the velocity of light. However the velocity of light sets a standard by which to measure all other velocities.

What is quite obvious is there are two very different but similar fields at work here. The electrostatic field acts only with respect to the charges that are contained in the atoms and ignores the material part of the atom. The gravitational field acts only with respect to the neutral mass and ignores the charges contained in the atomic structure. In fact, in comparing the two forces, we realize why they are different.

When Newton formulated his gravitational field equation he used matter or mass as the only component of the equation, ignorant of any electromagnetic charges, but when James Clerk Maxwell formulated his field equations for electromagnetism, matter, as a component, was never included. But somehow in the latter part of the nineteenth century physicists came to the conclusion that mass or matter was completely electromagnetic in nature, though there was no solid evidence or valid reason to this assumption. This philosophy, unfortunately, was the foundation with which Einstein was working.

During the latter part of the nineteenth century, in 1881, J. J. Thomson derived an equation from theoretical principles that would define the classical rest radius of the electron if the electron was purely electromagnetic in origin, which can be expressed in this manner;

e = 4.803 x 10-10 esu (electro static units) m = 9.11 x 10-28 grams c = 2.998 x 10¹ c/s (centimeters per second) r = 2.817 x 10-13 cm

J. J. Thomson never believed that mass was purely electromagnetic in nature, but because of the current philosophy in those days it became accepted as the standard classical radius of the electron, mainly because of Lord Raleigh, and is still accepted that way today. However, if our argument is true, that electromagnetism and gravitation are similar but different and should be additive forces, then one can change this equation to be in line with this argument in this manner;

, G = 6.673 x 10-8 dynes cm²/g² (dynes centimeters squared per gram squared) All the other symbols remain the same as above.

At first this may seem like a forced equation, but we will see later it is not and is used on a daily basis. It is easy to see why gravity as a field would be overlooked at the subatomic level, (Gm/c² is in the nature of 10-56meters), but we will see why it is also very important. The second term of the equation on the right is known as the Schwarzschild critical radius divided by two, RS /2. This radius was not even known until 1916, when Schwarzschild worked it out after reading the general theory of relativity, and basically an electron does not have a critical radius, but since this is a theoretical argument virtually every mass can theoretically have a critical radius.

H. A. Lorentz formulated an equation after relativity, similar to this argument, that states the ratio of the mass in motion, m, to the mass at rest, m0, should be comparable to the inverse ratio of its rest radius, r0, to its radius in motion, r0 (1-v²/c²), or, . Therefore if m equals the Lorentz formula for the increasing rest mass due to motion in our equation, so that;

;

It can be readily seen that as neutral mass increases in size due to velocity the electromagnetic radius decreases and the gravitational influence increases, if everything else stays the same. This is so even though the gravitational field appears to be too small to make a significant difference on the subatomic level. But something interesting does occur when one divides out the electromagnetic field, the equation reduces to;

.

Using the binomial theorem on both sides of the equation it becomes;

.

One knows from the previous section that (v²/2) + . . . represents Φ, for the gravitational field, but we also know from measurement that the velocity, v, of the electron in its first orbit around the nucleus of an atom is equal to c/137… . So, multiplying through by c² the equation becomes,

Here all the symbols remain the same as before, but α is known as the fine structure constant or α = 7.294848617482111096989377680633 x 10-3. It seems that the fine structure constant is the incremental change of the gravitational field of the atom acting through the electromagnetic radius of the electron. If one multiplies through by the kinetic energy of a photon introduced into an electron in its orbital, represented by mv²/2, and lets Gm0/r equal Φ0, then the equation looks like this;

Dividing through by Φ0, the equation becomes;

.

Collecting the odd on the left side of the equation and letting mv²/2 equal E for total kinetic energy of the photon on the right side then the equation is;

,

We know that α can be related to the electrostatic equation in this manner, α = , where e is the electrostatic unit, h is Planck’s constant, 6.627 x 10-34 Joules seconds, Js, and c is the velocity of light, all as before. This equation can also be written as α = , where q is the electronic charge of 1.602 x 10-19 Coulombs, C, and ε0 is the permittivity of free space at 8.853 x 10-12 C²/Nm² so then α² = . And because we know the kinetic energy of the electron in its orbits is also equal to, , the equation becomes

.

Letting Φ/Φ0 = , the ground state of the orbit, and v²/c²= , the excited state of the electron and E = hf, where f stands for frequency of the energy released changing from one state to another, then our equation becomes;

.

And following through one finds that this equation is precisely the same form as the Balmer formula for the frequencies of the hydrogen spectrum when , where is the Rydberg constant of 10961613.63/meters and c is the speed of light so that;

Although the gravitational field is small and seems mostly insignificant on the atomic level one sees that the quantum numbers of the atomic structure are directly related to the interaction of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field on this level, demonstrated by the fine structure constant squared, α².

This equation, also, leaves one with a certain dilemma with respect to the theories of relativity in that the speed of light, c, does not appear to be an upper limit for mass to overcome. We can understand this better by reanalyzing Einstein’s initial logic.

Einstein made some great leaps in logic with respect to his paper, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES. One of these is to consider the material points of a ponderable mass to be made into a charged body by the addition of an electric charge, no matter how small.

He states in this paper that,” . . . Velocities greater than that of light have – as in our previous results – no possibility of existence.

This expression for the kinetic energy must also, by virtue of the argument stated above, apply to ponderable masses as well.”

He was referring to his analogy in his paper of a slowly accelerated electron, a charged particle. If it gives off no energy in the form of radiation, it must gain its energy in the form of work, We, from the electrostatic field, which his equations demonstrated. But what he does not take into is that an electron’s mass can be slowly accelerated by a gravitational field without giving off energy in the form of radiation, thereby also gaining energy in the form of work, Wg,

although small it may be. It is by this method that Millikan actually discovered the specific charge by using the charge to mass ratio of the electron. Therefore we must conclude that his argument for velocities no greater than that of light must be valid only for electro-magnetic statically charged bodies and does not include neutral masses as a whole, ponderable or no.

When Einstein wrote this paper he was completely unaware of the existence of neutrons. But by his logic one can make any ponderable material points neutral, like a giant neutron, by the removal of or balancing of all electric charges, no matter how great. And, in fact, most ponderable masses are, indeed, overall neutral in nature.

THE INCOMPLETE LOGIC OF THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT

The failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment is the fundamental experiment that Einstein used to base his special theory of relativity upon. It is unfortunate that not only Einstein but all modern physicists see this as one of the greatest failed experiments in history. In fact, it is one of the greatest incomplete experiments of history.

The premise was to prove or disprove the existence of the “ether” in which the Earth was supposed to be floating. It did neither. What it did do was to set a standard by which all velocities could be measured, the velocity of light.

The basic philosophy of physicists was simply this; all light must travel through the “ether” in which all planets and stars floated. Just like waves of water, light also traveled in waves, this had already been proven, through space. It seemed reasonable that there must be something to wave, hence the “ether.”

The particular flaw in this logic is that physicists saw the stars and planets floating in the “ether,” like boats floating in water or perhaps like planes flying through the air. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to measure the speed of the Earth through this “ether,” similar to an air speed indicator on an airplane or a knots indicator on a boat. The experiment failed to discover the Earth’s motion through the “ether,” even to this day, and for good reason, it was designed to fail. The fact that the light had to travel two ways, from the source and back, allowed any signal to regain any energy it had lost or lose any energy it had gained traveling in the opposite direction if it gained or lost energy traveling through the “ether,” even though they had supposedly taken this into consideration. But the greatest failure was to assume that matter and ‘ether’ were separate phenomenon. After the failure of the experiment the assumption was made that the “ether” did not exist. Einstein’s special theory of relativity was based, in part, upon this failure and assumption. His statement about the “ether” in his paper states, “. . . The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.”

In Stephen Hawking’s book THE UNIVERSE IN A NUT SHELL he has a depiction of what he and all modern physicists believe to be the MichelsonMorley experiment. It is not. In truth, it is a depiction of the Pound-Rebka experiment of 1960 which was designed for another purpose altogether. Here are the significant differences;

The depiction on the right side is the one in Stephen Hawking’s book. The truth is the M-M experiment, the example on the left, has always been performed parallel to or tangent to the surface of the Earth. This supposes that the Earth is a separate phenomenon from the ether.

The P-R experiment, done perpendicular to the surface of the Earth using the Mossbauer Effect, was designed to measure the gain or loss of energy of a light signal falling or rising through a gravitational field and the time dilation which occurs. This supposes that the field and the Earth are inseparable phenomenon. We already know that the planets and stars are influenced by this field as Newton predicted. The P-R experiment was very successful, so this is a good supposition that they may be inseparable phenomenon. A combined experiment should settle this ambiguity.

A combined M-M and Pound-Rebka experiment has been done and is being done on a daily basis. It is called the Global Positioning System. It takes the time dilation of the Special Theory and the time dilation of the General Theory and combines them in order to find ones position here on Earth. In order to do this they use cesium clocks on Earth and in orbit around the Earth. It has been found that they have to make corrections to the cesium clocks located on the face of the Earth because they have an annual “error” and will fluctuate with the Earth’s orbit around the sun with a deviation of ±0.00166067 seconds. This is a consequence of the Earth’s aphelion and perihelion traveling through the “ether,” or perhaps better called dark energy, in its orbit around the sun.

Unlike Einstein’s general theory where he still supposes the curvature of space is caused by the presence of mass as a separate phenomenon, in this argument the curvature of space is caused by the mass because it is an inseparable part of the fabric of space.

Descartes first proposed the concept that mass may be similar to a vortex, or a whirlpool, in the fabric of space. James Clerk Maxwell formulated his unified equations of electrodynamics around the concept that electro-magnetic energy acted like vortices or whirlpools in mass; hence the right-hand thumb rule in the electronic flow of electrons. Newton was unable to Descartes’ idea in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, because he thought it unnecessary; however, he was not privy to the theories of relativity at the time.

There are two reasons Newton could not Descartes’ concept of vortices in space. One was because Newton could explain most of the planetary motions with his equations without the necessity of whirlpools or vortices and secondly, because Newton’s and Descartes’ concept of space differed. Newton’s concept of space was, “. . . without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.” Einstein and Newton both saw space as independent from matter although Einstein recognized that mass did affect the space in its immediate vicinity causing it to bend. Descartes, on the other hand, saw space as an

extension of mass or matter. You could only measure space between two material points or two vortices, if you will; space is measurable. If you could not measure it, space did not exist. It was simply void.

With the advent of general relativity Descartes’ concepts seems more plausible, even though Einstein agrees more with Newton than with Descartes. But let us take an excerpt from Newton’s Principia;

PROPOSITION LXI, THEOREM XXIV. IF TWO BODIES ATTRACTING EACH OTHER WITH ANY KIND OF FORCES, AND NOT OTHERWISE AGITATED OR OBSTRUCTED, ARE MOVED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, THOSE MOTIONS WILL BE THE SAME AS IF THEY DID NOT AT ALL ATTRACT EACH OTHER MUTUALLY, BUT WERE BOTH ATTRACTED WITH THE SAME FORCES BY A THIRD BODY PLACED IN THEIR COMMON CENTER OF GRAVITY; AND THE LAW OF THE ATTRACTING FORCES WILL BE THE SAME IN RESPECT OF THE DISTANCE OF THE BODIES FROM THE COMMON CENTER, AS IN RESPECT OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO BODIES.

Simply stated, if two bodies are mutually attracted with a common center of gravity, they will act in unison as one when acted upon by an outside force. Their common center of gravity acts as the center of attraction for both bodies, as if all the particles of both masses were loosely packed around the common center of gravity. This logic could also be extended to more than two masses, on to infinity. This is not to say that all the masses would not have their own relative velocities with respect to one another, but rather they would all act in unison with one common center of gravity; from solar systems to galaxies.

This is a very good explanation for space being a measurable distance between any two bodies or any number of bodies, for that matter, as Descartes suggested.

And if each of these masses is a vortex it would explain the relative curvature between and around the masses.

TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS

This brings us to another interesting aspect of Newton’s theory compared to Einstein’s theories of relativity. Newton envisioned time as being absolute and immutable flowing without regard to anything external. Einstein, of course, saw time as relative to the motion of the observer and that it was influenced by inertial and non-inertial forces. It could be slowed down by our relative motion through space or by the gravitational field in which it exists or both.

Even though Einstein believed that the gravitational field affected time he had a hard time explaining the relative effects of time in a gravitational field. He makes this statement about time in a gravitational field in his paper ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT in 1911, “. . . For measuring time at a place which, relatively to the origin of the coordinates, has the gravitation potential φ, we must employ a clock which – when removed to the origin of coordinates – goes (1+φ/c²) times more slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of coordinates . . . .” In other words time in a gravitational field goes more slowly the stronger the gravitational field. They actually use this concept in the GPS clocks.

The special theory demonstrated one thing about time; all systems and their electromagnetic properties, independent and separately from one another, contains their own temporal dimension, as demonstrated by the relativity of simultaneity; and by extension of Einstein’s logic all ponderable masses contain this same temporal dimension as well. Of course, Einstein viewed ponderable masses as electromagnetic in nature, as do all physicists.

Accepting that our argument above is correct, we include Newton’s logic of ponderable masses that act as one from a common center of gravity; Descartes concept of space being an extension of mass; with that of Einstein’s, and it would then seem that each field, the electromagnetic and the gravitational, have separate temporal properties. One temporal coordinate acts with respect to the point charge of the local platforms of the electromagnetic field, coordinate time, and the other temporal coordinate acts with respect to the common center of gravity of the neutral mass platforms of the gravitational field, proper time. In the Global Positioning System they are called motional time and gravitational time. It may be that just as the inverse square law is relevant to every field, each field has its own temporal property.

This would extend our dimensional universe to include at least five dimensions; three linear dimensions and two temporal dimensions. One temporal dimension acting with all things electro-magnetic and one temporal dimension acting with respect to all things gravitational. It would appear that each individual electromagnetic particle or mass has an independent time coordinate that may or may not coordinate with a common center of gravity when two or more masses are involved. Both appear to be altered with respect to the observer’s relative motion.

What happens to time when the observer is removed from the equation, and is Newton’s time the same as Einstein’s time? Most physicists simply assume that ‘time’ for universal actions, proper time, is the same ‘time’ for atomic reactions, coordinate time. This cannot be the case. There are two separate but similar fields and there must be two separate but similar temporal coordinates that act within each field. Because the linear dimensions are the same regardless of either field, it is the temporal dimensions that allow each field to interact with each other, but also independent of each other. While each electromagnetic particle and its mass can act independent of one another, their combined masses with its center of gravity will always act as if they are in unison.

The concept of two temporal dimensions is not a new idea either. It was first

suggested by the great Nobel physicist P. A. M. Dirac and Arthur Milne. While their particular concept was not proven, (they believed one temporal coordinate to be the logarithm of the other), it does not mean they were completely wrong. The concept of five dimensions is also not a new idea. It was first proposed by Theodore Kalusa in 1920, and the idea was improved upon by Oscar Klein. They showed that all the forces of nature could be unified in a five dimensional universe.

There is ing theoretical evidence for this concept in Einstein’s theories of relativity, both the special and the general theory. Scientists and physicists have simply not accepted the fundamental logic that two temporal dimensions must exist. Let us take an excerpt from Einstein’s ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,’ (the special theory), section 4; “. . . A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion – viewed from the stationary system – the form of an ellipsoid of revolution . . .

Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension, (the diameter), appears shortened . . .” Now let us take an excerpt from Einstein’s ‘General Theory of Relativity,’ section 3; “. . . We suppose that the circumference and diameter of this circle have been measured with a unit measure infinitely small compared with the radius, and that we have the quotient of the two results. If this experiment were performed with a measuring-rod at rest relatively to the Galilean system K, the quotient would be π. With a measuring-rod at rest relatively to K’, the quotient would be greater than π. This is readily understood if we envisage the whole process of measuring from the “stationary” system K, and take into consideration a Lorentzian contraction, while the one applied along the radius does not… .”

We actually have two natural occurring events that these scenarios that Einstein just described above; the Earth and the Moon. If we could take a snapshot of the Moon and get a just measure of the Moon’s diameter with respect to Earth, we could then set a measure of its track across the sky.

However, according to Einstein’s first description we would find that the Moon’s track would be slightly greater than would be expected from the measure of its diameter as measured from Earth because of its contraction due to the Earth’s steady rotation of 1,045 miles per hour. This makes the Moon appear to be contracted moving across the sky at a steady linear speed. Truly, though, this is really too short to measure and too slow a speed, but it is the same principle. This is ed by the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction equation and the special theory of relativity.

Now, conversely if we are standing on the Moon and looking at the Earth and watch as someone takes this same measuring rod we used to measure the Moon’s track across the sky and measure the circumference of the Earth we would expect them to get a greater measure than π. This is envisioned as we are standing on the Moon watching as the measuring rod contracts in the direction of the Earth’s rotation. We can do this because the Earth is lunar-centric and while the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, the Earth will rotate on its axis with respect to the Moon. This is ed by the Pound-Rebka experiment measured perpendicular to the Earth’s surface, Einstein’s time dilation equation and the general theory of relativity. Although the M-M experiment also s the dilation of time with a rod laid parallel to the Earth’s surface, the P-R experiment shows a rod contraction and time dilation placed perpendicular to the Earth’s surface.

The two following diagram’s, system K and system K’, will demonstrate these scenarios described by Einstein. Consider the one on the left similar to the Moon and the one on the right similar to the Earth in rotation with clocks in the center and on the circumference. In Einstein’s example of the rotating disc the centrifugal force acts as the gravitational force on Earth, (but it also replicates the M-M experiment).

Let us now take one more excerpt from Einstein’s book, ‘Relativity, the Special and General Theory,’ from Appendix III; “. . . we represent the difference of potential of the centrifugal force between the position of the clock and the centre of the disc by φ, i.e. the work, considered negatively, which must be performed on the unit of the mass against the centrifugal force in order to transport it from the position of the clock on the rotating disc to the centre of the disc, . . .” He follows with the equations to show that an atom in a gravitational field vibrates at a different rate as one in free space, which demonstrates time dilation in a gravitational field as follows;

λ0= frequency in space λ = frequency on Earth G = Gravitation Constant m = Mass of body r = radius of body c = speed of light

However, what Einstein seems to forget and every physicist and mathematician seems to forget is that a clock located on the periphery of any disc (or in a gravitational field on a rotating sphere) does not travel in just one direction. Einstein’s scenario requires five dimensions as the following diagram, system K”, will demonstrate;

As Einstein suggests, if we actually apply work to move the clock in a straight line along the radius to the center of the disc then two things happen; the radius must contract with respect the special theory and time slow even more along the radius and in the same motion it must slow with the rotation along the periphery as in the general theory. In fact, if the clock simply stayed “stationary” on the circumference, this same thing happens.

If we follow the clock’s motion from the periphery of the circumference to the center, from the stand point of the disc at relative rest, it will appear to follow a spiral into the center. With respect to someone rotating with the disc the clock simply seems to take a straight linear motion to the center. We see this happen every time we launch a space shuttle into outer space. Everybody and everything, without exception, follows this same track through space-time-time. And in line with this logic the above equation will become;

∆λ = change in frequency from Earth to space n = v/c = any velocity divided by the speed of light All other symbols remain the same as above

The diagram above s the concept of two contractions and therefore two temporal dimensions and is derived from Einstein’s own logic and is used daily in the Global Positioning System. It is also because of the diagram above and the Pythagorean Theorem, [x²+y²+z² = c² (tx²+ty²)], or by the General Theory where with respect to the following formula, that the temporal dimensions are additive. However, the most appealing thing about this phenomenon is that this is the exact equation we formulated and used above when we allow that, and , so that, .

Today’s string and membrane theories are a direct result of Theodore Kalusa’s and Oscar Klein’s proposal. Perhaps it could be that there are only three linear dimensions and that all other dimensions of the string theorists are of a temporal nature.

If one takes the equation from Einstein’s logic then our gravitational time equation should look like this;

2∆t+n²∆t = ,

n=v/c – velocity of neutral mass/speed of light K=Newton’s constant of gravitation M=mass of the universe

c=speed of light ∆t=change in time. to= time at relative rest ru= radius of the universe

The unique thing about this equation is that it shows that no matter how many times faster than the speed of light one goes, one cannot travel into the past. Time simply slows, infinitely, collapsing behind critical radius after critical radius while the observer moves through it. Because 2KM/c² equals RS, which is Schwarzschild’s critical radius, and if one lets ru /t0 equal c, the speed of light, then our equation becomes the following;

,

And therefore time slows infinitely with respect to the critical radius of the Universe but it never reverses itself, no matter how fast we go.

CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY!

What conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing paper with respect to the general theory of relativity? In reading the theory it can be seen that although the equations are beautifully developed it is based upon an incomplete logic. In section fourteen (14) of the General Theory, THE FIELD EQUATIONS OF GRAVITATION IN THE ABSENCE OF MATTER, Einstein starts by making a statement that is probably, completely erroneous, albeit the standard philosophy at that time… “We make a distinction hereafter between “gravitational field” and

“matter” in this way, that we denote everything but the gravitational field as “matter.” Our use of the word therefore includes not only matter in the ordinary sense, but the electromagnetic field as well . . . .” Einstein presumes, as do all physicists of that time and as they do today, the electromagnetic field to be an extension of matter when actually according to our assertion this is simply not true.

The proposal in this paper is that “matter” interacts with the electromagnetic field but that the gravitational field is the extension of this “matter”. This, of course, contradicts Einstein’s concept (and modern day concepts), but it is not a contradiction of relativity as has been shown. It simply means Einstein used incomplete logic to bring his equations to a semi-successful conclusion.

However Einstein cannot be faulted for this. Most of the logic and experimental discoveries that our conclusions were only being brought to light while he was still writing his papers. Robert Millikan’s experiments were not even complete when Einstein wrote his 1911 paper and he would probably not have been aware of its full implications in his 1916 paper. It was not until 1932 that neutrons were discovered by James Chadwick.

Einstein formulates an equation similar to the one above, but it is derived in the wrong way. In his 1916 paper, “General Relativity,” he corrects an error in his 1911 paper, (his equations were off by a factor of one-half), simply by introducing a factor of in equation 49 in section 15, a fudge factor. He has no other reason for its introduction except to make his equations work out right which he states in section 16.

Einstein states in section 16 of the general theory, “. . . The special theory of relativity has led to the conclusion that inert mass is nothing more or less than energy which finds its complete mathematical expression in a symmetrical tensor of second rank, the energy-tensor. Thus in the general theory of relativity we must introduce a corresponding energy-tensor of matter (Emphasis

added) . . . which, like the energy-components . . . of the gravitational field, will have mixed character, but will pertain to a symmetrical covariant tensor . . . .”

“The system of equation (51) shows how this energy-tensor (corresponding to the density ρ in Poisson’s equation) is to be introduced into the field equations of gravitation. For if we consider a complete system (e.g. the solar system), the total mass of the system, and therefore its total gravitating action as well, will depend on the total energy of the system, and therefore on the ponderable energy together with the gravitational energy. This will allow itself to be expressed by introducing into (51), in place of the energy-components of the gravitational field alone, the sums of the energy-components of matter and of gravitational field . . . .

“It must be itted that this introduction of the energy-tensor of matter is not justified by the relativity postulate alone. For this reason we have here deduce it from the requirement that the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy. But the strongest reason for the choice of these equations lies in their consequence, that the equations of conservation of momentum and energy, hold good for the components of the total energy . . .”(Emphasis added)

Einstein simply changes his equations so that they work out properly. His reason for introducing the second energy-tensor is a forced assumption and contradictory to the special theory where mass and energy are equivalent, but he does this so his equations work. The equation in this paper derives naturally and mathematically from logical and analytical progression simply by making gravity an extension of matter and separating it from electromagnetic energy and by making the observer a participant in his universe.

What Einstein could not be aware of at the time of the development of his theory is that if the mass increases infinitely with increased velocity (the Lorentzian mass in motion) and the radius decreases infinitely with increased velocity then

density must also increase infinitely until the mass would collapse behind its critical radius. It was not until after the publication of the general theory that Schwarzschild’s paper was published on the critical radius caused by the gravitational collapse of matter.

In the introduction of Part D. MATERIAL PHENONMENA, of the General Theory, which is only two paragraphs long, Einstein makes this statement about matter in the second paragraph; “. . . Hence it comes about that it is not necessary to introduce definite assumptions as to the physical nature of matter (in the narrower sense). In particular it may remain an open question whether the theory of the electromagnetic field in conjunction with that of the gravitational field furnishes a sufficient basis for the theory of matter or not. The general postulate of relativity is unable on principle to tell us anything about this. It must remain to be seen, during the working out of the theory, whether electromagnetics and the doctrine of gravitation are able in collaboration to perform what the former by itself is unable to do.” Einstein was unsure of whether matter was fully explained by his theory. It has remained so even to this today.

Electromagnetics and the doctrine of gravitation can be reconciled if we separate neutral mass from electrodynamics and place it in its proper place as a part of the theory of gravitation. We add the forces together and add another temporal dimension to the four we already have, to allow both fields a temporal expression, and our Grand Unification Theory is complete which includes most of the major scientific discoveries and analyses of the past century, including the Hamiltonian and the theories of relativity, both the special and the general theory.

SUMMARY

This paper has expressed an attempt to prove that the Hamiltonian is and should

be considered the Unified Field Equation. Although, Sir William Hamilton developed his equation in response to Bernoulli’s fluid dynamics and Newton’s laws of motion it is fundamentally logical that it should satisfy every conceivable concept that expresses a field.

In an attempt to show how this logic s a Unified Field Theory, it has been shown that “rest” or “stationary” and “uniform linear translation” are observer dependent motions of the same “uniform motion.” That is “uniform motion” is considered “rest” when the relative velocity of an object with respect to the observer is equal to zero and when it is unequal to zero it is considered “uniform linear translation.” When the observer is removed from the scenario the apparent differences disappear and there is no way to distinguish one motion from the other. Also noted was the fact that equilibrium is exactly the same for either motion which leads one to believe that they are the exact same motion except for the observer’s predilection.

By using the true concept of uniform motion this paper was able to show where Einstein’s equations in his 1905 and 1911 papers could be modified to reflect the true concept of motion without the observer and produce the Hamiltonian unified field equation.

But this left a great inconsistency in Einstein’s logic for the upper limit of velocity being the speed of light. However, reanalyzing Einstein’s logic in these two papers it was shown where, not through any fault of his own, he used faulty and incomplete assumptions, wholly acceptable at the time, to base his logic upon which lead to erroneous conclusions.

Part of this faulty logic stemmed from the Michelson-Morley experiment which is still touted today a one of the greatest failed experiments in history. It is unfortunate that the experiment was designed to fail from the beginning and succeeded beautifully. The premise for the logic of the experiment was incomplete from the beginning and has never been completed. It supposed that

all planets and stars floated in a sea called “ether” through which light traveled in waves. This would make the planets and stars separate entities from the “ether.” They never supposed that the “ether” could somehow be an extension of the mass or matter, so instead of being a boat floating in the water they are more like a whirlpool in the water. The Michelson-Morley experiment never tested for this making it an incomplete experiment.

We discussed that the Global Positioning System is a daily experiment of the variation of the Michelson-Morley plus the Pound-Rebka experiment. Its success substantiates the existence of the “ether” as being part of the universal equation. However it was demonstrated by comparing the Michelson-Morley experiment combined with the Pound-Rebka experiment that there are two temporal dimensions making our Universe five dimensional. Although the speed of light has been shown to be the standard by which to measure all other speeds, the five dimensional nature of the Universe allows for speeds greater than the speed of light.

The other faulty logic Einstein used was the assumption of his day that mass or matter is wholly electro-magnetic in origin. It was J.J. Thompson’s theoretical equation for the electro-magnetic radius of an electron that caused scientists of his time to assume that this was the complete and whole electron. Although J. J. Thompson never believed the electron to be wholly electro-magnetic in nature, it was Lord Raleigh that pushed the idea until it became an accepted standard. Scientists to this day still have trouble defining the concept of mass or matter.

However this paper demonstrated that by adding the gravitational force to the electro-magnetic force, an equation that the Global Positioning System uses daily, produces a mathematical way to define the fine structure constant and the fundamental quantum states of the electron. It shows the fine structure constant to be an interaction constant between electro-magnetic and gravitational fields. It also demonstrated how to derive the Maxwell equations from our derived equation.

There was no analysis with respect to the General Theory except to show where Einstein’s logic was faulty due to the convention of his day. I leave the mathematical analyses of the General Theory to minds greater than mine.

PART II ALL SYSTEMS RELATIVE!

F IRST AND FOREMOST, the Theories of Relativity do not lead to a unified field concept and the equations of Einstein have not been completely solved or proved. If they had been completely solved there would be a final solution today that all physicists are satisfied with. There is not as Part I demonstrates.

Secondly, there are too many illogical conclusions and mind paradoxes that scientists are lead to by the theories. Mind you these conclusions are of a mathematical nature. That is they are deduced from the outcome of the equations and mind experiments with no way to prove or disprove them except for the blind belief of the physicists and mathematicians who figure them out. As I stated in the book, mathematics is a tool to help find answers. It is not the final answer. Whenever a mathematical problem leads to a non-sense solution it should be discarded for a logical solution. Unfortunately, in theoretical physics, no one knows what the real solution is so they invent solutions to fit their equations. A few of these we will discuss below.

One of these I made reference to in the book. It is a statement by Dr. Robert Wald that it makes no sense to ask what happened before the Big Bang because nothing existed before the Big Bang. Dr. Schroeder goes even further in his book to state that nothing exists outside the realms of our universe and that there was nothing outside the primordial soup from which the Big Bang sprang. He states that space and time create their own space and time as they expand. In a way this is true, although I prefer to refer back to Descartes and call what is beyond space a void where a time exists, not nothing. In most mathematics whenever you divide nothing by something, whether it is one universe or a googalillian stars and galaxies, it is still nothing. Usually, even when we say there is nothing in this jar or this place, we still expect there to be, at least, a void and time. So if there is absolutely nothing, not even time, beyond the realm of our universe, how

are we expanding?

I can agree that it is beyond the grasp of mathematics and physics; “As the theories of the early universe reach back to the beginning of time they describe a condition in which all the matter is pressed into a space of zero size and infinite density. Infinity cannot be dealt with quantitatively and so cosmologists cannot describe the conditions of our absolute origin in real … But if we relate to real-world dimensions, that zero point of time, the beginning, is beyond the grasp of mathematics and physics.” (An excerpt from Dr. Schroeder’s Book, ‘Genesis and the Big Bang.’)

The real point is simply this; physicists must deal with faith as much as any religion because they cannot explain something or anything beyond their math. They have a tendency to forget that math is based on logic and not the reverse. So when the math begins to fail reality it is the logic at fault not the math or the reality. They should reassess the logic because the math can only tell them what the fundamental premise of the logic insists upon.

Interestingly, zero and infinity are strictly mathematical . In reality if you have zero of something you have nothing, absolutely nothing, unless, like in mathematics zero is not really nothing. Usually in mathematics when you start with zero it is simply a reference point, somewhere to begin to establish a reference to all other measures. This basically is what the Big Bang is as far as our time and space as we know it can be explained, but it does not mean that absolutely nothing existed before the Big Bang. There were products of motion, for example compression, heat, density; time of some other origin had to exist. This is the time referred to by Newton, “. . . Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external.”

Einstein’s time is different from Newtonian time. It is different in that it is a localized time, called motional or coordinate time by the Global Positioning

System, and is time with reference to an observer and his inertial platform. Local time can be referenced to other inertial platforms because of Newtonian time, proper or gravitational time as it is called. If Einstein’s time refers to separate inertial platforms and their relationships to each other, then Newtonian time refers to the overall platform that contains all the inertial platforms as a whole, such as the universe. If the universe does not exist then all inertial space-time platforms that exist within the universe do not exist either. In this way spacetime becomes an inertial platform.

Another problem physicists have with the theories of relativity is explaining the physical realities in metaphysical definitions. The Copenhagen interpretation and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principal are two prime examples of this. Although Neils Bohr states that science is concerned with the prediction of the outcome of experiments and that any additional propositions offered are not scientific but metaphysical, he failed to realized that any predictions whether of experiments or of anything else is metaphysical science. Experiments are to test conjectures and hypotheses and to be able to repeat findings by other experimenters; to predict their outcome falls in the realm of metaphysics.

However I think Dr. Steven Weinberg in his article, “Einstein’s Mistakes,” taken from Physics Today November 2005 issue on page 31 as repeated by Wikipedia makes a very good case, “. . . Bohr’s version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought. The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and the apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe. But these rules are expressed in of a wave function (or, more precisely, a state vector) that evolves in a perfectly deterministic way. So where do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen interpretation come from?

Considerable progress has been made in recent years toward the resolution of the problem, which I cannot go into here. It is enough to say that neither Bohr nor

Einstein had focused on the real problem with quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wave function, the Schrödinger equation, to observers and their apparatus,”

The idea of the collapse of the wave function originated by John von Neumann and was advanced by the Copenhagen interpretation. Simply stated, all the superimposed states of the wave collapse into one reality, when observed by an observer. But in light of Dr. Weinberg’s discussion I think it would not be a collapse at all.

Waves do one of two things when they interact with one another, they either reinforce one another or they nullify each another. So it would be obvious that when the wave function of the observer interacts with the wave function of the observed, then what ever the observer is looking for is reinforced. If he is looking for waves, he finds waves and if he is looking for a particle he finds a particle. The waves do not collapse, but rather reinforce each other forming what we euphemistically call the real world. The following diagram demonstrates;

The most interesting thing about this diagram and the analysis of the wave function by physicists is that it allows for the improbable, not the impossible, to exist. Even physicists it that sometimes these occurrences happen in quantum mechanics. But when it happens in the so called real world we call it coincidental, uncanny, déjà vu, mysterious, supernatural or even miraculous. The wave functions allow for all these things to happen just as God does.

To begin to understand how the Copenhagen interpretation and the wave function came into existence one must look closely at what is known as the uncertainty principle. It can actually be called the oxymoronic principle because of the way it asks its questions. The uncertainty principle states that one cannot know the position and the momentum of the electron, or any quantum particle for that matter, at the same time. But the real question, stated another way, is can you know the state of rest, position, and the state of unrest, momentum, of an object at the same time? This, of course, is an oxymoronic question. To find the one or the other on the quantum scale you must change the state of the particle, by interaction or moving it, to find its momentum and by changing its direction, or stopping it to find its position.

This oxymoronic proposition was pointed out very succinctly by Schrödinger’s cat in the box. It had a 50-50 chance of being killed by a capsule that would release a toxic gas if a certain particle decayed. While in the box the Copenhagen interpretation sated that the cat was both alive and dead at the same time; totally oxymoronic. But the great physicist Max Born developed the Born Rule and a probability equation of finding the cat alive or dead when opening the box. This is strictly metaphysical mathematics. The only thing the observer can know for sure is that the cat is alive in the box because he placed it there. To make a prediction of the cat’s condition after that before opening the box is strictly metaphysical in nature. This is only in the realm of physicists and psychics, but it can be understood how this came about.

Heisenberg formulated his equation from a basic concept in physics that one

could not determine the velocity, or momentum, of any object and at the same time know exactly where it would be, its position, at that specific time greater than h/2π. This is easily done with an automobile traveling down the road at a certain constant speed or with a train or a bus or a plane on a schedule. One knows how fast it is going and where it will be and at what time it will be there, but Heisenberg reasoned that the mass of the electron was so small it would be near impossible to determine this within this small slice of space and time without affecting either its position or its velocity. He was right, of course.

By extension of this logic, of course, one could say that one cannot observe any object without affecting the state of that object also, just as Dr. Weinberg suggests. The greater the mass observed the less affect the observer has on it, but the smaller the mass the greater the affect. One can observe a car ing by and know its position and momentum because the moving mass, or energy, that is considered the car, stays in that proportional point of space longer and takes a greater time to through that specific point in space. It is that change in time and the change in energy which allows one to calculate its velocity or momentum at that particular point or position.

On the quantum scale the electron mass ing through a point in space is harder to calculate because it is only there briefly. This is known as Einstein’s uncertainty principle of energy and time, ∆Ε∆t = h/2π.

Since Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is of momentum and position, p∆a = h/2π, and Einstein’s uncertainty principle is of energy and time, ∆Ε∆t = h/2π, both are equal to h/2π; adding them together, they are the Hamiltonian principle. Following through where the momentum, p, times the change in the slit width, ∆a, divided by the length of time lingering at that point, ∆t, plus the change in energy at any certain point, ∆E, it should equal some number times the Planck’s constant, nh, divided by 2π∆t;

.

One can see that this is not just the Hamiltonian, but is also Schrödinger’s wave equation as well.

The observer cannot observe either mass, the car or the electron, without having an affect upon it. Although the affect may be negligible with respect to the car compared to the electron, it is still there. Therefore, when one formulates an equation without including the observer as a part of the equation, his calculation, when it comes to the micro or the macro, will eventually lead to conclusions or finites and infinities that cannot be explained.

PART III

FUDGING THE TRUTH!

I FOUND IT interesting in Dr. Schroeder’s book that he talked about the cosmological constant Einstein introduced into his equation as a “fudge factor.” “. . . Einstein’s solutions of his general theory, published in 1917, correctly revealed a universe with expansion but such a concept was not in vogue at the time. Relying on the then-current cosmology; Einstein introduced “a cosmological constant” into his equations. In so doing, he forces his relativistic equations to describe a universe without expansion. Years later, Einstein considers this one of the worst errors of his professional life.

The cosmological constant was no more than what a college freshman would call a “fudge factor,” a totally subjective modification of the objective solution he was seeking. It forced his equations to give the desired answer. Five years later the mathematician Alexander Friedmann resolved Einstein’s equations omitting the fudge factor…”

Why this is interesting is that Einstein used a similar fudge factor to force fit the special theory into the general theory. The special theory was an electromagnetic theory and did not fit well in Newton’s theory of gravity. When Einstein tried to extend the special theory to include the theory of gravity in 1911 he found a snag. All the solutions to his equations were off by a factor of one-half. The special theory would not extend to gravity and Einstein spent the next five years trying to find a way to fit them together.

When he does finally produce his general theory of relativity it is so brilliant and involved that the complexity is not easy to understand. There are so numerous equations, well over 75, that Einstein numbers the equations so he can refer back

and forth between them. Because of the complexity none of the theoretical physicists of Einstein’s day even noticed the ‘fudge factor’ or questioned it if they did. The equations work out properly, for the most part, as they were designed to do. From that time to this the theory is taught with no one the wiser or wishing to be. What and where is the fudge factor?

When Einstein first formulated the theory of relativity it was specifically to answer some ambiguities with Newtonian physics. Peter G Bergman, in his book, “The Riddle of Gravitation,” states, “. . . The special theory of relativity emerged in response to the seeming inconsistencies between Newtonian physics and the new physics of the electromagnetic field…” In other words, the special theory is an electromagnetic theory and not a gravitational theory.

Einstein tried to extend the special theory to include the concept of gravitation in a paper he wrote in 1911 called, “On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light.” He found to his dismay that his equations did not work out properly. They were off by a factor of one-half. The reason for this was when Einstein formulated the special theory of relativity he used a mathematical tool called the binomial theorem. It is used to expand binomial equations to their conclusions. When you are using an inverse square root, such as (1-v²/c²)-½, the solutions can go on forever. More significantly the solution renders a pesky ½ in the second term like this; (1+ ½v²/c²+(3/8)v⁴/c⁴+ . . .) and goes on continually to infinity, which the three little periods mean. Of course, all the are ignored ed the one-half because the speed of light is so great it renders all subsequent velocity infinitesimal. It is the second term, (½v²/c²), that causes Einstein’s equations in this 1911 paper on gravitation to be reduced by ½.

, Einstein numbered all his equations in the general theory because they were so numerous. It was easier for him to refer to them by numbers in subsequent paragraphs rather than rewriting each equation. And in one equation he uses a “fudge factor.” In equation 49 Einstein simply introduces a factor of a -2k and states in a footnote, “the reason for the introduction of the factor -2k will be apparent later.” And indeed it is. In section 16, “The General Form of the

Field Equations of Gravitation,” he states, “. . . But the strongest reason for the choice of these equations lies in their consequence, that the equations of conservation of momentum and energy, corresponding exactly to equations (49) and (49a), hold good for the components of the total energy…”

Einstein knew his 1911 paper was off by a factor of one-half; all his solutions were off one-half of what they should have been. He discovered this when he used this method to work out Mercury’s perihelion around the sun, an already mathematically known abnormality of Newton’s equations, and found that it needed escape velocity to go from a lower orbit to a higher orbit. This is suggested because Einstein adds his equation for the perihelion of Mercury as the last equation in his General Theory with a footnote to its previous publication in 1915. So he simply introduces this factor of a minus two (-2) into his equation in 1916 because it makes his equations work out properly. There was no other apparent reason he should have done this except to “fudge” his equations. It is just as Dr. Schroeder stated about the cosmological constant, “. . . A totally subjective modification of the objective solution he was seeking. It forced his equations to give the desired answer.”

Interestingly enough, Lawrence M. Krauss in his book, “The Physics of Star Trek,” touts this as Einstein’s greatest insight, as, most probably, do many notable physicists. Let me quote from Dr. Krauss’ book, “. . . Remarkably, you would find, as Eddington did, that light bends exactly twice as much as Galileo might have predicted if it behaved like a baseball in flat space. As you may have guessed, this factor of 2 is just what Einstein predicted if spacetime was curved in the vicinity of the Sun and light (or the planet Mercury, for that matter) was locally traveling in a straight line in this curved space! Suddenly, Einstein’s was a household name.”

But it is this “fudge factor” that leaves Einstein’s general relativity equations unable to be completely solved or to generate a unified field theory. It does not mean that this is necessarily bad or wrong, for after all, the equations, for the most part, do work. And they are the equations with which we understand our

universe and describe how it works. Although by just introducing this ‘fudge factor,’ without having it logically worked into the equations, leaves the equations lacking, unsolvable and unable to define a unified field concept.

I have read Einstein’s papers; those dealing with relativity, both the special and general theories. Basically, when he deals with electromagnetic theory, the concept of rest and motion is a necessary one. From the standpoint of electromagnetism a moving charged particle generates a magnetic field, and a moving magnetic field causes a flow of charged particles, but neither is the case with respect to a stationary, at rest, particle. Only a static electric or magnetic field is present.

Gravitation, like a static electric or magnetic field, does not depend on the motion of mass. Einstein has shown that inertial and gravitational mass is equal. In other words, mass needs only to be present for a gravitational field to exist. So we would suppose that the concept of any kind of motion or rest would be irrelevant. But it is not.

Einstein’s special theory attempts to bring the electromagnetic filed concepts into line with Newton’s laws of motion. Newton developed his laws of motion and gravity from the discoveries of Johann Kepler and his measurements of the movements of the planets in the solar system. So it appears that when Einstein tried to explain gravity within the confines of special relativity he has thwarted Newton’s logic. When it fails, he simply fudges the equations.

This was totally unnecessary if he had only ed one thing; in the law of inertia and the laws of motion, as we pointed out in Part I, rest is simply another form of observer dependent uniform motion of the state of equilibrium. If when he had formulated his equations he had done it from the standpoint of Renee Descartes’ concept of space as an extension of matter and of a body beginning its acceleration from a state of equilibrium, the factor of a -2 would have been a natural consequence.

The following excerpts and analyses from Einstein’s paper, “ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT,” will demonstrate; “. . . We judge of the process of the transference of energy by radiation from S2 to S1 from a system K0, which is to be free from acceleration. At the moment when the radiation energy E2 is emitted from S2 toward S1, let the velocity of K’ relatively to K0 be zero. The radiation will arrive at S1 when the time h/c has elapsed (to a first approximation). {Emphasis added} But at this moment the velocity of S1 relatively to K0 is gh/c = v. Therefore by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at S1 does not possess the energy E2, but a greater energy E1, which is related to E2 to a first approximation by the equation…

E1 = E2(1+v/c) = E2(1+gh/c²).

By our assumption exactly the same relation holds if the same process takes place in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is provided with a gravitational field. In this case we may replace gh by the potential φ of the gravitation vector in S2, if the arbitrary constant of φ in S1 is equated to zero. We then have the equation

E1 = E2(1+gh/c²).”

In the underlined section above it is unnecessary to allow K’ to be at relative rest to K0, since uniform acceleration from either uniform rest or uniform translation is from equal states of observer dependent equilibrium. Quite rightly, K’ can be in uniform translation relative to K0 and be consistent with the basic principle of relativity. And accepting Descartes’ philosophy then at the moment when radiation energy E2 is emitted from S2 toward S1, system K’ is in uniform translation in the positive z direction relative to K0, then the radiation will arrive at S1 when the time h(1-v²/c²)½/c has elapsed, not h/c. If at the moment the

energy E is emitted, K’ begins uniform acceleration relatively to K0, then when the energy E2 reaches S1, S1’s velocity relatively to K0 will be γh(1-v²/c²)½/c²

This produces an equation which is in perfect agreement with our equation developed from Einstein’s 1905 paper on energy, “DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?” which is as follows;

E1 = E2(1+γh(1-v²/c²)½/c²);

And also by the assumption that the same relation holds true for a nonaccelerated system provided with a homogeneous gravitational field, then;

E1= E2(1+φ(1-v²/c²)½/c²).

It becomes quite clear that if the velocity is zero (0) then these simple equations revert back to Einstein’s equations above, but the state of equilibrium and observer dependent uniform motion must be included into all his equations to make them work properly. How does the factor of a -2 work into the equations? We can understand this clearer and see it easier from Einstein’s analysis of the clock on a rotating disc and the development of his red shift equation from his book, “RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY,” Appendix III, section c, DISPLACEMENT OF SPECTRAL LINES TOWARD THE RED;” “. . . it had been shown that in a system K’ which is in rotation with regard to a Galilean system K, clocks of identical construction, and which considered at rest with respect to the rotating reference-body, go at rates which are dependent on the positions of the clocks… . A clock, which is situated at a distance r from the center of the disc, has a velocity relative to K which is given by

v = ωr

where ω represents the angular velocity of rotation of the disc K’ with respect to K. If ν0 represents the number of ticks of the clock per unit time (“rate” of the clock) relative to K when the clock is at rest, them the “rate” of the clock (ν) when it is moving relative to K with a velocity v, but at rest with respect to the disc, will, . . . , be given by

Or with sufficient accuracy by

This expression may also be stated in the following form:

If we represent the difference of potential of the centrifugal force between the position of the clock and the centre of the disc by φ, i.e. the work, considered negatively, which must be performed on the unit of mass against the centrifugal force in order to transport it from the position of the clock on the rotating disc to the centre of the disc, {Emphasis added} then we have

From this it follows that

In the first place, we see from the expression that two clocks of identical construction will go at different rates when situated at distances from the centre of the disc. This result is also valid from the standpoint of an observer who is rotating with the disc.

Now, as judged from the disc, the latter is in a gravitational field of potential φ, hence the result we have obtained will hold quite generally for gravitational fields. Furthermore, we can regard an atom which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold…

The frequency of an atom situated on the surface of a heavenly body will be somewhat less than the frequency of an atom of the same element which is situated in free space (or on the surface of a smaller celestial body). Now where K is Newton’s constant of gravitation, and M is the mass of the heavenly body. Thus a displacement towards the red ought to take place compared with the spectral lines of the same element produced at the surface of the earth, the amount of this displacement being

”

In the underlined section of this age, if we actually transport the clock from its position on the disc to the center of the disc, where the centrifugal force represents gravity and the center of the disc represents free space and accepting Descartes’ philosophy that space is an extension of matter, then the radius of the disc must contract in the direction of the motion of the clock in accordance with the special principle of relativity.

Therefore, the equation must be changed in this way

Where r is any radius on the disc, is any distance moved along the radius of the disc, and where is equal to v², the escape velocity it takes for the clock to move from any point on the disc to the center of the disc. From this it follows that

Or

,

Which is the equation used by the Global Positioning System on a daily basis. But because – φ = ; where G is Newton’s constant of gravitation and M is the mass, and by using the binomial theorem, we can conjecture thus

And by letting v = nc, where n is equal to any whole or partial number or zero, then

And therefore the 2 becomes a natural consequence of the equation.

Einstein had a difficult time explaining the two (2) in his equations. Listen to what he says in his book, “RELATIVITY; THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY,” Appendix III, section b, “DEFLECTION OF LIGHT BY A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, “. . . It may be added that, according to the theory, half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification (“curvature”) of space caused by the sun…” Einstein separates the Newtonian gravitational field from the curvature of space. It is generally accepted today by physicists that the fields themselves in general relativity represent the curvature of spacetime. Einstein, in the general theory, made no effort to explain the factor of 2; he just introduces it into his equations because it makes his equations work out properly.

Accepting Descartes’ philosophy of space and the special theory of relativity develops a different concept of the curvature of space. If length contracts with its motion through space and space contracts with respect to the motion of a body ing through it then the contraction equation changes. Length is just not affected on one side of the equation. With Einstein’s theory the equation looks like this;

But accepting Descartes’ concept then the equation is affected on both sides of the equation, so that;

And using the binomial theorem on the left side and knowing that L’ = L when at relative rest to the observer, the equation reduces to

In other words at the speed of light length has contracted to its length divided by two and anything beyond that is not visible to the observer.

Einstein’s curvature of space is quite possibly Descartes’ contraction. Just as water has to follow the topology of the Earth whenever it flows downhill forming streams and rivers, electromagnetic energy, such as light has to follow the geodesics of space-time curvature, but neutral mass does not have to follow those geodesics. If we know that a planet is twenty light-years away we do not send a ship directly to what we see, but rather to where it should be if it took us twenty years to get there. We are not confined to curvatures of space or time, nor are any material objects for that matter. We can cut the curvature by going straight through like a chord on a circle. This is what the concept of the Wormhole is all about, but is totally unnecessary.

PART IV

A Comparison of Mathematically Derived Values for the Universal Constants Using the Three Pure, Non-Dimensional Numbers, α, the fine structure constant, π, and the square root of 10 with The 1986 Codata Bulletin and the NIST Values of 2006

I N THE ONLINE publication of Nature Journal on 23 August 2010 there was an article entitled G-Whizzes Disagree over Gravity. In this article it states that metrologists are having trouble agreeing over the constant of G in gravity and that a new value may be in the making. The significance of the following paper becomes obvious for setting a zero standard for all constants in order to compare with the measured values. For instance, if we accept the value for the fine structure constant as set forth in this paper then by using fractals of π we will find the metrologists measured values for G ; 6.67234 x 10 -11 ; 6.67349 x 10 -11 ; 6.674215x10 -11 ; to exist between 1/ α .5 Β ² .⁵ π ¹. ⁸² and 1/ α .5 Β ² .⁵ π ¹. ⁵ respectively.

The fine structure constant, α, is an integral part of all constants involving mass and matter, if not in whole then in part or fractals. The only constants lacking the fine structure constant are the ‘elementary charge, e,’ and the ‘permeability of a vacuum, µ0,’. It is also apparent that the 1986 Codata Values and the NIST values for all the constants can be found by using fractals of π when using the Mathematical Units.

In the following body of this text, a method is demonstrated for deriving the fundamental universal constants from three pure non-dimensional numbers. The fine structure constant, α, is shown to be a continuous equation using pi, π, and the square root of ten, 10¹/². Using the fine structure constant, pi, and the square root of ten, taken to different exponential values, most of the fundamental

universal constants can be found within accepted standard mathematical deviations.

The following universal constants are mathematically derived from these three pure numbers taken to some exponential value; the fine structure constant, αx, the standard value of pi, πx, and the square root of ten, (√10)x = Βx. The defined values of these numbers for the purpose of this text are as follows;

α = 7.294848617482111096989377680633 x 10-3 π =3.1415926535897932384626433832795 x 10 Β = 3.1622776601683793319988935444327 x 10

Also for further reference the inverse fine structure constant, α-1, will be stipulated as

α−1 = 1.370830365970171231104489234727 x 10².

The number’s values of the fine structure constant and the inverse fine structure are selected as they are because of the following equation;

Or we could write it in this fashion;

It can also be demonstrated in the following way why they were selected as they are. If we let α-1/100 = Α, we can write the following equations;

Or

The following constants will be given to the nearest 10th significant digit with respect to the MKS system. To change the values to the cgs system simply change the Β exponent;

Bn=10n/2 or B²n=10n.

Table 1

SUMMARY OF MATHEMATICALLY DERIVED VALUES OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL CONSTANTS

*Avogadro’s constant and the molar gas constant are based upon the assumption that the temperature in Kelvin, T, and the Pressure, p, are exact measures so that Rp/Tk(exact), where k is an exact Boltzmann constant, would equal Rno(exact), where no(exact) is an exact Loschmidt’s constant;2.686672057 x 10²⁵ m-3. By finding the ratio of the Loschmidt’s constant, standard compared to the exact, produces the exact molar gas constant, R(exact), so that Rno(exact)=R(exact)no, and therefore Rno(exact)/no=R(exact). Dividing the molar gas constant exact by the Boltzmann constant exact gives the Avogadro constant exact; R(exact)/k(exact)= NA(exact).

The underlined portions of the values in the CODATA bulletin are the recommended variations in values in the Bulletin from 1986 to 2006.

OTHER MATHEMATICALLY DERIVED PHYSICAL CONSTANTS OF NOTICE:

*These ratios of the magnetic moments are based upon the assumption that the ratios would be the same value, such as ¾ is to 9/12, as is 12/16, as is 75/100, whether the MU standard is used or the CODATA values are used.

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CONSTANTS**

**The Physico-Chemical constants are based upon the assumption that the temperature, T, and pressure, p, are exact measures in chemistry. If these values change then the values of the constants will change accordingly.

ENERGY CONVERSION FACTORS

In the instance of the constants of nature, size matters. This is perhaps one reason it has remained hidden from other researchers. The square root of ten, (√10), becomes a significant and integral part of the constants. With the square root of ten, one can simply change from the square root of ten to one thousand to one hundred thousand by moving the decimal one place each time and squaring;

3.162277660 = √10; 31.62277660 = √1000; 316.2277660 = √100000

This becomes extremely important when converting from Newtons to dynes, a Newton being one hundred thousand times greater than a dyne. It is obvious the square root of one Newton, 1, is not the equivalent to taking the square root of 10⁵ dynes which is 316.2277660… It was this conversion, giving different answers, for what appeared should be the same when converting from one to the other that led to this discovery. Interestingly, Planck’s constant, h, times the velocity of light, c, divided by two, 2, divided by pi, π, [ ], in the CODATA Bulletin is equal to 3.161529326 x 10-17 in dynes and… x 10-26 in Newtons; this number appears close to the square root of ten times ten to the negative seventeenth in dynes. When one squares this number, one gets 9.995267679 x 10-34 in dynes and… x10-52 in Newtons. With the Mathematical Units, one gets exactly 1 x 10-33 in dynes and 1 x 10-51 in Newtons.

There is one other constant I would like to alert you to and that is the electrostatic constant of k, which is equal to 8.988262874 x 10 , (it is bolded and not italicized to distinguished it from the Boltzmann constant k) and is derived in this fashion;

k = 1/4πeo = 16π⁵aB¹ /4π = 4π⁴aB¹ ,

And we find the following;

ke²=B-51a

or

ke²=π²AB-58.

Where A is equal to 1.370830366, e is the electrostatic charge, B is the square root of ten and π is its normal determination of 3.14 . . . , a is the fine structure constant and eo is the permittivity of vacuum – so that further we find;

aB-51 = π²AB-58

And

a = π²AB-7,

Or

aB⁷ = π²A = 2.306833681 x 10¹

While none of these values may be the exact or true values, they are within the limits of error set by most physical communities. They range from one tenth of a percent to three one hundredths of a percent of the values found in the CODATA Bulletin, which were found by measurement and then removing systematic error.

In concluding, it has been shown that the fundamental universal physical constants can be derived from just three commonly used non-dimensional numbers taken to some exponential value. In most cases they are the same as the ones used when rounded off to the nearest significant digit. Even though these values are not the experimentally derived actual values, in any event, perhaps these mathematically derived units (MU) of the constants will lead to more significant discoveries of other constants which have yet to be uncovered in nature.

PART V THE GOLDEN RATIO, Φ, 1.618033989,

AND THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT, α, 7.294848617 X 1 -3!

I STATED THERE was a link between the golden ratio, ϕ , and the fine structure, α , a number commonly found, but mystifying, in physics. Richard P. Feynman writes of the fine structure constant in this manner, as taken from Wikipedia, online;

“There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won’t recognize this number, because they like to it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms?

Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the “hand of God” wrote that number, and “we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.” We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!”

– Richard P. Feynman (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press. p. 129. ISBN 0691083886

Although Dr. Feynman refers to e as √α, it is the same number we are referring too.

One might wonder how one defines the golden ratio number as it is. It is done by using the quadratic formula for a line. Letting the first section equal x and the shorter section equal 1, then the entire line equals x+1, and from here one finds the ratios of (x+1)/x = x/1, by using the quadratic formula;

Where a=1, b=-1, c=-1; so that the solution for x is;

In the preceding section, Part IV, I demonstrated the derivation of α by using pi, π, and the square root of ten, √10. The square root of ten, √10, is also equal to the square root of five, √5, times the square root of √2; so multiplying through by √2/√2, we can write the equation for ϕ in this fashion

And we can also rewrite it in this fashion, in accordance with Part IV, if we let the inverse of the fine structure constant, α-1, divided by one hundred, 100, equal A, which can also be written as, as in Part IV, we then have;

Here we have the fine structure constant and the golden ratio as integral parts of one another. In the first half of the book I stated that the golden ratio was the signature of God in the universe, but because the fine structure constant is fundamental in every constant of nature except the elementary charge, e, and the permeability of space, µ0, and is an integral part of quantum mechanics and can be derived from the Golden Ratio and vice versa, this is obviously the hand of God in all things. To answer Mario Livio’s question, God truly is a mathematician!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Peter G. Bergman, THE RIDDLE OF GRAVITATION REVISED AND UPDATED EDITION, Dover Publications, Inc. N.Y. 1992. 2. G. M. Clemence and Victor Szebehely, ANNUAL VARIATION OF AN ATOMIC CLOCK, Yale University Observatory, New Haven, Connecticut 1967. 3. Dr. Peter J D’Adamo with Catherine Whitney, EAT RIGHT 4 YOUR TYPE, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, N. Y., 1996 4. Paul Davies, ABOUT TIME, Touchstone, N.Y. 1996. 5. Michael Drosnin, THE BIBLE CODES, Simon and Schuster, N. Y. 1996. 6. Albert Einstein, THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, Dover Publications, Inc N.Y. 1952.

a. ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905. b. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND ON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? 1905. c. ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT, 1911. d. THE FOUNDATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 1916.

7. Albert Einstein, RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL AND THE GENERAL THEORY, by the estate of Albert Einstein, Bonanza Books, N.Y. 1961. 8. Richard P. Feynman, QED; THE STANGE THEORY OF LIGHT AND MATTER, Princeton University Press, 1985.

9. Samuel Glasstone, THE SOURCEBOOK ON ATOMIC ENERGY, Van Norstrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1967. 10. John Gribbin, SCHRODINGER’S KITTENS AND THE SEARCH FOR REALITY, Back Bay Books, Little, Brown and Company, N.Y., 1995. 11. Stephen Hawking, THE UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL, Bantam Books, N. Y., 2001. 12. Lawrence M. Krauss, THE PHYSICS OF STAR TREK, Basic Books a division of Harper Collins, 1995. 13. Timothy P. Krishner, GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT IN A LOCAL FREELY FALLING FRAME: A PROPOSED NEW NULL TEST OF THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE, Phy. Rev. Com. 53, R1735, 1996. 14. Mario Livio, THE GOLDEN RATIO: THE STORY OF PHI, THE WORLD’S MOST ASTONISHING NUMBER, New York: Broadway Books, 2002. 15. Mario Livio, IS GOD A MATHEMATICIAN? Simon and Schuster, New York; 2009. 16. Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Williams Morley, ON THE RELATIVE MOTION OF THE EARTH AND THE LUMINEFEROUS ETHER, American Journal of Science 34: 333-345 17. Sir Isaac Newton, PHILOSOPHIAE NATURALIS PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, First published 1687. 18. Jeffery Santinover, CRACKING THE BIBLE CODE, William Morris and Company, Inc., N. Y., 1997 19. Francis Sears, Mark Zemansky, Hugh Young, UNIVERSITY PHYSICS, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1982. 20. Robert M. Wald, SPACE, TIME AND GRAVITY-THE THEORY OF THE BIG BANG AND BLACK HOLES, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Il.,1977.

21. Dr. Steven Weinberg, “Einstein’s Mistakes,” Physics Today, November, 2005. 22. CODATA Bulletin, Pergamon Press, 1986 23. NIST, Internet recommended values for the CODATA Bulletin, 2006 24. THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE, One Volume Edition, Sovereign Grace Publishers, Lafayette, Indiana, 1985. 25. THE KING JAMES VERSION of the HOLY BIBLE. 26. Wikipedia, the online Encyclopedia.