Spiral Light Waves
Helical Helix : Solar System a Dynamic Process
WAVES AND CURVES OF LIGHT RAYS
Figure 6 page 18
All light is curved (electric vortex waves), so instead of trying to explain how space curves and drags light passing near large heavenly bodies with it, albert should have been trying to explain how light curves in it's unwound condition and creates space, through it's negative electrical vortex motions (Scalar Wave-fields)! Mankind currently uses "scientific reductionism" (which is an averaged approximation) to quantify it and measure it in straight lines to fit into the models and equations of science practiced by academicians. In fact all of the "scientific" observations of the past are based on this basic understanding and agreed upon Cartesian system of measuring and cataloging the motions of light we witness in our three dimensional Universe as traveling in straight lines, which is an approximation and false. All of the foundational data of academic science is based upon this method of averaging the immense dynamic complexity of natural forms and quantifying them using the artificial and arbitrary denominator of a second in time. This method produces the dead static forms of reductionism which represent current system of academic indoctrination.
turns out that light is neither a wave nor a particle. Every atom in the
Universe is physically bound to all
others via two anti-parallel threads twined around each other like strands of DNA. For 400 years the idiots
of Mathematics have been staring at a torque signal propagating from one atom to another along a rope
and calling it a corpuscle. The alleged 'particle' that the mechanics at CERN, SLAC, and KEK have been
studying for decades travels so fast and rectilinearly because it runs along a highway that permanently
interconnects any two atoms". (Bill Gaede -You Stupid Relativists)
What we call light is seen by us due to it's electrical wave motions. Waves are curved, therefore light curves and does not "travel" in straight lines according to current "scientific understanding". So the fundamental academic assumption in the theory of gravitational lensing is that starlight curves from a straight line leading directly backwards to it's source, to a new curved form as it passes a Star or Galaxy. This is an optical illusion like when a stick appears to bend at a sharp angle when it is dipped into water. This is of course very wrong and we all know it to be an illusion due to it's appearance. So, the beginning assumption is flawed and there is no need to proceed any further than this to see how the appearances of light can deceive it's academic theorists and has so innumerable times in the past.
The root of the problem is that academicians pretend to understand what light is when they make such claims in their deficient theories. The fact remains, that they do not even understand the fundamental nature of it's movements (straight rays of light vs. the actual spiraling electrical waves ), let alone, what it actually is, whether particle (photon) or wave. Light, gravity, electricity and magnetism are all mysteries to academic scientists and we must never lose sight of this fundamental fact when assessing the myriad of fanciful claims attributed to them by these self proclaimed authorities, in their system of mind control indoctrination called academia.
Helical Helix : Solar System a Dynamic Process
The True Motions of Sun and Earth as photographed every ten days for a Yearly Cycle
The Spiraling Dynamics of Light witnessed in our trajectory following our Spiraling Sun
Figure 36 page 57
Event horizons, black holes, gravitational collapse, singularities, 4 dimensional curved space and time, dark matter, neutron stars, and all related lunacy are just academic refuse which are totally non-existent in the real Universe. They are merely mathematical artifacts of egghead mythematical noodling, which attempt to correct for the failed conclusions of earlier misconceptions and failed theories. The bending or curving of light near large heavenly bodies, like our Sun, is a result of the already curved, spiraling electrical waves, passing through the electrical pressure gradients (wave-fields) and the pressured atmospheric and plasma lenses of Stars and Galaxies, as stated above, which curve it in another direction. No need to dream up "space and time warp" scenarios or or any other doomed theories, because, they are once again, based on faulty sensory based observations and a lack of understanding of the true nature of the "push/pull gravity", which is gyroscopically controlling, the electro-magnetic lights, in the workings of Stars, Atoms and Galaxies. All light is curved and the straight paths and straight rays of academic fantasy do not exist. Both Euclid and Newton were tragically wrong when it came to this foundational motion in their theories.
It has become quite clear to me that einstein was on to something with his intuition regarding the curvature of space. However, the foundational academic science and the "space as a crucible concept", which he used to explain this curvature is provably wrong and an understanding of the bi-directional, twin opposing vortices of gravity controlled, electrically simulated light in the place of academically defined atomic systems would have rewarded his intuition with a prize. That is, a true understanding of the electro-magnetic "light mechanics" at work in our curved and divided Universe of electrically simulated light and an end to the dead end physics of nuclear atoms, nuclear suns, thermo-nuclear fusion, nuclear bombs, internal combustion insanity. Blowing fuels up to get a fraction of their potential energy to do work, while destroying our world is the fruit of academic theory and the consequences are ubiquitous environmental pollution.
My own intuition based on observing electrified gases in Argon and Neon tubes, is that the temperatures of Stars, is only a fraction of what the "theorists" have told us, they "know" them to be. Tesla used to run 3 million volts of electricity across the surface of his skin in exhibitions at his lab and witnesses reported he was totally engulfed in flames. So, we have direct testimony that the appearance of high voltage electricity can be similar to a raging fire, while having no heat. This I believe, is the condition on the Sun only greatly amplified, where billions of volts or more of electricity (Tesla claimed the electric potential of our Sun to be approximately 216 Billion Volts in 1935) interacts with gases and metals in vortices of the Sun's atmosphere, under extreme gravitational pressure, produces the appearance of a raging furnace, without producing any million degree plus temperatures. As mentioned above, there is no transfer of this heat into space because of the gas laws as stated. So, if you were right next to the Sun you would feel no heat at all, in fact it would be freezing cold, like the rest of outer space.
Therefore, the surface of Mercury would not need to be hundreds of degrees according to the academic scheme, just because it is closer to the Sun (nuclear furnace) than our planet. The Disney animation I referred to earlier in fact has a red zone of heat in it's schematic explanation of our Solar System, conveniently extending all the way out to the Earth, which is a massive misinterpretation of physics. Space is freezing cold, there is no toasty warm area close to stars. This child like explanation was produced by Disney in the 50's and is still taught in schools today. Mercury is therefore, most likely cold, mainly because of it's small size and reported lack of atmospheric lenses, which would contain any heat generated on the surface of the planet caused by the magnetic resistance of it's matter to the Actinic Electric Force of the imploding solar electro-magnetic light waves, as they impinge upon it's planetary surface. If Mercury does have an atmosphere in defiance of nasa's claims, then it could be very hot.
The electro-magnetic and atmospheric (gas) lenses of the planets determine the size of the compressed wave-fields of electric light which will be focused onto their planetary surfaces and they are the cause of heat on the surface facing the Sun. Furthermore, if one could fly in a craft through the Sun's Corona they would find it freezing cold despite it's theorized "million to 30 million degree" temperature, because of the total absence of heat transfer through the extremely cold, "vacuous medium" of space as revealed in the basic gas law pv=rt. Also, as stated above the theorized temperatures pontificated by academia are of course insane and do not even exist. The x-rays attributed to the high theoretical temperatures of Stars are created electrically not thermally.
Due to the extreme million degree plus, temperatures attributed to star "colors" according to the imaginations of our present astronomers, they have accepted the physicist's failed theories regarding Nuclear burning of Hydrogen as stellar "fuel" (The nuclear furnace theory). The entire academic classification of Stars is upside down. It is an impressive collection of parts and pieces which have been quantified and qualified then, misinterpreted in typical academic fashion by the intellectually deficient types managing this mess. The scope of this blunder is immense, so I can not cover it here, but I would highly recommend reading "The Universe of Motion" paying very close attention to chapters 7-20, which are dedicated to debunking this nonsense. The realization that our so-called astronomers are absolutely lost will become very apparent to anyone who pursues this other academically failed avenue of so-called investigation.
Stellar Temperature Tables according to Flawed Academic Astronomy
"Stars and galaxies are found in the existing astronomical theories because they are put into these theories. They are aggregates of matter, they exert gravitational forces, and they emit radiation, and so on, in the theoretical picture, because this information was put into the theories. They theoretically generate the energy that is required to maintain the radiation by converting matter to energy, because this, too, was put into the astronomical theories. They conform to the basic laws of physics and chemistry; they follow the principles laid down by Faraday, by Maxwell, by newton, and by einstein, because these laws and principles were put into the theories. To this vast amount of knowledge and pseudo-knowledge drawn from the common store, the theorist adds a few assumptions of his own that bear directly on the point at issue and, after subjecting the entire mass of material to his reasoning processes, he arrives at certain conclusions. Such a theory, therefore, does not see things as they are; it sees them in the context of existing observational information and existing patterns of thought". (Chapter 1, The Universe of Motion)