In your May-June Journal appears the article about Vortexian Physics. The question by John Morill and the answer by the Hon. S. Shuttleworth, London.

In fact John Morill had several questions and, in my opinion, Shuttleworth did not specifically answer any of them. Apparently the objective, "answering", was lost in the subjective material of "panting" and "divine vacuum", none of which really got down to discussing vortexian physics.

No doubt John Morill is still in a vacuum after that reply. One of John's questions regarding the Russian crash landings on the moon has some obvious answers. First, these landings are largely automated because remote controls would involve a time lapse of several seconds, far too long for the tricky maneuvering of a landing operation.

It is generally conceded that the Russians have had the advantage in payload lift-off but the USA has had the advantage of more exotic electronic control mechanisms. Another factor is luck. The moon presents a rather rough terrain and the problem is difficult for us as well as the Russians. One of our more recent moon landings experienced a bad 30-foot bounce. This could have spelled disaster for us, also, and I don't think the incident received any publicity either. Luck or correction circuits saved the day and the launch and landing.

Now getting back to Shuttleworth, I noted several references to Truth with a capital T. What John Morill was interested in was the "truth" about Vortexian Physics. What he received in reply was the "T"ruth, which appears to be more hypotheses than fact. Opinions are are not always facts.

As I see it truth has a great deal in common with horizons. You see only as much of it as the tunnel you have backed into allows you to see. After all, men were burned at the stake less than 500 years ago for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe. The truth was always there.

We are not going to get any nearer to the truth by insisting something is a fact that cannot be physically possible. Personally, I think the vortex theory has merit, but to insist that the vacuum principle is the only motivating force involved is equally as erroneous as the "exploding universe" theory held by modern science. The term explosion, implies that the earth's time base is a universal constant. Even after 500 years we are reluctant to relinquish earth [15] centered concepts. What we rate as an explosion could be correctly rated as growth by other standards.

QUANTITY AND QUALITY EVOLUTION

This is not an original idea. Over 25 years ago a book entitled "Unobstructed Universe" was published by Stewart Edward White. Much of this material was obtained through spiritual channels. It was an excellent job of reporting and writing as well. In discussing evolution it was pointed out that evolution is both quantitative and qualitative. So far our sciences have concerned themselves only with the qualitative aspect. Quantitative evolution means growth -- an untenable premise after several centuries of indoctrination into the idea that the universe would ultimately burn itself out.

Since the breeding of fissionable material the attitude of the scientific colony is changing. Energy is being grown, and this is sufficient reason to re-evaluate the old theories of the universe. Certainly a quarter century to grasp an idea published in 1940 during an era when man's knowledge is said to be doubling every 10 years is long enough.

Newton's idea began with the hypothetical situation of matter distributed evenly throughout space. From this unexplained condition gravity began drawing matter together into a huge mass that has been exploding ever since. This of course is an over-simplification. The main point is that the whole process began from unscientific presumptions. It presumes space to be pre-existent and presumes matter to be evenly distributed in that space, a condition never observed to exist to date.

It would be far more reasonable and realistic if we conceded that the creator and creation evolved to its present vastness and complexity from a basically simple beginning of quantity and quality. Certainly we have learned enough about the behavior of atoms and their components to suspect that a degree of consciousness exists even at this level. Without this reliability of behavior we could have no quantum theory or chemical formula that held its reliability over 24 hours.

If we go back even farther to the chapter of Genesis, line 2, chap. 1, we find "and the earth was without form and void". This implies in my opinion that before form was manifest space replaced the void; for the void has no physical properties or capabilities. Thus the energy fields (or space) are a pre-requisite to the manifest forms that later derived.

We have two basic energies, the electric and the magnetic, neither of which can exchange for the other without the intervening condition of motion. This introduces the third form of energy, the kinetic, which represents manifest form, or creation. Suppose we say that the electric and magnetic fields are the creative energies. We know that both energies express negative and positive polarities in potential within their own fields. Thus either field has the capability [16] of sustaining motion (kinetic energy) in its own field alone.

Either of the basic energies at resonance expresses its maximum polarities at 90 degrees to the direction of the particle's motion (kinetic form), exchanging, in the process, from one form of energy to the other. Details of this relationship are basic training in electronics and Alternating Current theory, involving Lenz's law and others.

THE RE-CYCLING UNIVERSE

All of which brings us to a very important law, the Conservation of Energy. If the void has no physical properties to absorb or dissipate, no energy can ever be lost. It is either a part of creation or a part of the creative forces, or both, and merely a matter of phase relation.

Here we get to the crux of the situation involving vortexian consideration. Since a void is in essence a zero potential, any excursion in the positive direction, such as growth, explosion or whatever, would create a tension (or vacuum if you prefer) from that potential. Thus a positive expression creates twice the potential difference as measured from zero. The mechanics to consider a vortexian force are there, definitely. When you find such terms as "a half power" and "two pi" having common and necessary usage in the electrical formulas it is time we began to explain the cause and not rely on empirical knowledge exclusively.

One cannot successfully entertain a fourth dimensional concept of matter without considering the source and the receptacle and the content, or a trinity of conditions, since the void has no properties to qualify. This implies that the creator is a dual entity and indeed some of our oriental religions state this. There is Yang and Yin, with Yang forever becoming Yin and Yin forever becoming Yang. Mathematically a fourth dimensional situation would require two three-dimensional planes to satisfy the quantity factor -- if it is to be mathematically sound.

These two planes would cross each other at 90 degrees to each other, occupying the same space but out of phase in time. We should suspect this because light as we know it must be coming to us from two sources, as it is polarized in two planes 90 degrees apart. This means that one plane reaches us on the same axis as does sound (longitudinally polarized). This phenomenon is what produced the controversy between the corpuscular theory and the wave theory of light. Einstein laid this to rest for awhile by calling light a wavicle (a wave and a particle).

Perhaps the real significance of the Christian cross is that it symbolizes the crossing of the two planes of existence. When these are combined they give a fourth dimensional awareness -- two aspects of one reality. The Vortexian theory is scientifically sound without the need for "panting".

References

  1. White, Stewart Edward. The Unobstructed Universe. 1st. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co, 1940. Print. <http://amzn.to/1cPRDAH>