We have indeed seen the evidence to suggest that the atom is an
aethervortex
with spherical symmetry and a central axis, thus forming a spherical torus.
The BiefieldBrown effect proves that the grand solution to the mystery of
“charge polarity” is that aetheric energy is flowing through the electron
clouds into the nucleus. Dr. Ginzburg made a few simple and acceptable
adjustments to relativity equations and produced a model that perfectly
explains the behaviors of matter observed by Kozyrev in the laboratory,
wherein it sheds energy and mass as it is accelerated towards the speed of
light.
Through the conventional crystal molecule formations of the tetrahedron,
cube and octahedron, and especially with the introduction of
microclusters,
icosahedral and dodecahedral quasicrystals and the phenomenon of
BoseEinstein condensates, we now see the importance of Platonic Solids
in
the quantum realm. We can no longer deny that these forces exist, as we now
have irrefutable physical evidence. These new findings also reveal that we
no longer need to think of atoms as individual units, but rather as
harmonic aether vortexes that can merge together into greater levels of unity and
coherence, such as in quasicrystals. And with this data in place, we now
have a valid solution for all the “loose ends” of the puzzle by introducing
the work of Rod Johnson.
4.1 BASICS OF JOHNSON’S “SEQUENTIAL PHYISCS”
What we ultimately see in Johnson’s model is the following:
 There are no “hard” particles, only groupings of energy.
 Every quantum measurement can be explained geometrically, as a form of
structured, intersecting energy fields.
 Atoms are actually counterrotating energy forms in the shape of the
Platonic Solids, specifically rooted in the counterrotation of the
octahedron and tetrahedron, each vibrational / pulsational shape
corresponding to a different major density of aether.
 All levels of density or dimensions in the entire Universe are structured
from these two primary levels of aether, which are continually interacting
with each other.
Significantly, an increasing number of advanced theorists have already been
striving towards a “particle mesh” model of physics, based on the
Superstring theory, where all matter in the Universe is somehow an element
of an interconnected geometric matrix. However, since conventional
scientists have not yet visualized Platonic Solids that are nested within
each other, sharing a common axis and capable of counterrotating, they have
missed the picture for the quantum realm.
Again, in this chapter we will try to keep things simple by presenting an
overview of Johnson’s model for “what’s going on” in the quantum level
first, and then discuss the scientific evidence to prove it afterwards. We
begin our outline of the core principles of the model with a pencilshaded
illustration of the interlaced tetrahedron, which we created to show very
clearly what it looks like as a threedimensional sculpture. It is important
that we have a good visual image of this structure before we try to imagine
an octahedron that fits inside of it. We can clearly see that there are
two
tetrahedrons in the image, one with the tip pointing upwards and another
with the tip pointing downwards. Also remember that it fits perfectly inside
a sphere:
Figure 4.1 – The interlaced tetrahedron.
"click" image for
animation
With this structure in mind, consider the following points of the model:
 The tetrahedron and octahedron are counterrotating within each other at
the quantum level.  Both have spherical symmetry around a shared center.  The
tetrahedron and octahedron represent two primary levels of
aether
density that must exist in the Universe, which we shall refer to as
A1 and
A2.  The octahedral field fits perfectly in the center of the tetrahedral
field, and is therefore smaller in diameter, as we can see in the next
diagram:
Figure 4.2 – The octahedron (R) and its fit inside the interlaced
tetrahedron (L). [Lawlor, 1982]
Figure 4.2 shows us the octahedron inside of the
interlaced tetrahedron,
which in turn is inside the cube. It is quite confusing at first to try to
imagine the octahedron being a free agent that can counterrotate inside the
interlaced tetrahedron. Indeed, in this form, the two geometries are
completely balanced and integrated. However, the most important part of
Johnson’s physics is to see that the octahedron is “detached,” acting
separately from the tetrahedral field, by rotating in the opposite
direction. There are only eight possible “phase” positions that the two
geometries can fit into before they again reach the harmony that we see
above. In order to have a phase position, the two geometries must have some
degree of direct contact with each other, such as line to line or point to
point. This is graphically illustrated in the next “phase” diagram:
Figure 4.3 – The eight “phase positions” created by the counterrotating
octahedron and tetrahedron.
What we see in this diagram are two basic waves: the smaller wave that fits
in each of the four main circles, representing the rotation of the
octahedron, and the larger wave outside the main circle boundaries as the
counterrotation of the tetrahedron. This diagram is by far the easiest way
to show how and where the tetrahedron and octahedron will connect, and it is
based on the science of “phase physics,” which was first pioneered by
Kenneth Geddes Wilson as a means of mapping out largescale geometric
relationships as wave motions. Each of the eight “phase positions”
represents a different element, and this is shown in the next figure:
Figure 4.4 – The eight “phase positions” as they relate to basic crystal
structures formed by the elements.
So, to continue:
 The tetrahedron and octahedron are both under high pressure – the
tetrahedron is pushing in towards the octahedron, much as the negative
electron clouds press in towards the nucleus.
 This pressure can only be released when either a node or line on one of
the solids crosses a node or line on the other solid, opening up a gateway
for the energy to flow.
The easiest way to visualize such a “gateway” opening would be if you cut
out a hole in a piece of cardboard, and then turned on a hair dryer and held
the nozzle flat against the cardboard, then sliding it towards the hole.
Until the nozzle actually reached the hole, the air has nowhere to go, and
the engine will quickly run hard and overheat; but once the nozzle reaches
the hole, the air has somewhere to go and the pressure is released, with the
engine then relaxing. Inside the atom, via the BiefieldBrown effect, the
pressure in the electron clouds is always trying to rush towards the
nucleus, and unless the counterrotating geometries connect, that pressure
is blocked. In this sense, the lines and nodes in the geometric forms could
be seen as the “holes” that are “popped” in the nested spherical fields,
which will allow the instreaming pressure to flow through.
This solves one “pressure” problem, but we must also remember the pressure
that is created by the counterrotating forces of the tetrahedron and
octahedron. (These are the geometries that form in the “field bubbles” of
what we shall now call aether 1 (A1) and aether 2 (A2) respectively. Ancient
traditions often referred to A1 and A2 as “positive and negative force.”)
Until the greatest number of “holes” have lined up between both geometries
at the octave point of geometric balance, the full amount of outside
pressure cannot flow towards the center. So, when the two forms “lock”
together in valence periods that are not at the “octave” point, the
counterrotation of A1 and A2 is not fully balanced, causing additional
pressure and lack of symmetry. A1 and A2 will then remain “stuck” in that
unbalanced position if they are undisturbed by outside energy.
Most of the elements on D. Mendeleyev’s Periodic Table of the Elements are
“stuck” in this manner, and therefore unstable. In this case, all
naturallyoccurring, nonradioactive elements are organized from left to
right on the table in groups of eight. They move from a position of
instability and lack of symmetry on the left to a position greater
crystalline symmetry and geometric balance on the right. In Johnson’s model,
it is only when we move to the Octave or eighth phase position of
counterrotation that the geometries again regain their perfect balance.
This can be visualized with the idea of sitting on a narrow stool.
Obviously, the most comfortable sitting position is when your body is
centered in the middle. Now simply picture trying to sit on the stool with
eight different positions, starting out with only a small part of one of
your legs contacting the stool. Each position will be uncomfortable, and you
will not be truly in balance until you are sitting completely centered on
the stool. Thus, atoms and molecules that are not in such a state of balance
are considered as “unstable” and will easily bond with other unstable atoms
and molecules that hold the missing energy, in order to create equilibrium.
4.2 ‘COVALENT’ BONDING
The first form of bonding that can occur is known as covalent bonding. This
name is used since the “valence bonds” of electron clouds are believed to be
“shared” between the atoms in question. As we said, there are no true
“electrons,” and it is the completion of geometric symmetry between
A1 and
A2, the nested tetrahedron and octahedron, that forms this bond. All
elements are simply different proportional mixtures of A1 and
A2, the nested
tetrahedron and octahedron locked in different positions relative to each
other, in Johnson’s model. The simplest example of this is that a single
oxygen atom will naturally be attracted to two single hydrogen atoms to
mutually blend into a water molecule, or H^{2}O. Not surprisingly, the
water
molecule is shaped in the form of a tetrahedron. In later chapters on
biology we will see the interesting possibilities that arise as a result of
this unique structure.
4.3 ‘IONIC’ BONDING
The other option for basic bonding in chemistry is known as “ionic bonding.”
In this case, the bonding is created by a difference in charge polarity,
where a negative attracts a positive. When an element has an unbalanced
charge, it is known as an ion, hence the term ionic bonding. The simplest
example would be with sodium chloride or salt, which can be written as Na+Cl, and forms either a cube or octahedron. The pressure difference
between the positive and negative ions is what attracts them together in
this case. The chlorine atoms are 1.81 angstroms wide in the salt molecule,
almost twice as large as the sodium atoms at 0.97 angstroms.
Ionic bonding can also occur when individual atoms of a particular element
are attracted to each other and bond together twobytwo, thus creating
symmetry. The most basic example of this is a molecule of oxygen gas,
written as O^{2}. The only way that early (al)chemists were able to find these
core elements such as the single oxygen atom were by disrupting basic
chemical compounds through processes such as burning, freezing, mixing with
acids and bases, et cetera.
4.4 FREQUENCY EXPANSIONS AND CONTRACTIONS
So, returning to the main point, we have eight basic positions or phases in
which the tetrahedron and octahedron can be located. However, any astute
reader will have already seen that eight basic geometric positions are
clearly not enough to form the entire Periodic Table; there must be some
additional properties at work in order to produce the complete set of
natural elements.
Figure 4.5 – Frequency contraction of tetrahedron (L) into octahedron (R).
Here is the key:

Both geometric forms are also capable of expanding and contracting from
their centers

This is referred to as a change in their frequency

When they change frequency, they form different types of geometric solids

These solids are not just Platonics, but can be other forms as well, such as
the Archimedean solids – and they are all interrelated by the “parent”
tetrahedron and octahedron formations
As seen in Figure 4.5, contracting a geometric shape is as simple as
bisecting each of its lines into two or more equalsized lengths and then
connecting the dots together. When we divide each line into two pieces, this
is called a “secondfrequency” division, whereas dividing each line into
three pieces would be called a “thirdfrequency” division. Starting with the
tetrahedron, Buckminster Fuller demonstrated that a total of ten different
frequencies (geometric shapes) could be created by this process of frequency
expansion or contraction – and this is a central aspect of Johnson’s
findings. For example, the “strong” force in the atomic nucleus is known to
be exactly ten times more powerful than the “weak” force in the electron
clouds! (This is usually written as the square root of 100, which is 10.) No
other plausible explanation for this anomaly has ever been advanced. Here,
the nucleus represents the point of the greatest “infolded” geometry at the
highest frequency level of contraction.
So, what we need to do is to combine the eight basic phases of
counterrotating geometry with the various frequencies of geometry that can
emerge from expansion and contraction. With this in mind, the entire
Periodic Table can be rendered – and ultimately you can predict whether the
element will be a solid, liquid or gas, and what its freezing, melting and
vaporization points will be. Johnson directs interested thinkers to the work
of James Carter, who was able to render the entire Periodic Table through
diagrams of spiraling motion that he called “circlons.” Most interestingly,
Carter’s “circlons” are spherical torus formations!
Carter didn’t appear to
know what the spiraling, curly, cyclical “rotations within rotations” were
that he was diagramming between the circlons to show the various elements,
simply that they had to exist by “absolute motion.” For a more complete
description we invite the reader to peruse our detailed interview article
and / or his website. In order to keep our thoughts simple for the purpose
of this book, we will now simply point out some of the most obvious signs
from quantum physics that Platonic geometries are indeed at work.
4.5 PLANCK’S CONSTANT AND THE ‘QUANTIZED’ NATURE OF LIGHT
Most of us already know that heat radiation and light are considered to be
caused by the same thing – the passage of bursts of electromagnetic energy
known as “photons.” However, before the year 1900, light and heat were not
thought to move in discrete “photon” units, but rather in a smooth, flowing,
unbroken fashion. Physicist Max Planck was the first to discover that light
and heat would move in “pulses” or “packets” of energy at the tiniest level,
calculated to be about 10^32 centimeters. (An atomic nucleus is actually
the size of a planet in comparison!) Interestingly, if you have a faster
oscillation, you get bigger packets, and if you have a smaller oscillation
you get smaller packets. Planck discovered that this relationship between
the speed of oscillation and the size of the packet will always remain
constant, regardless of how you measure it. This constant relationship
between oscillation speed and packet size is known as Wein’s Displacement
Law. Rigorously, Planck discovered a single number that expressed this
relationship, which is now known as “Planck’s Constant.”
A recent article by Caroline Hartmann in the December 2001 issue of 21st
Century Science and Technology deals specifically with Max Planck’s
findings, and reveals that the puzzle created by his discoveries remains
unsolved:
Today we are indebted to the continuing research of scientists like
the
Curies, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn for a deeper insight into atomic
structure. But the fundamental questions: what causes the motion of the
electrons, is that motion constrained by certain geometrical laws, and why
certain elements are more stable than others, are still not clear, and await
new pioneering hypotheses and ideas. [emphasis added]
We can already see the answer to Hartmann’s question emerging in this book.
As we had said, Planck’s discoveries came about through the study of heat
radiation. The introductory paragraph to Caroline Hartmann’s article is a
perfect description of what he accomplished:
One hundred years ago, on December 14, 1900, the physicist
Max Planck
(18581947) announced (in a speech before the Kaiser Wilhelm Society of
Berlin) his discovery of a new formula for radiation, which could describe
all the regularities observed when matter was heated and began to radiate
heat of various colors. His new formula, however, rested on an important
assumption: that the energy of this radiation is not continuous, but occurs
only in packets of a certain size. The difficulty was in how to make the
assumption behind this formula physically intelligible. For, what is meant
by “energy packets,” which are not even constant, but vary proportionally
with the frequency of oscillation (Wein’s Displacement Law)?
Hartmann continues a bit later on:
[Planck] knew that whenever you come upon an apparently insoluble problem in
Nature, a higher, more complex lawfulness must lie behind it; or, in other
words, there must be a different “geometry of the universe” than one had
assumed before. Planck always insisted, for example, that the validity of
Maxwell’s equations had to be reestablished, because physics had reached a
point where the socalled “physical” laws were not universally valid.
[emphasis added]
The core of Planck’s work can be stated in a simple equation, which
describes how radiating matter releases energy in “packets” or bursts. The
equation is E=hv, where E equals the energy that you end up measuring, v is
the vibrating frequency of the radiation that releases the energy, and h is
what is known as “Planck’s Constant,” which regulates the “flow” between v
and E.
Planck’s constant is listed as a value of 6.626. It is a dimensionless
constant, meaning that it simply expresses a pure ratio between two values,
and does not need to be assigned any specific measurement category other
than that. Planck did not magically discover this constant, but rather
painstakingly derived it by studying heat radiation of many different sorts.
This is the first major mystery that Johnson clears up with his research. He
reminds us that in order to measure Planck’s constant, the Cartesian system
of coordinates is used. This system is named after its founder, Rene
Descartes, and all it means is that cubes are used to measure
threedimensional space. This is so commonly done that most scientists don’t
even consider it as anything unusual – just length, width and height in
action. In experiments such as Planck’s, a small cube was used to measure
the energy that moved through that area of space. This cube was naturally
assigned a volume of “one” (1) in Planck’s measuring system, for the sake of
simplicity. However, when Planck wrote his constant he didn’t want it to be
a decimal number, so he shifted the volume of the cube to 10. This made the
constant 6.626 instead of 0.6626. What was truly important was the
relationship between whatever was inside of the cube (6.626) and the cube
itself (10.) Ultimately it did not matter whether you assigned the cube a
value of one, ten or any other number, as the ratio would stay the same.
Planck only discerned the constant nature of this ratio through rigorous
experimentation over many years of time, as we said.
Now remember that depending on the size of the packet that is released, you
will need to measure it with a differentsized cube. Yet, whatever is inside
that cube will always have a ratio of 6.626 units to the cube’s own volume
of 10 units, regardless of the sizes involved. Right away we should notice
something; the value of 6.626 is very close to 6.666, which is exactly
2/3rds of 10. So then we must ask, “What is so important about 2/3rds?”
Figure 4.6 – Two tetrahedrons joined at a common face to form the “photon”
measured by Planck’s constant.
Based on simple, measurable geometric principles explained by
Fuller and
others, we know that when we fit a tetrahedron perfectly inside of a sphere,
it will fill exactly onethird of its total volume. The photon is actually
composed of two tetrahedrons that are joined together, as we see in figure
4.6, and they then pass together through a cube that is only big enough to
measure one of them at a time. The total amount of volume (energy) that
moved through the cube will be two thirds (6.666) of the cube’s total
volume, to which Planck had assigned the number 10. Buckminster Fuller was
the first to discover that the photon was indeed composed of
two
tetrahedrons joined in this way, and he announced it to the world at his
Planet Planning address in 1969, after which time it was obviously
forgotten.
The slight 0.040 difference between the “pure” 6.666 or 2/3rds ratio and
Planck’s constant of 6.626 is caused by the permittivity of vacuum space,
which absorbs some of the energy involved. This “permittivity of the vacuum”
can be precisely calculated by what is known as Coulomb’s equation. To put
it in simpler terms, the aetheric energy of the “physical vacuum”
will
absorb a small amount of whatever energy passes through it. This means that
it will “permit” slightly less energy to pass through it than what was
originally released. So, once we factor in Coulomb’s equation, the numbers
work perfectly. Furthermore, if we measure space using tetrahedral
coordinates instead of cubical coordinates, then the need for Planck’s
equation E=hv is removed, because the energy will now be measured to be the
same on both sides of the equation – thus E (energy) will equal
v
(frequency) with no need for a “constant” between them.
The “pulses” of energy that were demonstrated by Planck’s constant are known
to quantum physicists as “photons.” We normally think of “photons” as
carriers of light, but that is only one of their functions. More
importantly, when atoms absorb or release energy, the energy is transmitted
in the form of “photons.” Researchers such as Dr. Milo Wolff remind us that
the only thing we know for certain about the term “photon” is that
it is an
impulse that travels through the aether / zeropoint energy field. Now, we
can see that this information has a geometric component, which suggests that
the atoms must have such geometry as well.
4.6 BELL’S THEOREM
Another recently discovered anomaly that shows us that there is geometry at
the quantum level is Bell’s Inequality Theorem. In this case,
two photons
are released in opposite directions. Each photon is emitted from a separate
atomic state that has been excited. Both atomic states are composed of
identical atoms, and both are also decaying at the same rate. This allows
two “paired” photons with the same energy qualities to be released in
opposite directions at the exact same time. Both photons are then passed
through polarization filters such as mirrors, which should theoretically
change their direction of travel. If you have one mirror at a 45degree
angle, then you would naturally expect the photon to make a different
angular turn than another photon would make if it was reflected off of a
mirror at a 30degree angle.
However, when this experiment is actually carried out, the photons will make
the exact same angular turns at the same time, regardless of the differences
in the angle of the mirrors!
The degree of precision that has been brought to this experiment is
staggering, as the next quote from pages 142 and 143 of Dr. Milo Wolff’s
book illustrates:
The most recent experiment by Aspect,
Dalibard and Roger used acoustooptical switches at a frequency of 50 MHz which shifted the settings
of the polarizers during the flight of the photons, to completely eliminate
any possibility of local effects of one detector on the other…
Bell’s Theorem and the experimental results imply that
parts of the universe
are connected in an intimate way (i.e. not obvious to us) and these
connections are fundamental (quantum theory is fundamental.) How can we
understand them? The problem has been analyzed in depth (Wheeler & Zurek
1983, d’Espagnat 1983, Herbert 1985, Stapp 1982, Bohm & Hiley 1984, Pagels
1982, and others) without resolution. Those authors tend to agree on the
following description of the nonlocal connections:
1. They link events at
separate locations without known fields or matter
2. They do not diminish with distance; a million miles is
the same as an inch 3. They appear to act with speed greater than light
Clearly, within the framework of science, this is a perplexing phenomenon.
What Bell’s Theorem is showing us is that the energeticallypaired “photons”
are actually joined together by a single geometric force, such as the
tetrahedron, which continues expanding into a larger size as the photons
move apart. The photons will continue to maintain the same angular phase
position relative to each other as the geometry that is between them
expands.
4.7 THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE
Our next point of investigation is the electromagnetic wave itself, since
Einstein determined that matter is made from electromagnetic energy. As most
of us are aware, the electromagnetic wave has two components – the
electrostatic wave and the magnetic wave, which move together.
Interestingly, the two waves are always perpendicular to each other. To
visualize what is going on here, Johnson asks us to take two pencils of
equal length and hold them perpendicularly to each other, also using the
basic length of the pencil for the distance that separates them:
Figure 4.7 – Two pencils at 90degree angles from each other, held
equidistantly apart.
Now we can connect each tip of the top pencil to each tip on the bottom
pencil. When we do this, we will form a foursided object made of
equilateral triangles between the two pencils – we will have a tetrahedron.
We can work the same process with the electromagnetic wave, by having the
total height of the electrostatic or magnetic wave (which both have the same
height or amplitude) as our basic length, which was shown in figure 4.7 as
pencils. Here in figure 4.8, we can see how the electromagnetic wave is
actually tracing itself over a “hidden” (potential) tetrahedron when we
connect the lines together using this same process:
Figure 4.8 – The hidden tetrahedral relationship in the electromagnetic
wave.
It is important to mention here that this mystery has been continually
discovered by various thinkers, only to be forgotten to science once more.
The work of Lt. Col. Tom Bearden has rigorously shown that James Clerk
Maxwell knew it was there when he wrote his complex “quaternion” equations,
but Oliver Heaviside later distorted the model down to four simple
quaternions and ruined the hidden tetrahedral “potential” inside. This
hidden tetrahedron was also seen by Walter Russell, and later by
Buckminster
Fuller. Johnson was not aware of any of these previous breakthroughs when he
first discovered it himself.
4.7 GELLMANN’S “EIGHTFOLD WAY”
The next enigma comes to us when we study the subatomic “particles” known as
quarks. When an atomic structure was suddenly shattered, brief tracks would
emerge that would fly away from the normal spiraling “particle” path in a
bubble chamber, and they were named “quarks.” These “quarks” would disappear
very quickly after they were first released. The geometry of their movements
was carefully analyzed, since the only thing you can truly detect in a
vaportrail analysis is different geometric forms of movement. Many
different forms of “quarks” were discovered, each with different geometric
properties, misleadingly called such things as “color,” “charm” and
“strangeness.” Murray GellMann was the first to discover a unified model
that showed how all these different geometric properties were interrelated,
and he called it the “Eightfold Way.” Remarkably, the unified geometric
structure that we see is a tetrahedron:
Figure 4.9 – The tetrahedron as seen in GellMann’s “Eightfold Way”
organization of “quarks.”
So what exactly are we seeing here? Each dot is obviously a different
“quark.” Johnson tells us that “quarks” are
released when the aetheric
energy flow of the tetrahedron inside the atom is suddenly shattered. For a
brief moment of time, the shattered energy fragments that are released will
continue to flow with the same rotational / geometric properties as they had
when they were bound in the atom, but they will very quickly dissolve back
into the aether afterwards. One wouldn’t necessarily see all of the
different “quarks” just by shattering one atom, since the angle at which the
atom is shattered determines what part of its inner geometric Unity will be
released. This is why the quarks had to be painstakingly studied separately.
Even more interestingly, other “infolded” geometric frequencies such as the
cuboctahedron are in GellMann’s model as well; this
tetrahedron is just one
of three different hierarchies that he discovered.
Again, the mainstream scientific world sees GellMann’s Eightfold Way as
nothing more than a convenient geometric organization, but with no further
meaning than that. In this next excerpt, Dr. Milo Wolff alludes to the fact
that the geometry might be the solution to understanding the structure of
the “nuclear space resonances” in the quantum realm, from page 198 of his
book:
Another interesting problem with a valuable result is to see if a way can be
found to match up nuclear space resonances with the grouptheory explanation
of the nuclear particle zoo. One of the names of that theory is the
Eightfold way discovered by Gellmann and Ne’eman in 1960. It cleverly uses
geometric groupings of the various particles to determine their parameters:
spin, parity, isotope number and strangeness number. The group theory has
not yet revealed a physical structure such as space resonances. If there is
a relation it is logical to expect that the solutions of the SR wave
equation would have orthogonal properties that match the Eightfold way. It
is an exciting prospect to attempt.
Interestingly, just as we were finishing this portion of the book, we were
contacted by Dr. R.B. Duncan, who has a quite detailed and meticulous work
published online that explains the structure of the atom based on the
geometry of group theory that Wolff was mentioning above. Duncan had worked
on this problem for thirty years of his life before publishing a solution!
4.8 THE ENIGMAS OF “SPIN” AND TORSION EXPLAINED
Figure 4.10 – 180degree spin angles of “electrons” caused by impulses
moving over octahedral energy forms.
The next piece of evidence that we need to consider is spin. Physicists have
known for many years now that energy particles “spin” as they travel. For
example, “electrons” appear to be continually making sharp 180degree turns
or “half spins” as they move through the atom. “Quarks” are often seen to
make “one thirds” and “two thirds” spins when they travel, which allowed
GellMann to organize their movements into the tetrahedron and other
geometries. No one in the mainstream has provided a truly adequate
explanation for why this is happening.
Johnson’s model shows that the 180degree “spin” of the electron clouds is
being caused by the movement of the octahedron, as seen above in Figure
4.10. It is important that we realize that the 180 degree movement actually
comes from two 90degree turns for each octahedron. The octahedron must
“flip over backwards,” i.e. 180 degrees, to remain in the same position in
the matrix of geometry that surrounds it. The tetrahedron must make either
120degree (1/3 spin) or 240degree (2/3 spin) rotations in order to have
the same position. This will be explained more simply in section 4.9 just
below here. (Other aether theorists such as Wolff, Crane,
Ginzburg and
Krasnoholovets have their own fluidflowbased explanations for the
phenomenon of halfspin.)
The enigma of the spiraling movement of torsion waves is also explained by
this same process. No matter where you are in the Universe, even in “vacuum
space,” the aether will always be pulsating in these geometric forms,
forming a matrix. Therefore, any impulse of momentum that travels through
that aether will have to trace a path across the faces of these geometric
“fluid crystals” in the aether. Thus, the spiraling movement of the torsion
wave is caused by the simple geometry that it must pass through as it
travels.
4.9 THE FINESTRUCTURE CONSTANT
Though we have worked hard to make this section simple, the fine structure
constant is a more difficult problem to visualize; so if this section
becomes too difficult to read, you can just skip ahead to the summary in
section 4.10 without losing any of the major “thread” of this book. We have
included this section for those who wish to see just how far the “matrix”
model goes. The fine structure constant is another aspect of quantum physics
that few mainstream people have ever even heard of, probably since it is a
totally unexplained embarrassment to the scientific mainstream that clings
to particlebased models.
Picture now that an electron cloud is like a flexible rubber ball, and each
time a “photon” of energy is absorbed or released, (known as coupling,) the
cloud stretches and flexes as if it had bounced. The electron cloud will
always be “bumped” in a fixed, exact proportional relationship to the size
of the photon. This means that if you have larger photons you will get
larger “bumps” on the electron cloud, and smaller photons create smaller
“bumps” on the electron cloud. This relationship remains constant,
regardless of size. The finestructure constant is another “dimensionless”
number like Planck’s constant, meaning that we will get the same proportion
regardless of how we measure it.
This constant has been continuously studied by spectroscope analysis, and
the highly revered physicist Richard P. Feynman explained the mystery in his
book The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. (We should again remember here
that the word “coupling” simply means the joining together or separation of
a photon and an electron:)
There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed
coupling constant e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a
real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined
to be close to 0.08542455. My physicist friends won't recognize this number,
because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about
137.03597 with an uncertainty of about two in the last decimal place. It has
been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and
all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry
about it.
Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes
from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms?
Nobody knows, it is one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic
number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say that the
"hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed His
pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this
number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of a dance to do on a
computer to make this number come out – without putting it in secretly.
[emphasis added]
In Johnson’s model, the problem of the finestructure constant has a very
simple, academic solution. As we said, the photon travels along as two
tetrahedrons that are paired together, and the electrostatic force inside
the atom is maintained by the octahedron. By simply comparing the volumes
between the tetrahedron and octahedron when they collide, we get the fine
structure constant. All we do is divide the tetrahedron’s volume when it is
surrounded (circumscribed) by a sphere into the octahedron’s volume when it
is surrounded by a sphere, and we will get the finestructure constant as
the difference between them. In order to show how this is done, some
additional explanation is required.
The phasewave diagrams that we saw earlier in this chapter (figs. 4.3 and
4.4) showed us the angular relationships between the octahedron and
tetrahedron. Since a tetrahedron is entirely triangular no matter how it is
rotated, the three tips on any of its faces will divide a circle up into
three equal pieces of 120 degrees each. Therefore, you only need to rotate
the tetrahedron by 120 degrees in order to bring it back into balance with
the matrix of geometry that surrounds it, so that it is in the same position
as it was before. This is easy to see if you visualize a car with triangular
wheels, and you wanted to move it forward just enough that the wheels would
look the same again. Each of the triangular wheels would have to turn 120
degrees to do this.
Now in the case of the octahedron, it must always be turned “upside down” or
180 degrees in order to regain its balance. If you want to see this with the
car analogy, then the wheels would need to be in the classic “diamond” shape
that you see on a deck of cards. In order to get the diamond to look exactly
the same as when you started, you have to flip it upside down, by 180
degrees. This next quote from Johnson explains the finestructure constant
based on this information:
[When you] see the static electric field as the octahedron and the dynamic
magnetic field as the tetrahedron, then the geometric relationship [between
them] is 180 to 120. If you see them as spheres defined by radian volumes,
then simply divide them into each other and you have the fine structure
constant.
A “radian volume” simply means that you calculate the volume of an object
from its radius, which is half of the width of the object. (For those who
wish to test the math out themselves, simply take the sine of 180 degrees
and divide it by the sine of 120 degrees, then run that number through
Coulomb’s equation to account for the slight loss of energy that happens
when a pulsation is moving through the aether.) When this simple process of
dividing the two “radian volumes” into each other is performed, the
finestructure constant will be the result.
Interestingly, while Johnson has shown that the finestructure constant can
be seen as the relationship between the octahedron and tetrahedron as energy
moves from one to the other, Jerry Iuliano discovered that it can also be
seen in the “leftover” energy that is produced when we collapse a sphere
into a cube, or expand a cube into a sphere! These expanding or collapsing
changes between the two objects are known as “tiling,” and Iuliano’s
calculations were not very difficult to perform; it was simply that no one
had thought to try it before. In Iuliano’s calculations, the volume of the
two objects does not change; both the cube and the sphere have a volume that
he set at 8pi times pi squared. When we tile them into each other, the only
difference between the cube and sphere is in the amount of surface area. The
extra surface area between the two is precisely equal to the finestructure
constant.
Immediately the reader should ask, “How can the fine structure constant be a
relationship between the octahedron and tetrahedron and also be a
relationship between the cube and the sphere at the same time?” This is
another aspect of the magic of “symmetry” in action, where we see that
different geometric forms can have similar properties, since they all nest
inside of each other with perfect harmonic relationships. Both Johnson and
Iuliano’s perspectives show us that we are dealing with a geometrically
structured aetheric energy at work in the atom.
It is also important to remember that what Iuliano’s finding shows us is the
classic geometry of the “squared circle.” This has long been a central
element in the esoteric traditions of “sacred geometry,” as it was believed
to show the balance between the physical world, represented by the square or
cube, and the spiritual world, represented by the circle or sphere. Now we
can see that this was yet another example of “hidden knowledge” that was
encoded in a metaphor, so that eventually people in our time would regain
the true understanding of the secret science behind it. They knew that once
we discovered the finestructure constant, we probably would not understand
what we had observed, so this ancient knowledge was left behind to show us
the key.
4.10 A UNIFIED MODEL
Now, with the data that we have seen from Johnson’s physics and its
realization in the science of microclusters, quasicrystals and
BoseEinstein condensates, we do indeed have a unified quantum model. Our
presentation of Johnson’s physics has been designed to be as simplified and
streamlined as possible, so anyone who would attempt to challenge the model
scientifically would be required to read more about it in order to truly
grasp its many nuances. Yet, for those who have an open mind, the data that
we have presented here is more than enough to prove the point. The key is
that
sacred geometry
has always existed in the quantum realm; it just
remained undiscovered amongst the various anomalies of quantum physics that
had remained unexplained until this time, as the mainstream continues to be
shackled to outmoded “particle” models.
In this new model, we no longer have to restrain atoms to a certain size;
they are capable of expanding and maintaining the same properties. Once we
fully understand what is going on in the quantum realm, we can design
materials that are extremely hard and extremely light, since we are now
aware of the exact geometric arrangements that will cause them to bond
together most effectively. We remember that pieces of wreckage from the
Roswell Crash were said to be unbelievably lightweight, yet they were so
strong that they could not be cut, burned or damaged in any way. This is the
type of material that we will be able to build once we fully understand the
new quantum physics.
We remember that quasicrystals are very good at storing heat, and also that
they often do not conduct electricity, even if the metals involved are
normally good conductors. Similarly, microclusters do not allow magnetic
fields to penetrate inside the clusters themselves. What Johnson’s physics
tells us is that such a geometrically perfect structure has perfect bonding
all the way through, and thus no thermal or electromagnetic energy can pass
through it. The geometry is so compact and precise inside that there is
literally no “room” for a current to move through the molecules.
Now that we have a relatively complete aetheric model for quantum physics,
we are ready to move forward and show how such geometric forces continue to
have their influences on larger scales of size, namely in the formations
known as the
Global Grid. Much of this material is a review from previous
volumes, but it is nevertheless important that we cover it once more. After
we establish this crucial link between the geometry of the quantum and the
geometry of the macro, effectively proving the existence and importance of
these new theories, we will move on to delineate an entirely new model of
the Cosmos that is based on all of the principles that we have discussed up
until this point. Chapter Six will focus primarily on explaining this new
cosmological model, whereas Chapter Seven will present more specific,
observable information that shows the new model in action.
REFERENCES:
1. Besley, N.A., Johnston, R.L., Stace, A.J. and Uppenbrink, J. Theoretical
Study of the Structures and Stabilities of Iron Clusters. School of
Chemistry and Molecular Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton,
BN1 9QJ, United Kingdom. URL:
http://www.tc.bham.ac.uk/~roy/Papers/fecpap.ps
2. Carter, Barry. ORMUS and Consciousness. YGGDRASIL: The Journal of
Paraphysics. 1999. URL:
http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/BCarter.htm 3. Carter, James. Theory of Absolute Motion. URL:
http://www.circlon.com
4. Feynman, Richard P. The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
5. Fuller, Buckminster. Planet Planning. 1969.
6. GellMann, Murray. The Eightfold Way. 1960.
7. Hartmann, Caroline. Max Planck’s Unanswered Challenge. 21st Century
Science and Technology Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 2, Summer 2001. URL:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com
8. Johnson, Rod and Wilcock, David. Conversations on Sequential Physics.
2001. URL:
http://www.ascension2000.com/sequential.htm
9. Mehrtens, Michael. Definition of Microclusters. URL:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/research/research.htm
10. Sugano, Satoru and Koizumi, Hiroyasu. Microcluster Physics: Second
Edition. SpringerVerlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1998. ISSN: 0933033X;
ISBN 3540639748
11. Wolff, Milo. Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe. Technotran
Press, Manhattan Beach, CA, 1990. ISBN 0962778702. URL:
http://members.tripod.com/mwolff
