Copyright © David Woodrow John

First Edition (revised)

ISBN: To be determined

Library of Congress Control Number: To be determined

All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright holder
may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphic,
electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or
information storage and retrieval systems – without written permission of
the copyright owner.

Graphic Design by David Woodrow John

Cover Rendering by David Woodrow John
Type Font: Arial

All creative works, drawings, photographs and diagrams (covered under

copyright) are by the author. All other works under copyright are the
exclusive property of their respective owner.

David Woodrow John

104 S. Madison, #C
Spring Hill, KS 66083

16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Cataloging Data

John, David W.
How Everything Works
– Occam’s Shaving Kit / David Woodrow John
 1

“Well, from when he was little,

David always had to know

how EVERYTHING worked.”

(exasperated sigh)

- Dr. Floyd I. John

Describing his youngest son

“A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is,

the more different kinds of things it relates,

and the more extended is its area of applicability.”

- Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
< 3% 4
Prologue 6
2
The John Device 9
Introduction 10
Circles 11
Right, but Wrong 12
Basic Concepts 17
CVRP 21
Gravity 29
Atomagnetism 38
1+1=3 53
Force(s) 58
Light 62
‘ons are Off 71
Hot / Cold 74
Fission 82
Fusion 84
Matter / Mass 86
Anti-Matter 99
Black Holes 107
Dark Matter 115
Dark Energy 121

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 Galaxy Formation 124
Neutrinos 127
E=mcx 129
Big Bang / Inflation Theory 131 3

Oort Cloud 135

Time 137
Biology / Life / Cancer 140
Quantum Entanglement and You 151
The Hexagon 159
The Centers 176
Everything the Same 177
Closing Thoughts 180
Predictions 182
Gravity and Other Anomalies 190
Relativity 212
“Gravitational Waves” 218
Gravity - Emergent Phenomenon 223
“Reactionless” Drive 225
“Perpetual” Motion 227
Appendix A – The John Device 237
References 272
CVRP Image 282
Einstein’s Best Quote 283

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 4
< 3%

Before you read this document, consider this:

Scientists today cannot find One Half of the Universe, because they
don’t know where the “Anti-Matter” is or went.

Out of the remaining One Half, THEY claim that 94+% is unknown, comprised of
unknown “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy.”

Therefore, even if Scientists were 100% correct in their thoughts and assumptions about
the Universe (which they know from a large number of research studies that they are not), then
THEY claim to know LESS than THREE Percent about anything.

That’s not me creating those numbers, that’s them. I just typed them.

So, remember, when you see a famous “Physicist” or “Scientist” speaking on TV or writing or
speaking on the Internet – the individual yakking could state that they know about less than 3%
of anything they are speaking about – and again, that’s only if they’re absolutely right.

However, you can’t discern that because of the inflated, pompous, looking-down-their-nose
attitude – a higher-than-thou feeling often seen in followers of various cults and fanatical
religions. True scientists, of course, are wonderful, open-minded people.
There are many of them around, but not so much at the various institutions and organizations
that people feel are the true source of scientific knowledge. Remember, people at those
organizations are generally more concerned with job security, advancement, publication, tenure,
and the like, and don’t want to risk those things.

“Don’t make waves” is essentially the trademarked phrase of theoretical physicists, which is
funny because they’re drowning every day. :^)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

LESS than 3 Percent… Incredible. Who would have guessed?

Here’s a graphic to put it in perspective for you:

Speaking of percentages, and to help assuage you that you aren’t wasting your time reading
this document, when I was in 10th Grade, I took the U.S. Military ASVAB (Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery), which gave a percentile score result , meaning you can’t get 100.
My scores were 99, 99, 99, 98, 96, and 94.

The Sergeant Major thought there must have been an error, because no one else in my group
of about 30 people had gotten a single score in the 80s. I didn’t feel there was an error because
I had known the answers to almost every question. Regardless, he took several weeks to
confirm and when he did he said: “Son… that means you can do anything you want to do in the
World and you will be among the best in the World at it.”

So, I decided to focus my life on what I thought were the most important things in the World –
free power forever and ending pollution simultaneously. And so, “Always Falling” began.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 6
Prologue

Prepare for a journey.

But, unlike many other “Theories of Everything” (TOE) which try to explain things, or an attempt
at a “Grand Unification Theory” (GUT), this requires absolutely NO new things.

No new proposed dimensions or particles or unknown forces or ideas.

For information, a GUT, or Grand Unification Theory, would be a theory that UNIFIES the
existing ideas of Einstein’s Relativity, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics.
Since Relativity is technically a Science Fiction concept, not related to reality, and Gravity
doesn’t even exist, I can assure you that there NEVER will be a GUT.

A TOE, or Theory Of Everything, simply explains everything. By definition, it must account for
everything ever observed in any method and in any field of science – as everything incorporates
far more than any single discipline. It must account for things from the Galactic/Universal scale,
down to the atomic, sub-atomic scale, perhaps further, and everything in between.
Since it relates to everything, it can be assumed that a TOE will also have implications in other,
perhaps completely un-anticipated areas of science, including areas relating to social sciences,
religions, communities, health, disease, unknown phenomena, and on and on.

The main thing you have to do on this journey is to clear your mind and begin with pure
nothingness - the emptiness and blackness (and not just black in the visible spectrum) of pure
vacuum and nothing.

Then begin to learn.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

A key point to consider is that How Everything Works (HEW) doesn’t argue or disagree with any
data collected by Mankind – and never will. No research is invalid if it is obtained through
proper scientific (documented, repeatable) methods.

7
The conclusions that are drawn from the data obtained from said research are another matter.

Many ideas and concepts that we currently use are directly applicable, while others are difficult
to adapt directly, often because of the traditional Gravity issues, and sometimes because of
terminology that has been accumulated to attempt to explain How Everything Works (HEW).

However, again, key principles, such as the CMBR field, the Higgs particle, and all of the
discovered (and undiscovered) particles are all fully compatible with the concepts taught here.
It’s important to remember that most normal research is done on the planet Earth, and therefore
is deep inside the overall field of the planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a universe – all
with their own fields contributing.

Any results from experiments, such as those at the Large Hadron Collider, are fantastic – but
the very atoms and sub-atomic particles they are shooting are already acted on by those things,
as are the resultant collisions and the directions and angles and spins that the various
components take after being shattered apart.

Again – it is great stuff – applicable to any planet of about the size and composition of the Earth
with a Sun pretty much about the same as our Sun, in a Galaxy very similar, etc., etc.

The only new principle is that shown by The John Device.

It’s called CVRP – Continuously Variable Rotating Plane technology.

It allows for infinite masses to be rotated with virtually no increase in the force used to rotate it.

Unlike other theories or ideas that propose a new idea/concept/dimension, concepts that directly
relate to this one are documented on Youtube already, and more importantly, the experiments
can easily be replicated by any individual or organization for about One Hundred dollars

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

($100US) or even less if they have various parts laying around. That is much different than
physicists proposing new particles and dimensions that require machines that cost a few
hundred Million or even a few Billion dollars. (all of which, comically, are batting a thousand in
destroying the current models they were built to solidify – oh well, physicists get to learn how life works –
it always comes back around!)
8

Apologies are extended for the crude examples used in many drawings.

For example, the field “lines” are just representations to give the idea of a field, not to imply any
particular spacing or harmonics, and the lines through the center of each object is again for
visual orientation/reference.
There may well be and probably are such harmonics and other areas that naturally contribute to
locations, but that is beyond the scope of this simple document.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device
When reading about The John Device, you may think you are reading about a “Gravity Motor.”

You will see much more than that.

Force and force redirection. 9

It showed those things, and its’ relatives can make all the electricity Man will ever need.

But that’s not what The John Device turned out to be.

In the journey of learning about The John Device, you will learn something about how the very
Universe(s) works.

Then, perhaps, you will learn or have your learning reinforced about how Life works.

As a graphic on the website (www.TheJohnDevice.com) says,

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 Introduction

One interesting aspect of this book is that I never in my wildest dreams imagined I would be
writing it. I never had any intention or interest in coming up with and writing about a Theory of
10
Everything. I’ve mentioned before that if anyone thinks that a Man would work his entire life on
how to use the force of Gravity to produce power also started out to prove that, among other
things, Gravity doesn’t exist… then that person needs to keep thinking for a while.

In fact, I had always avoided extended thought forays into the areas of magnetism, perhaps
because I thought that study and pursuit of that field would eventually lead to, or at least dance
around, principles that relate to what people may or may not generally refer to as “God.”

I was forced to learn the science behind torque to better explain The John Device technology,
and ended up finding out the confusion that reigns in theoretical physics and other disciplines.

This book is about How Everything Works (HEW) and therefore is about force and spin.

It’s about the force that makes every single atom (and the protons, neutrons, electrons and
neutrinos and other constituent parts) in your body spin.

The same force that makes the Sun, Earth and other Planets spin.
The force that makes Galaxies spin.
The force that makes the Universe(s) spin.

I will leave it up to the reader to determine for themselves ultimately what that “force” is.
God, Allah, Jahweh, or whatever name you prefer... or nothing, which is technically illogical,
since:
…everything is unresolved torque in free space.

(this is an advanced concept so don’t let it “get you down” at this point – in fact, think of everything as
fields - as in electromagnetic fields - and, at the atomic level, the constant exchange of electrons)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Circles

11
“What goes around comes around.”
- Common Saying

What makes things want to grow?

Was my first attempt to find the “ultimate” question.

Eventually, I realized that was a macro-version of

what is, in one perspective, the “ultimate” question:

What makes things (want to) spin?

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Right, but Wrong 12

In the very beginning of Feynman’s lectures (considered some of the most important lectures on
physics), he says:

“If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one
sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain
the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the
atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms—little
particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a
little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one
sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if
just a little imagination and thinking are applied.” (3)

So, how DOES everything work and what’s wrong with what we think now?
…and how did we get here?

Well, it’s complex and covers topics that people don’t want to discuss, but a viable discussion
can be brought about with the two paths that faced Man a little over a Century ago.

One path was that of Maxwell and electromagnetic ideas.

The other path was that of Einstein’s various relativities.

It was well understood that the very math involved in field calculations that are necessary when
dealing with the fields of electromagnetic theories were so complex that they were quite literally
beyond the abilities of Mankind at that time.

Einstein, meanwhile, provided a set of math equations and descriptions that were within the
abilities of Mankind, even down to the level of an individual with a paper and writing device.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The result of the “feud” between these two schools of thought was (obviously) that Einstein won,
because of Mankind’s technological inabilities, and a couple of observations that matched
predictions.

13
It is interesting to see how science has evolved since then.

Richard P. Feynman, is for those not “in the know,” considered one of the greatest physicists
who ever lived, and I understand that his various books and documents are required reading at
every College or University for someone majoring in Physics.

In his commencement address to Caltech’s 1974 graduating class, titled: “Cargo Cult Science”
he offers remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself:

“But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation
about UFO’s, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new
types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific
world.” (4)

It is fascinating to me that a claimed scientist would belittle the idea of UFO’s.

Because of the state of Man I won’t comment further.

It’s also interesting that he automatically puts down anything he doesn’t understand or hasn’t
experienced with the wonderful “and so forth” tacked on at the end. (in the non-physicist world
we’d say he wasn’t a very intelligent, experienced, or traveled person)

My father has a Ph.D. in Mathematics. Needless to say, it is a field of pure logic. He is also a
lifelong Christian. He should be the definition of the type of person who would join right along
with Feynman in that statement about those strange things. Incredibly, he has actually lived
and traveled and read and learned and knows there are things that happen and things that have
happened that science simply cannot account for – no matter what. Since he is an actual
scientist, he would never be caught making such a broad, sweeping, and uninformed statement.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In the document by Feynman, he goes on and on about how he tried to feel and experience
some of those different things and he found it a waste of time and the people involved
charlatans or comical.

I’m sure there were some characters!

14

I supposed physicists don’t venture out into the World much and so don’t know about different
kinds of people, eccentric behavior, etc. (or should I say: and so forth?) Just for his or anyone’s
info – just because “odd” or “eccentric” people are interested in something does not, by scientific
analysis or any court of law, make it ridiculous or stupid or not worthy of investigation.

“So we really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t
science.”(81)

This is an interesting statement from a physicist who believes in Einstein’s theories, since we
know and have known for a long time that they don’t fully work. Heck, we invented Dark Energy
among other things, just to make up for its’ flaws and errors.

In the quote below from the commencement speech, Feynman was talking about Millikan
(Robert Andrews) and the charge of the electron, but you need to read the second paragraph
twice and think of the name Albert Einstein instead of Robert Millikan. (or just Einstein instead of
Millikan)

“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool
ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment
with falling oil drops and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a
little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to
look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you
plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan’s, and the
next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until
finally they settle down to a number which is higher.” (81)

"Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that
scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it’s apparent that people did things like
this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be
wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And
so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that kind of a disease.” (81)

15
I think for him to make such a statement: “…and now we don’t have that kind of a disease” is
exactly the kind of attitude and arrogance that has led physics to where it is now. Nowhere.

“But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific
integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any
particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.” (81)

Regarding the last paragraph, the integrity he yearns for unfortunately has been washed away
by the harsh dilutes of money and title and adulation and location and situation, heightened
even further by our media-frenzy nature of the modern day.

EVERY physicist KNOWS to NEVER say anything negative about Einstein, as it is the end of
their professional career.
Period.

For example, in the section on perpetual motion, an effect that was discovered regarding zero
point energy is discussed. Because it contradicted current thought, the researchers were
hesitant to announce their results.

The very concept that someone would hesitate to release results from a physical, empirical
study because they conflict with math and other theories written down on a piece of paper is
laughable and almost enough to make me puke.

“But that object CAN’T do that!! It’s not what the math says!!”
“I know I built it myself and it’s right there, but the math says it doesn’t exist.”
“Thank goodness math and thoughts on paper defeat physical, empirical evidence!”

It is yet another indictment (there are thousands and thousands of them) against our scientific
community and the outmoded models they propose as vague explanations.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In THIS book and theory, EVERYTHING has to be explained. (other than Who’s or What’s
unresolved torque in free space that we are) There is no magic. If there is, we’ll just “drill down”
until said “magic” becomes a simple physical occurrence. No cats in boxes and other games.

For example:
16
Light isn’t magically “emitted.” How it happens is explained in detail.

Gravity doesn’t just “make things attract other things”, because: a) that would violate the other
laws of physics, and b) what we actually observe doesn’t fit the “model” of Gravity anyway.

However, as you will see, until further research is done, the “numbers” that we currently use for
the phenomena we refer to as Gravity are good enough to use for now.

They must be, as they are the aggregate of thousands of years of empirical, or observational,
research. Many of the “numbers” of quantum physics are correct also, again as they are based
on observational research.

However, remember that the research is almost entirely done on the surface of the Earth at
various altitudes and in different local environmental situations, affecting the outcomes.

In that commencement speech, Feynman said something that terrifies many “scientists” but
which I welcome with open arms… and an open mind:

“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will
repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right.
Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory.” (81)

…and to that, I say:

BRING IT O N ! ! ! ! :^)

Simply put: Everything is right… and everything is wrong.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 17

Basic Concepts

In our American history, we learn that Columbus and others showed that the World wasn’t flat,
but circular. The idea that the World isn’t flat is part of our culture, and of course, we know
scientifically it isn’t “flat.” However, we now know that everything is, in a way, flat. (it’s always
interesting how things come and go) Our solar system is in a plane, or what we would call flat.
Our galaxy is in a plane. Other galaxies are in planes.
Our Universe is in a plane.

This image from NASA represents the w-band Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation
(CMBR) and give an idea of this flatness or anisotropy:

Image Credit: NASA / WMAP

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error, according to NASA
scientists. It is called anisotropic, meaning it has a “grain” or “orientation”, or what could be
thought of as an “Up and Down.”

It’s also isotropic in that various physical effects operate the same everywhere – for example: a
18
compass on Earth could be considered both isotropic and anisotropic in that it works
everywhere with the same physical effects, but shows an orientation or grain while doing so.

In fact, a 2017 study of galaxies has shown:

“…all galaxies – including the Milky Way – are streaming towards a single flat sheet.”(5)

We know the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR or CMB) is also anisotropic – so
the question is: “What is the orientation or direction of this radiation and for advanced HEW
theorists - how or why does it exist?”

In modern physics there are directly related terms – the CMBR and/or the Higgs field. Again,
the origin(s) of the CMBR/Higgs Field is the question – not whether or not such a field exists. If
you continue thinking about HEW, you see that there are at least the candidates of the center of
our universe and the center of our galaxy.

Of course, every black hole at the center of every galaxy and the one at the center of our
universe all contribute their own fields.

The Higgs particle that interacts with the field is not only in perfect alignment with HEW – it’s
what can be called the “Torque Shaft or Torque Shaft Driving Mechanism.”

For more detailed information on this anisotropy, see Appendix A, relating to the Allais Effect
and Flat Structures.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In the simplest form, consider these shafts:

The figure on the left is vertical - the figure on the right is slightly tilted, or angled “off-center.”
19

And now with “weights” (or electrons, and other pieces…) added:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

So, with a “framework” or “orientation” or “structure” to constrain the motion:

20

Throughout history, we have come to know that it is better to perfectly balance a shaft, as
shown on the left in each of the examples above. To “tilt” a weight or object doesn’t “get you
anywhere”, as any “gains” you might think you’ve made on the “downstroke” side will be
negated by the “upstroke” side - and we know the tilt also adds vibration and potentially a
variety of other problems. (advanced tip: don’t forget about rotation/vibration, and its’ attendant cousin,
frequency)

The mathematics and physics involved in calculating the amount of energy required to rotate a
given mass at a given speed (or any other combinations) are well known and well-recognized,
and can be looked up in any number of sources online or otherwise.

In fact, standard, easily available formulas are used when calculating the various features
regarding the CVRP technology of The John Device.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 21

CVRP

One recent problem that has been encountered with these thoughts and what “everyone knows”
is that highlighted by The John Device and the CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane)
technology.

In a video called “The Impossible Video”, viewable on Youtube,(1) The John Device rotates 125
lbs of weight from a stand-still to 45 RPM and maintains it. (Note: The only reason the system
stops at 45 rpm is because the drive motor is only rated to go up to 45 rpm.)

The weights are more than 2/3 of a meter from the central torque shaft that is rotating, providing
an overall diameter of more than 5 feet.

The energy that would be required to do this, if the shaft was perfectly straight, would be at least
a thousand (1,000) Watts. (It is not calculated exactly here or in the videos because more weight can
simply be added, thus changing the calculations.)

Yet The John Device is able to do this never using more than five (5) Watts of power.

In fact, the system shown has done the same rotation shown in the video but with 250 lbs, or
twice the weight. That setup is not shown in calculations because there is no supporting video –
the horizontal arms on the mechanism broke under the weight.

Again, any experimenter who builds a system will be able to add as much weight as their design
and implementation can handle.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Remember, this is with a system made out of plywood that shakes because of insufficient
support braces, a toothed sprocket covered in a layer of duct tape for the top inner rotation
wheel, a small variable-height center shaft that rubs against the main center torque shaft, and
no bearings of any kind… in short – an engineering mess.

22
Yet it shows a concept. By being off center, but constrained in a framework, it is able to start
and rotate any amount of weight that can be put on its’ simple assembly using only a few Watts
where a traditional perfectly aligned shaft would require perhaps tens of thousands of Watts, the
latter calculation of course depending on the weight, distance, speeds desired, etc.

An important thing to remember is that the system as shown is relatively evenly balanced, so
the amount of weight could be increased infinitely. The system does this with little or no change
in the input Wattage. In other words, you could rotate a Trillion Tons of weight at 45 RPM using
just a few Watts of input power. (tip: You’re only actually moving the difference between the two
“masses.”)

Remember this concept:

Weightless, Not Massless.

p.s. for you advanced folks, I know it’s not technically accurate, but it conveys an idea.

CVRP provides a non-linear relationship regarding the input power or energy measured
in Watts relative to the amount of mass rotating – which speaks volumes to some.

The graphic on the next page shows calculations for a 125 lb. setup. It’s important to note that
the system in the video far exceeds the numbers used. The weights are farther “out” than
calculated, which dramatically effects the various calculations used. Therefore, the resultant
amount of Wattage estimated is definitely on the low side.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 23

Another way to think of it is that you could rotate an entire Planet or an entire Solar System, or
Galaxy, or Universe… with just a few Watts of power.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In fact, this is related to the cosmological background radiation or cosmological constant
“problem.” When physicists calculate their expected energy levels for these, they are incorrect
from the actual observed levels by a factor of 10120.

That’s the number 10 (ten) followed by 120 (one hundred twenty) Zeros. (or Zeds for much of the
24
World) So, - they calculated that something should cost:
$100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 Dollars

When it actually only costs: $0.02 Dollars - or a couple of cents.

Fundamentally, that is why scientists never understood how this small amount of radiation could
power anything, let alone the Universe(s).

This is also why the existing concepts of an “Electric Universe” ultimately fail.
They can account for virtually everything (which they should, since they are essentially correct being
direct relatives of the principles in this document) but they can’t account for spin, and so fall on the
standard ideas of the Big Bang and total angular momentum, etc.

Additionally, many of those theorists are constrained (the reasons why are quite varied and deal with
psychological principles, not scientific ones) by their allegiance with the varied relativities, and so, of
course, cannot ever see the truth.

This ability is shown by The John Device’s Continuously Variable Rotating Plane
(CVRP) technology and concept:

The Impossible Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_saRaWSl_Cw

www.TheJohnDevice.com
www.Torque-Incorporated.com
www.Facebook.com/TheJohnDevice

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

We are all actually somewhat familiar with the ideas of an object that rotates around, but not in a
perfectly “straight” orientation. Here are some examples that relate to this commentary, one
familiar, one not so much:

25

Planets (Earth’s precession) Atoms (Larmor precession)

Many people are also familiar with a “top” or “gyro” that spins and as the spin degrades, the
angle of the precession increases until it falls over.

When looking at the Atom’s Larmor precession, consider this from Wikipedia:

“Larmor precession (named after Joseph Larmor) is the precession of the magnetic
moment of an object about an external magnetic field. Objects with a magnetic
moment also have angular momentum and effective internal electric current
proportional to their angular momentum; these include electrons, protons, other
fermions, many atomic and nuclear systems, as well as classical macroscopic
systems.” (2)

Therefore, basically everything has precession and spin (angular momentum).

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Wikipedia goes on to say:

“The phenomenon is similar to the precession of a tilted classical gyroscope in an

external torque-exerting gravitational field.” (2)

26
Wikipedia’s description of the Gyromagnetic ratio:

“In physics, the gyromagnetic ratio (also sometimes known as the magnetogyric ratio in
other disciplines) of a particle or system is the ratio of its magnetic momentum in an
atom to its angular momentum” (2)

Regarding precession and spin:

“Any free system…such as a rigid system of charges, a nucleus, or an electron, when
placed in an external magnetic field… that is not aligned with its magnetic moment, will
precess at a frequency… that is proportional to the external field.” (2)

From the same Wikipedia page:

“Protons, neutrons, and many nuclei carry nuclear spin, which gives rise to a
gyromagnetic ratio as above. The ratio is conventionally written in terms of the proton
mass and charge, even for neutrons and for other nuclei, for the sake of simplicity and
consistency.” (2)

In other words, everything spins.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), who discovered the laws of electrodynamics, (and who will be
replacing Einstein in importance someday) said a wonderful and interesting thing:

“To those who study the progress of exact science, the common spinning-top is a
symbol of the labours and the perplexities of men who had successfully threaded the
27
mazes of the planetary motions.” (6)

Frequency

It’s also important to remember that when things spin, they have what we refer to as a
frequency. You could even say it’s how frequently something “comes around” in a given period
of time.

Since objects spin and have precession, and at the atomic level we refer to it as Larmor
Precession, it is natural that there is a Larmor Frequency.

“The angular momentum vector J precesses about the external field axis with an angular
frequency known as The Larmor Frequency.” (2)

NMR, or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy imaging, uses Larmor frequencies

because the various frequencies have been documented at various magnetic field strengths.
This topic also relates to areas discussed later in this commentary about biology and other
implications.

An interesting and important concept regarding Larmor Frequencies is found on Wikipedia:

“Crucially, the Larmor frequency is independent of the polar angle between the applied
magnetic field and the magnetic moment direction. This is what makes it a key concept
in fields such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and electron paramagnetic
resonance (EPR), since the precession ratio does not depend on the spatial orientation
of the spins.” (2)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In a study looking for dark matter (also mentioned later in the dark matter section) the
researchers were looking for fluctuations in neutrons due to theorized interactions with the
theoretical particles called Axions. Here are some interesting things relating to this research
that also relate to this HEW:

28
“Although neutrons have no overall charge, they are made up of quarks that do
individually have a positive and negative charge, and that gives neutrons a magnetic
moment.” (7)

“In the presence of an external magnetic field, the neutron precesses with a frequency
known as the Larmor frequency, due to that aforementioned magnetic moment. By
switching the direction of the field, the scientists measured the change in a neutron’s
Larmor frequency, and from that calculated its electric dipole moment, which is a
measure of the distribution of positive and negative charge inside the neutron.” (7)

Additionally, the g-factor, which relates to a system’s angular momentum to the intrinsic
magnetic moment, is 1 in classical physics, but in nuclear physics includes effects of nucleon
spins, orbital angular moments and couplings.

Polarity, as defined by Wikipedia, is also good to know:

“In physics, polarity is an attribute with two possible values.

Polarity is a basic feature of the universe.

• An electric charge can have either positive or negative polarity.

• A voltage or potential difference between two points of an electric circuit has a polarity,
describing which of the two points has the higher electric potential.
• A magnet has a polarity, in that it has two poles described as "north" and "south" pole.
• More generally, the polarity of an electric or magnetic field can be viewed as the sign of
the vectors describing the field.
• The spin of an entity in quantum mechanics can have a polarity – parallel or anti-parallel
to a given direction.” (2)

These topics all relate to other principles covered in this document.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 29
Gravity

Gravely speaking, there is no such thing as “Gravity.”

Throughout history, dating more accurately to Newton, Einstein, and for scientists, Cavendish,
the concept of Gravity – an omni-directional force with no underlying cause or mechanism - has
been marketed and branded into our collective conscious mind.

Generally speaking, no one would dare to claim that Gravity simply doesn’t exist in any way as
conceived, since its’ effects can be “tested” by anyone by simply dropping an object.

However, it’s very important for you to note, as you laugh and begin your defenses, that Newton
and Einstein didn’t believe in Gravity, as there was no mechanism provided and it violated other
well known and established laws of Physics for no reason. They knew it (Gravity) was illogical.

Both authors instead chose to describe a conceptual World that could mathematically be made
to account for observations available at their respective time.

As everyone knows, more observations are made every day.

The amount of information available to us compared to even Einstein is almost ridiculous, even
more so in the realms he tried to explain. We currently know that Gravity doesn’t work with
really small things or with really big things. In other words, Gravity doesn’t work with all the
things we have been able to observe at least since the idea of Gravity was “refined” by Einstein.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Restate “Gravity” in other ways, though, and it seems different:

• We currently accept a concept – Gravity - that violates the laws of physics. (some people
would call Gravity a law of physics, but it is simply a law in and of itself – as it specifically violates
a number of other actual known laws)
30

• We say we know that Gravity exists and is real, because we can see it and feel it every
day. The scientists generally associated with it such as Newton and Einstein are the first
to admit that it doesn’t make sense, and aren’t sure it even exists, but don’t know what
else to say is causing what they’ve observed.

• No scientific proof or test (other than empirical evidence) has ever been found to prove that
Gravity actually exists. (including the recent “gravitational wave” hype covered elsewhere in
this commentary)
Empirical evidence is the same evidence used to prove the mechanism of The John
Device, which people tend to disbelieve out-of-hand, with little or no investigation.

According to CERN’s website:

“However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, Gravity, is not part of the
Standard Model, as fitting Gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a
difficult challenge.” (8)

They go on to say:

“The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of
relativity used to describe the macro world, are difficult to fit into a single framework. No
one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the
Standard Model.” (8)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

And they finish with a wonderful statement, although they don’t seem to know it:

“So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain,
it is still incomplete. Perhaps it is only a part of a bigger picture that includes new physics
hidden deep in the subatomic world or in the dark recesses of the universe.” (8)
31

In response to that quote – it’s not NEW physics. It’s just understanding the old ones.

Richard Feynman was considered almost universally :^) to be a great physicist, and in his
lectures he includes a chapter on ‘The Theory of Gravitation’ and is perhaps the most prescient
in his very first sentence on the topic:

“In this chapter we shall discuss one of the most far-reaching generalizations of
the human mind.” (9)

Hmmm.
Please read that sentence above from Feynman again.

Far-reaching generalization.
Hmm.

So, we believe Gravity is an omni-directional force, with no reason or underlying mechanism to

explain its’ existence, and doesn’t fit our observations of the last 50+ years. The closest word to
describe the action it portrays is “Magic.” That sounds funny, (my Dad laughed) but it is
technically accurate.

As Feynman says later in the very same chapter:

“But is this such a simple law? What about the machinery of it? All we have done is to
describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go.
Newton made no hypotheses about this; he was satisfied to find what it did without
getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery.” (9)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Also, while not directly relating to Gravity, per se, the same work by Feynman goes on to say:

“The law of conservation of energy is a theorem concerning quantities that have to be

calculated and added together, with no mention of the machinery; and likewise the great
laws of mechanics are quantitative mathematical laws, for which no machinery is
32
available. Why can we use mathematics to describe nature without a mechanism
behind it? No one knows.” (9)

No one knew. It’s past tense now.

Without knowledge of the capabilities of the CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) no one
has been able to describe such a machine or mechanism, until now.

Most people at home don’t even know that the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, was built to find
several particles. One was the Higgs particle. That was found, and pretty much anyone alive
and connected on the Planet Earth heard about the discovery of “The God Particle.”

The other particle they HAD to find was the Graviton. Why is that?
Because without the Graviton, they have NO MECHANISM for their claims regarding the
supposed force of Gravity. Zero. (spoiler alert: they didn’t and won’t find a graviton)

You can imagine the frustration of having spent 5 Billion + in US Dollars plus a Billion or two per
year, and hundreds of thousands of hours doing math formulas (built on other silly math
formulas that are equally unproven and unrealistic) looking for something and not finding it.

These are the smartest minds on the planet Earth, doggone it!
Years of work and Billions of Dollars and NO Graviton!

Well, like any good physicists, more interested in their pensions, salaries, and benefits than in
doing actual science (I got that from an article written by a physicist :^) – when their experiment
didn’t work, they figured to just make it bigger and smash stuff harder.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

So, the World waited while they re-built the LHC for the second big run. This time, the Graviton
would be found for sure, because the power and frequencies they covered would far, far exceed
even the slightest chance of missing it. This time the Graviton would be found!

The LHC-II runs concluded with nothing.

33

NO GRAVITON.

Physicists, in all their champagne-soaked glory, have NO MECHANISM for a “fundamental

force” of nature. More importantly, or funnily, depending on your perspective, they have NO
IDEA of where to turn or what to do next.

So, instead of telling the public they’ve been wasting hundreds of Billions of dollars every year
at all the various Colleges and Universities and Think Tanks, and Technical Institutes…
they decided to play a game on you with “Gravity Waves.” (that nonsense is covered later)

Actually, the only good news is that besides destroying any chance they have of “proving”
Gravity, they also destroyed a bunch of other nonsensical theories.

So, in short, for someone like me, the LHC-II run was a wonderful thing.

For physicists? Not so much.

Well, not at all, actually.

Numerous scientific tests by NASA and others (for example, see: GRACE – Gravity Recovery and
Climate Experiment ) and others have shown that the ENTIRE EARTH is what could be called a
Gravity Anomaly.

A research paper studying the gravitational constant using cold atoms mentioned this in their
opening sentence:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “About 300 experiments tried to determine the value of the Newtonian gravitational
constant G to date but large discrepancies in the results prevent from knowing its value
precisely.” (10)

Then, even with their own work, they found thing weren’t working right:
34

“Our value is at a 1.5 combined standard deviations from the current recommended
value of the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA).” (10)

In other words – the math and science of Gravity doesn’t add up to the facts.

Speaking of science, and without further interpretation from a novice like me, consider these
formulas for gravity and electromagnetism:

Newton’s Law of Attraction or Universal Gravitation:

F=G * (m*m’)/r2 - Where F=force of attraction, G=grav. constant, m and m’ the masses of the bodies, and r the distance.

See any similarities between the formulae?

F= k * (q*q’)/r2 - Where F=force, k=Coulomb’s constant, q and q’ the charge of the bodies, and r the distance

Coulomb’s Law (above):

Coulomb’s Law - From Wikipedia:

“Being an inverse-square law, it is analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of

universal gravitation. Coulomb's law can be used to derive Gauss's law, and vice versa.
The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's
principle.” (2)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

To visualize “Gravity,” GRACE data converted to imagery shows the following examples:

35

Credit: NASA

This graphic shows the measured strength of the Earth’s “Gravity”.

If you examine it, you will notice some slight correlation with known mountain ranges, but then
face anomalies where mountain ranges don’t correlate and oceans don’t either.

After a while, you realize it’s all a mess.

The beautiful “uniformity” that Gravity should produce from an Earth-sized object just isn’t there.

The field surrounding is equally affected.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

This graphic shows Earth’s Gravity accelerations overall.

36

The raw data has also been reverse engineered by the Western Australian Centre for Geodesy
[Curtin University] to create this image.

There are some conclusions that can be drawn based on this map of the Earth’s Gravity
accelerations:

• The lowest surface Gravity on the planet is at the equator.

This appears to be counterintuitive (from a Newtonian perspective) because of the
additional mass contained in the Earth’s “equatorial bulge”.

• The highest surface Gravity on the planet is at the poles.

This appears to be counterintuitive (from a Newtonian perspective) because the Earth’s
oblate shape dictates that there is less mass at the poles (compared to the equator).

• Gravity is (evidently) a resultant “net” force where a (inward) centripetal force is partially
offset be a tangential centrifugal force (which varies by latitude).

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Quantum scientists, knowing the problems they face mathematically and otherwise, simply “turn
off” Gravity in their little World, because it just doesn’t work or make sense there. They seek an
imaginary quark called a Graviton, and a model of “Quantum Gravity” or else their model won’t
work. (Spoiler alert: it won’t, because there is NO such thing as Gravity.)

37
Later in this book, various well-known anomalies are discussed and “Gravity” simply cannot
explain them. When you think of a fully circular or omni-directional force like Gravity that is
caused with no underlying mechanism other than to say “it’s just there” - there are lots of things
that don’t work right.

In fact, the newest movement in physics, after finding no new particles with the latest run of
particle collisions at CERN, and all kinds of other evidence that they continue to be wrong is
towards Erik Verlinde and his 2010 paper: “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”.
String theorists and others are now calling Gravity an “emergent phenomenon” and not a
fundamental force at all. (imagine that! :^) This is also covered elsewhere in this document.

Verlinde, the stringers, and others, including the also soon-to-be popular Electric Universe
crowd, will still fail, as mentioned before, because they don’t understand the revolution of CVRP
(Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology, and so can’t account for spin, except by playing
the old Big Bang/Relativity game. That won’t be a problem for them, because with the scientific
community set to appease Einstein, rather than thinking and analyzing facts and data, none of
them really want to know what’s going on anyway. (again – my specialty is psych, so we could talk
for hours about the kids)

In other words...

Don’t think you’re crazy if you’re starting to believe that Gravity doesn’t exist..

Many highly respected people don’t believe in Gravity, either. (Newton and Einstein didn’t)

Regardless, if there is NO Gravity, then what is holding us down to the ground?

…Why don’t we “fly off into space”, as they say?

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 38

Atomagnetism

The name Atomagnetism was created not for technical reasons, but because people
understand the idea of an Atom and it is also easy for people to think of the field of “magnetism”
(ferromagnetism), with the traditional North and South Poles (a dipole).

Richard Feynman, in his “Lectures on Physics” says:

“However, gravitation and other forces are very similar and it is interesting to note
analogies. For example, the force of electricity between two charged objects looks just
like the law of gravitation: the force of electricity is a constant, with a minus sign, times
the product of the charges, and varies inversely as the square of the distance. It is in the
opposite direction – likes repel. But is it still not very remarkable that the two laws
involve the same function of distance? Perhaps gravitation and electricity are
much more closely related than we think.” (9)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Remember the formulas for Gravity and Electromagnetism shown a few pages ago?
(if you did – here they are again)

Newton’s Law of Attraction or Universal Gravitation

39

F=G * (m*m’)/r2 -Where F=force of attraction, G=grav. constant, m and m’ the masses of the bodies, and r the distance.

F= k * (q * q’)/r2 -Where F=force, k=Coulomb’s constant, q and q’ the charge of the bodies, and r the distance

Coulomb’s Law (above)

As early as 1644, Renee Descartes drew a representation of multiple regular magnetic

interactions. His drawing, show below, may help in visualizing combining multiple fields, and
you will see elements of it in many other areas:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Another visual idea one may think of for a “field” is to look at a single pit fruit cut in half. This
visual representation will be discussed in other areas. (you may also do this at home and you will
notice the pit is at a slight angle…just like a tilted or canted “torque shaft”…)

Peach Plum
40

Here’s a CAD Representation of a field (cut in half)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Although the word Atomagnetism is new, it does not represent something new. It represents a
new way of thinking – not a new fantasy concept – as it relies on all modern science and
research as its foundation. Scientists already know about atomic frequencies, the dipole
magnetic moments and combinations, and other electromagnetic/electrostatic phenomena.
41

Simply think of “Atomagnetism” as an easier word to say... or make up your own word. (actually,
given the scales that can be involved, some might think Attomagnetism a better term)

In particle physics, this Combined Analogous Dipole Magnetic Moment ADMM (the sum of the
contribution of effects of quantum mechanics), the Nuclear Quadrupole Moment, and other
electromagnetic/electrostatic effects are what “replaces” all 4 forces, scaled appropriately.
Note: it doesn’t actually replace them – it is them.

They’ve just been given different names for different sizes and scales of the same phenomena.
In fact, the current model has already been combining 3 of the forces, but hasn’t figured out how
to fit “Gravity” in. (of course :^)

In Physics, they have the “g-factor” which is described as:

“…a dimensionless quantity that characterizes the magnetic moment and gyromagnetic
ratio of a particle or nucleus. It is essentially a proportionality constant that relates the
observed magnetic moment of a particle to its angular momentum quantum number and
a unit of magnetic moment, usually the Bohr magneton or nuclear magneton.” (2)

“Protons, neutrons, nuclei and other composite baryonic particles have magnetic moments
arising from their spin” (2) This is particularly interesting, when you remember that “composite
baryonic particles” refers to everything that you or I have ever seen or experienced.

Electrons also join in, in regular, muon, and tau configurations, with their magnetic moment
being expressed with 3 different magnetic moments – one from their spin angular momentum,
one from their orbital angular momentum, and one from their total angular momentum – each
with their own corresponding g-factor.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In fact, the Electron magnetic moment is defined as:

“In atomic physics, the electron magnetic moment, or more specifically the electron
magnetic dipole moment, is the magnetic moment of an electron caused by its intrinsic
properties of spin and electric charge.” (2)
42

There’s also the “Bohr magneton,” which, according to Wikipedia:

“…is a physical constant and the natural unit for expressing the magnetic moment of an
electron caused by either its orbital or spin angular momentum.”(2)

Wikipedia has a nice quote regarding g-factors:

“However, not all of the difference between the g-factors for electrons and muons is
exactly explained by the Standard Model. The muon g-factor can, in theory, be affected
by physics beyond the Standard Model, so it has been measured very precisely.” (2)

In fact, recent measurements relating to muon size and also using the muon to measure the
size of the Proton have caused major problems in traditional physics, causing physicists to try to
bend the Standard Model even more to make it fit their preconceived ideas and, technically
speaking, fantasies.

Because current physics is on the wrong road, the more they look, the more they see that
doesn’t fit what their “map” shows. The more they look at “lepton universality” the more trouble
they run into.

In a recent article in Scientific American entitled: “Lawbreaking Particles May Point to a

Previously Unknown Force in the Universe”, they discuss some experiments and problems
resulting therefrom:

“But three recent experiments have produced growing evidence – including results
announced in just the last few months – that the particles react differently to some as-yet
mysterious influence.” (11)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

These experiments, in case you were wondering, were from major organizations: SLAC
National Accelerator Laboratory, the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization in Japan,
and the Large Hadron Collider (LHCb) experiments. These systems even use different
methodologies of researching and obtaining the data, making it all the more real.

43
The article goes on, as physicists tend to do, with a somewhat correct thought process (what
they call the unknown force) mixed with the inevitable: “must be a new something… blah blah.”
“While visions of Doctoral thesis papers or research funding dance in their heads.”

“If more taus are coming out than the weak force should produce, then some unknown
force, associated with some undiscovered attendant force-carrier particle, must be
breaking down the larger particles in a way that favors taus. Finding such a force would
be as fundamental as the discovery of electromagnetism, albeit with much less effect on
our daily lives.” (11)

“There’s a story line that the theorists tell,” Wise says, and “this isn’t the story line.” (11)

Sounds like it’s time for some new lines. :^)

Going down in size, neutrinos are considered by scientists to have some mass and therefore a
magnetic moment – allowing them to interact electromagnetically, which, according to the
principles described in this commentary and elsewhere, they should.

In Chemistry, various terms such as Surface Tension, Adhesion, Cohesion, and van der Waals
bonding, all directly relate to this concept of “Atomagnetism.”

For example, the HyperPhysics page, hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy at
Georgia State University, says some fascinating things about “van der Waals Bonding”:

“Even though the water molecule as a whole is electrically neutral, the distribution of
charge in the molecule is not symmetrical and leads to a dipole moment – a microscopic
separation of the positive and negative charge centers.” (12)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

They go on to say:

“Even nonpolar molecules experience some van der Waals bonding, which can be
attributed to their being polarizable. Even though the molecules don’t have permanent
dipole moments, they can have instantaneous dipole moments which change or oscillate
44
with time.” (12)

And for a finish, that is rather interesting when you’ve read HEW, they say:

“Examination of the dipole electric field shows that the electric field from one
instantaneous dipole will tend to polarize a neighboring molecule such that it will be
attracted – sort of the electrical analog to a bar magnet magnetizing a paper clip so that
it will be attracted to the magnet.” (12)

This picture of a paperclip floating on water, while not technically relevant, provides a good
visual representation of the concept of field and an object.

© Robert D. Anderson (2)

As mentioned earlier, it is sometimes difficult to find the proper terminology.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

For example, Wikipedia defines the van der Waals force as:

“…the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules (or between parts of the
same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds, or the electrostatic interaction of
ions with one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.” (2)
45

Adhesion is the term for the tendency of dissimilar particles to cling to one another, while
Cohesion is the tendency of similar particles to cling to one another.

You can think of it this way – on a typical roll of tape, the backing material is highly cohesive, so
the tape stays together. An adhesive material is usually applied to one side, creating the “sticky
side” of the tape. Things stick to the adhesive side, but not to the other side, which is only
cohesive. (unless they happen to be related to that cohesive material in one of a variety of ways)

For a thought experiment, think of the Earth – many types of dissimilar particles – as having
“adhesive” properties. Then consider that a particular element, such as Gold – similar particles
– as having “cohesive” properties. These very cohesive properties (matching dipole frequencies)
are what cause metals and elements to collect together into what we sometime refer to (in
geology) as veins of metals or minerals.

In fact, Wikipedia describes Dispersive Adhesion, which the term adhesion almost always refers
to, in this way:

“In dispersive adhesion, also known as physisorption, two materials are held together by
van der Walls forces; the attraction between two molecules, each of which has a region
of slight positive and negative charge. In the simple case, such molecules are therefore
polar with respect to average charge density, although in larger or more complex
molecules, there may be multiple “poles” or regions of greater positive or negative
charge. These positive and negative poles may be a permanent property of a molecule
(Keesom forces) or a transient effect which can occur in any molecule, as the random
movement of electrons within the molecules may result in a temporary concentration of
electrons in one region (London forces).” (2)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

London forces are particularly interesting because they don’t need either surface (particle) to
have any permanent polarity. The UC Davis Chemwiki says it simply:

“Unequal sharing of electrons causes rapid polarization and counter-polarization of the

electron cloud forming short lived dipoles. These dipoles interact with the electron
46
clouds of neighboring molecules forming more dipoles.” (13)

We already know about the frequency of atoms, or individual elements, and an example from
the M.I.T.’s Department of Chemistry can be found here:
http://web.mit.edu/speclab/www/Facility/nmrfreq.html

We also know about the frequency of molecules, although as with atoms, this is often referred
to as the “vibration” of molecules (or atoms). Wikipedia has a page on “Molecular Vibration”
here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration.

It has a great quote:

“Perhaps surprisingly, molecular vibrations can be treated using

Newtonian mechanics to calculate the correct vibration frequencies.” (2)

From a bigger, molecular perspective, Lemont Kier and Lowell Hall wrote a book: “Molecular
Structure Description – The Electrotopological State” (14) and also produced software to help
people “model” the interaction of various molecules.

In their book (from 1999) they refer to the I-State, E-State, and Free Valence values of various
molecules/chemicals, which they calculated and were able to turn into predictable values for the
pharmacological and other industries.

Many companies use software either from them or other companies that have started up with
the same concept – that atoms and molecules have a specific, predictable, calculable shape,
and that it has an electrical field associated with it, depending on the shape – or the topology, as
some might refer to it.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Speaking of topology, don’t forget that the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded with one
half to David J. Thouless, and the other half to F. Duncan M. Haldane and J. Michael Kosterlitz
"for theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter" (15)
for their work which is obviously related to topology and atoms and “matter.”

47
We know about electromagnetism – but our knowledge in “magnetic” realms is horribly polluted
by our understanding of ferromagnetism, or what we call regular magnetism. We know about
various anomalous dipole moments, but don’t relate it to our knowledge of atoms, nuclei,
electrons, quarks, etc. which also undoubtedly follow the principles described herein.

Ferro Magnetism

Mankind has noticed magnetic effects beginning with lodestone and moving through permanent
magnets with various materials making progressively stronger and stronger magnetic (gauss)
fields, as various breakthroughs have occurred.

Normally, to magnetize a metal, it is first heated to extremely high temperature.

Then a current is run through the material to give an alignment to the atomic structure.
Finally, this material is cooled as quickly as possible. (rapid quenching) The faster the cooling
occurs, the stronger the resultant magnetic field.

Regular (ferro) magnetism is, just like everything else, based on unresolved torque in free
space. This magnetic field is very apparent when considering elements like iron or ferrite.

The atomic structure of iron or ferrite, is a cubic/crystalline one with a center body that is
relaxed, or limp, and not connected to an end point of the cube face lattice when very hot.
When cool, this body resolves to an end point of the lattice. If this body is “trapped” before
reaching its connection with the end point, unresolved torque is created. This is why the faster
you can cause it to cool, the more magnetic the substance will tend to be.

Additionally, when cooling a block or piece of metal, one needs to consider the atomic scale.
Even a block ¼” thick is millions or billions of atoms thick. Therefore, even if you cool it as

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

quickly as possible, the inner atoms, which constitute the vast majority of the total number of
atoms, will be successively quenched or cooled slower than those on the outermost layer(s), as
they must pass their electrons on to the next (in order to “cool”).

48

Diamagnetism / Paramagnetism

While most people may be familiar with ferromagnetism, many may not have heard of
diamagnetism, and its’ relative, paramagnetism.

In describing diamagnetism, Wikipedia states:

“Diamagnetism, to a greater or lesser degree, is a property of all materials and always

makes a weak contribution to the material's response to a magnetic field.” (2)

They then go on:

“Materials called diamagnetic are those that laymen generally think of as non-magnetic,
and include water, wood, most organic compounds such as petroleum and some
plastics, and many metals including copper, particularly the heavy ones with many core
electrons, such as mercury, gold and bismuth.” (2)

Paramagnetism is described as:

“Paramagnetism is a form of magnetism whereby certain materials are attracted by an

externally applied magnetic field, and form internal, induced magnetic fields in the
direction of the applied magnetic field. In contrast with this behavior, diamagnetic
materials are repelled by magnetic fields and form induced magnetic fields in the
direction opposite to that of the applied magnetic field. Paramagnetic materials include
most chemical elements and some compounds;” (2)

In the language of The John Device and HEW, a diamagnetic atom or compound is simply a
balanced construct (similar to a John Device with two opposing arms or a helium atom), and a

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

paramagnetic one is unbalanced (one arm or a hydrogen atom). The reason paramagnets
respond so well to that external magnetic field is because they are just looking for an electron
buddy to “fill the void”, whereas a diamagnetic-only atom or compound isn’t really all that
interested.

49
It is important to remember, though, that although it is MOST evident to us because of the
obvious physical interactions of traditional ferro-type magnets, these effects are only impressive
because of the strength of the field… not because of the existence of the field - that all atoms
(and combinations of atoms) have.

In English – every atom has a frequency (we know this already, but for advanced thinkers, our
research is also Earth-based and necessarily tainted by the Earth’s field), and every combination of
atoms has a frequency.

“All normal (baryonic) matter emits ElectroMagnetic Radiation when it has a temperature
above absolute zero.” (2)

Continuing on, every combination of combinations of atoms has a frequency, unique to that
combination.

For example, an individual cell has a frequency, as does a group of cells such as an organ (this
relates to cell differentiation, discussed elsewhere).

You, collectively, have a frequency – made up of all the individual atom frequencies and
molecule frequencies and cell frequencies and organ frequencies.

Learning and knowing the frequencies of these molecules, cells, and organs will have a direct
impact on disease detection and healing.

This frequency chart is an example showing the higher the frequency, the smaller the object
involved with it. Obviously, we just haven’t gotten to the high enough frequencies to start
playing with sub-sub-atomic particles yet.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 50

Credit: pixgood.com

Those fields/frequencies of combinations include any chemical or things, of course, so as

mentioned, they have direct impact on chemistry, biology and sciences not normally thought of
when one thinks of the theoretical physicists and the science and physics of galaxies and
planets and “outer space.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

So, what does Atomagnetism “look” like?

51

In this incredibly simplified example (zoomed in below), a person is

standing on the surface of an object, such as the Earth.
Note: If this object is the Earth, then this is an enormous person.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Here are ideas to help with visualization:
(but not very good ones:^)

52

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 53
1+1=3

Another thing to understand is the idea of 1+1=3

When two atoms, which have their own fields, combine by whatever method appropriate, they
each still have their own field, and now share a new field with each other. The appropriate
method would depend on what the two atoms each were. In some cases, they would exchange
electrons, in some cases share them. If their frequencies are related or harmonic, even if they
are distinctly different atoms, they may still combine or coalesce.

The exact field shapes will vary greatly, depending on the atom’s basic structure and its
ionization state or energy level.

The circles used in the various graphics to represent fields are simply used because of their
simplicity in construction for this book and because they have a familiarity to many people.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

This concept continues to extend beyond individual atoms (it actually began with those atoms
constituent components) to groups of atoms, molecules, and all the various mixtures possible.
This combination or outer field is simply the aggregate of those it contains. The Earth is a large
scale example. In science today, talking about the “topology” of atoms and molecules is
54
completely in vogue. (accepted and exciting and award winning)

Remember, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences “Scientific Background on the Nobel Prize
in Physics 2016” is entitled: Topological Phase Transitions and Topological Phases of Matter.

Aggregates of atoms and things have fields while retaining and blending their own with others.
In other words, your very body has one overall field, but every organ has one, every vein and
artery, every bone… every single part down to the atom, and indeed to the quarks and who
knows what else and how far down we go.

This is important to understand (although it’s an awful drawing – sorry):

.
1 + 1 = 3

For a simple example, if you “stick” two magnets together, they each technically still have their
own field, but once joined, the pair also has its own field encompassing both objects (magnets in
this case).

To think of examples of different fields joined together in a single construct, consider Apples -
which have multiple seeds and the seeming ridges in the structure caused by the seeds and
their attendant fields, or Oranges, with their individual slices or sections, each with a seed.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In “The Electrotopological State”, the authors have a great statement that applies throughout the
principles taught here:

“We can view each atom in a molecule as existing in a field within a molecule in which all
other atoms participate. This field participation is characteristic of any atom in a
55
particular molecule.” (14. p.14)

They then describe how even when various things are mixed in different chemicals, they retain
certain aspects or characteristics of their original construct:

“The methyl group in toluene is different from the methyl group in acetic acid by virtue of
its context, despite its intrinsic state as a methyl group. Quantifying the methyl group
requires both an identity as a methyl group and its modification through the relationships
to all other atoms in the molecule in which it resides.” (14. p.14)

In describing what they call the I-State, or Instrinsic State of a molecule, they point out the three
factors relating to it. These factors are important because they apply to all kinds of things,
including light, and will be apparent in later sections.

The first attribute or factor is elemental.

This represents the elements (structures) of which a particular molecule is created from.
An example might be water, which has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Not surprisingly, each of their individual, or elemental, constructs (and technically, how they fit
together) must be considered in the making of the whole.

The second attribute is that of the electronic organization.

The is also referred to as the valence state of the atom.
In HEW terms, we just say it just depends on how many weights (electrons) you’ve added to the
structure. Some people would refer to ionic states or ions in discussing this.

The third attribute is called the degree of adjacency.

This is also referred to more generally as the local topological state of the atom or group.
In other words, this refers to where the atom or molecule is in relation to neighbors. (In simple
terms, a gas has a lot of space between atoms or molecules, and a solid doesn’t.)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

You will find references to Van der Waals forces everywhere.
When you see what they are, it’s not surprising.

An interesting study on Van der Waals forces found a nonlinear increase in strength with
growing molecular sizes. These forces are considered to act somewhat like glue on all types of
56
matter.

“Although the Van der Waals force was discovered around 150 years ago, it is still
difficult to quantify when predicting the behavior of solids, liquids, and molecules.
Precise measurements were only possible up to now for single atoms or macroscopic
(16)
objects.”

In their research, they found that:

“It was also revealed that the bigger the molecule, the stronger its attraction to the
surface. In reality, this effect is even stronger than simple models predict and also than
(16)
would be intuitively assumed.”

And so as not to bore you too much further, but make a great final point:

“The Van der Waals force, to put it simply, emerges due to the displacement of electrons
in the shells of atoms and molecules, caused by quantum fluctuations, which leads to a
weak electrical attraction. In the case of larger molecules, more atoms are involved as
each of these molecules also comprises more atoms. And on top of this, each and
(16)
every atom contributes more strongly.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Field of Life

The Force of Life

Zero Point Energy

57

CMBR

What is the Force - that Drives the Field of Life?

The Combined Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is the most probable candidate, but
it’s always hard to say, given our observations and their historical reliance on visible light, which
limits our actual understanding of the higher frequencies common in the Universe(s).

But, what THAT force is, or what powers that CMBR force itself?

That’s up to you, the learner, to decide.

There are many religions of Humanity, and therefore it is assumed each reader will reach a
conclusion at ease with their own mind and belief system.

The title of this document starts with the word How - not When, Why, Where, What, or WHO.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Force(s)

58

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Force(s) 59

We currently classify the same force, scaled appropriately, into 4 classifications – Gravity, the
Weak and Strong forces, and Electromagnetism. We consider them different, because they
seem to relate to things of different sizes, and seemingly in different ways.

There is just one force.

Atomagnetism – or the Combined Anomalous Dipole Magnetic Moments, or Quadrupole

Nuclear Moment, and a variety of names relating to the spin, or moments of various particles,
atoms, elements, and molecules. Again, this is the name used by this author instead of all
those names, and for the scales involved, may be better called Attomagnetism.
In current physics terminology, it is closely related to the term and ideas of topology.

Electromagnetism
In basic form, electromagnetism involves everything in life. Almost all phenomena we
encounter, including chemical reactions and forces between objects, involve the
electromagnetic force - the exchange of electrons, if you will.

Electrons are never created or destroyed, just moved around.

Example of an electric copper wire:

In this simple form, electrons are being pushed (or pulled) into a medium, such as a copper
wire, that has an atomic structure that allows it to pass more electrons to its neighbor rather
than pass it on to the surrounding air (if it can contact said air in the first place).

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

With this influx of electrons, the atoms are receiving and passing electrons as fast as their
particular structure allows.

The atomic wobble through frequencies will also be producing what is referred to as heat (higher
frequencies) or may be producing visible light – again depending on the particular atomic or
60
combination structure and the frequencies they produce.

But, in this “excited” state, where the ions and electrons flow freely, the field strength of each
particular atom will be at a large or inflated size – what we perceive as “electromagnetism.”

Superconductors are simply atoms and combinations thereof that “like” to pass electrons on as
quickly as possible – with the goal of getting ones to do that in a “hotter”, or electron-rich, high
frequency environment.

Superconductivity research generally revolved around super-cold (electron-poor, no ambient

frequencies) environments, which obviously doesn’t work for everyday applications.

Of course we have already combined electromagnetism and the weak force into electroweak
theory because of the cross-over between the two “different” forces.

Current theory now has essentially merged the three forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic), and
understand they are the same thing. However, Gravity cannot be reconciled – even with the
current model.

One researcher, studying eclipses, noted regarding the fields:

“…there is more to electromagnetism than the mere transfer of energy.” (17)

He went on to note that if a change was made in radiated synchrotron photons:

“Only some observers (on Earth) will measure the limited number of synchrotron photons
radiated by the gently accelerated charged source, but the field distribution will be
updated everywhere and the change will be verified by all observers.” (17)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In other words, only some people “saw” the “photons”, but EVERYBODY sees the field change
– instantly, or at least at the speed of light.
Think of quantum tunneling and Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”

The key is this: The field is already there and always has been – pushing (or pulling) power
61
through said object just makes the field larger and stronger, and in some cases, too many
electrons are in the environment and need to be shed to return to balance. (what is called heat is
produced)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Light 62

Mankind has a particular affinity for the area of the spectrum known as Visible Light. Since we
have seen that light brings warmth and life in the Spring and Summer, and the lack of light
brings cold and death in the Fall and Winter. Anyone alive can feel the Sun on their skin.

We are in awe of light. We are in awe of a narrow portion of the spectrum.

This awe causes us to forget that it is just radiation.

First of all, and to the dismay of many, there is no such thing as a “Photon.” People have
perceived an electron (or portion thereof) that is apparent at the time that light is “created.”
They therefore named this a Photon, because of its’ seemingly direct relationship to the
appearance of light. As Wikipedia points out:

“The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain
experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light.” (2)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

This thinking uses words such as “emit” and “release of energy”, which, while being acceptable
and useful words in many circumstances, must be used with extreme caution when dealing with
scientific principles and concepts. Dictionary interpretations of “emit” include words like
“produce” and “create”. In simple terms, our modern definition states that light somehow
63
appears “out of thin air” - or out of nothing. (they actually call it a “release of energy” but offer no
explanation why that would produce light) It is therefore akin to Magic or a God-created Miracle.

From Wikipedia:

“In physics, emission is the process by which a higher energy quantum mechanical
state of a particle becomes converted to a lower one through the emission of a photon,
resulting in the production of light. The frequency of light emitted is a function of the
energy of the transition. Since energy must be conserved, the energy difference
between the two states equals the energy carried off by the photon.” (2)

As with many things observed/discovered, this is essentially true.

It’s the underlying mechanism that’s different.

In the language of HEW, an atom “throws” an electron or “weight”, or an electron jumps from
one atomic shell or orbit to another. This may be caused by an excessive amount of electrons
in the atom’s environment, and also is dependent on the frequencies of the environment itself.

When the atom throws the electron or one jumps orbits, it causes the atom’s structure (with a
“central” Torque Shaft or Torque Shaft Driving Mechanism in some parlance, Higgs particle in others) to
wobble. All atoms have a frequency, and when the atom wobbles after throwing the electron or
the electron jumps orbits, its’ frequency may pass through the spectrum that includes visible
light as it returns back to its’ original frequency.

This “walk through” a frequency range also is what causes light to seem to flash, or gain
intensity quickly and then diminish quickly. This is also why, in some observations, light seems
to have a “wave-like” structure (frequency) with peaks and valleys.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Since different atoms have different frequencies, and can have various configurations such as
different ionizations while remaining the same basic element, they will wobble through different
ranges of frequencies after throwing electrons.
This is why different atoms or elements or combinations thereof seem to have different colors
visually. Remember that colors are simply different frequencies in the (visible) spectrum.
64

Different structures of atoms from different elements, and combinations of them, will absorb and
throw electrons at different rates, all of which relate to what we perceive as their “natural” color
or appearance, and what is thought of as their abilities to absorb and emit(!) light and heat
(electrons or what you used to call photons).

“Each element’s emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy can be used to

identify the elements in matter of unknown composition.” (2)

Not only is each element’s emission spectrum unique, but recently, scientists have figured out
how to “fake” elements. Andre Campos and colleagues from Princeton figured out how to use a
laser pulse on hydrogen atoms to make them “look like” (or have the same frequency as) argon
atoms:

“What Campos’s team realized was that they could use lasers to excite an atom into a
state of any energy, at least temporarily, by hitting it with a specially designed light pulse.
When the electron fell back down, it would then emit whatever light colour the physicists
chose.” (18)

“In fact, any two atoms or molecules can be made to look alike, by applying specific
pulse shapes. In general, this means that simply measuring the light given out by a
material is not enough to know what its composition. You need to know the input light,
too.” (18)

That is a critical point about the input light, or how you input electrons in general.
Too many “scientific” papers and such that I read talk about applying “heat” to some process
they’re doing. That is a very vague way of telling someone that you are transferring electrons to
whatever you’re doing. See the section on heat in this document for more information.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

This same research brings another area that is discussed later in this document:

“It might also be useful helping in biology, where it is a major challenge to distinguish
very similar molecules in certain mixtures. Specific laser pulses will cause different
molecules to emit different colours, and so provide a means to tell between them.” (18)
65

Again, we already know these things. The scientific community is very aware of optical and
mass spectroscopy, and so is the TV-watching general public, thanks to various forensic and
crime analysis shows or segments where they mention various aspects of spectroscopy (or
perhaps the more common term spectrometry) – from luminol used to identify body fluids to various
lab tests used to determine, perhaps, the exact model and manufacturer of a vehicle from a
paint chip from a crime scene.

Simply Put: There is no such thing as a Photon, it’s just terminology (remember, Einstein made it
up to fit other things) – in fact, some scientists refer to it as a photoelectron and others note that it
can easily “change” into an electron.

Again, It IS an Electron, or portion thereof, that when being thrown from an Atom, or jumping
from one shell or obit to another, causes the Atom to wobble, which may move its frequency
through that of visible light, depending on the structure of the atom.

Light, as we say, is a Field and a Particle, as represented (poorly) below:

(it can be called a field with a wave going through it and caused by an electron)

In the case of this graphic, the atom that is wobbling is located on the surface of the object
labeled as a “Light Source” and so only field lines propagating out are shown.

This concept is important because when atoms are packed together, their frequencies and
thrown electrons will be contained by the atoms around it. Those atoms will then pass the
electrons on, wobbling through their frequency range as they do so.

Depending on their atomic and molecular structure, they will be able to pass the electrons
efficiently, or with low resistance, with minimum wobble and attendant frequencies (heat or light)
or they will be less efficient with more wobble and frequencies, or high resistance.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 66

The field or Atomagnetic field can be visualized with the classic magnetic (ferromagnetic) image,
which has standard field-like shapes. This standard field concept is well understood by modern
science, and examples are shown and discussed elsewhere in this document.

The concept of the thrown or moved weight/electron (and the fact that said weight/electron is
spinning internally at sub-atomic speeds, which are “faster” than atomic speeds) also relates to the
“torque” or angular momentum, of light.

A recent paper studying optics and photons further quantizes “light” and has an interesting
conclusion:

“We conclude that for light, as is known for electrons, reduced dimensionality allows new
forms of quantization.” (19)

“Effects due to the angular momentum of light have been studied since the first
measurements of the torques exerted on wave plates.” (19) (which, according to the
reference used here, were published in 1936)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “As with spin and orbital angular momenta, the torque exerted on an object depends on
how it couples to the field.” (19)

“…confirming on mechanical grounds that it represents a form of angular momentum.”

67
(19)

Simply put - “photons” act like electrons, have torque like electrons, and have all the things
electrons have – but “they” have been given a new name because of their association with the
frequency range that Humans have labeled Visible Light.

As Richard Feynman says:

“When a photon comes down, it interacts with electrons throughout the glass, not just
on the surface. The photon and the electrons do some kind of dance, the net result of
(20)
which is the same as if the photon hit only on the surface.”

Another fascinating concept from physics is that of “Radiation Pressure.”

Wikipedia defines it:

“Radiation pressure is the pressure exerted upon any surface exposed to

electromagnetic radiation. Radiation pressure implies an interaction between
electromagnetic radiation and bodies of various types, including clouds of particles or
gases. The interactions can be absorption, reflection, or some of both (the common
case)). Bodies also emit radiation and thereby experience a resulting pressure.” (2)

By the way, “Bodies” is physicist-speak for every known particle and thing.

So, EVERYTHING emits radiation, or a frequency.

Two traditional tests regarding the photon are the photoelectric effect and Two-slit experiment.
In short, both of these proofs simply provide further evidence for this theory on How Everything
Works.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Photoelectric Effect

According to Wikipedia:

“The photoelectric effect is the observation that many metals emit electrons when light
68
shines upon them. Electrons emitted in this manner can be called photoelectrons. The
phenomenon is commonly studied in electronic physics, as well as in fields of chemistry,
such as quantum chemistry or electrochemistry” (2)

The UCDavis Chemwiki shows the following graphic:

Credit: UCDavis Chemwiki

The description of this includes this quote:

“Einstein proposed that in the photoelectric effect, each photon was striking a single
electron and causing it to break its association with the atom.” (4)

As with most things, this is mostly correct, but it is simply an electron doing that.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

An interesting point is that we currently say that if, for example, 10 Million Photons were to strike
a surface, then 10 Million PhotoElectrons would be produced (under perfect conditions) which
could also be considered 10 Million Electrons.

In old physics, “many metals emit electrons.”

69

In HEW terminology: Everything is able to absorb electrons and then shed them, which causes
their structure to wobble, and in doing so may make their natural frequency pass through the
spectrum of visible light (and other parts of the spectrum) representing the color of the particular
object as they return to their relative state of equilibrium.

Or, when atoms get more electrons than they need or want, they give some back to anybody
who needs or wants them.

Two-Slit Experiment
The two-slit experiment originally was considered to prove that light acted both as a wave and a
particle.

There are numerous considerations that helped with the effects when considering that the
object that had the “slits” in it had its’ own field and as the electrons passed close to the edges
of the slits, the fields interacted causing the variances in the tracks of the detected electrons
(photons).

Also, since light is a field, it essentially acts like, or seems essentially the same as a wave
because of the wobble through frequency ranges of the basal elements involved when
exchanging electrons. As mentioned, it’s somewhat of a “wave through a field because of
changes with an electron.”

Simply put: the Two-Slit Experiment (like all experiments, technically) simply is another test that
can be used to prove this “theory,” as the results of these experiments are exactly as what
would be expected.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Relating to the term Photon, this graphic might help:

70

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 71

‘ons are Off

As long as we are on the topic of Photons - many other ‘ons, as I call them, turn out to be
equally false, made up, or constructed to satisfy math and other considerations not rooted in
reality.

In some cases, like the Photon, it’s simple terminology. In others, it’s an entirely nonsensical
entity, created only in formulas based on conjecture. In the Standard Model, in HEW
terminology, we see that Quarks are the various pieces and beginning weights of the system
and the Leptons (electrons and neutrinos) are the weights.

Credit: MissMJ, PBS NOVA, Fermilab, Office of Science, U.S. DOE, Particle Data Group

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

All particles that have ever been observed are either Fermions or Bosons.

“Fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, while bosons are
said to be the particles that transmit interactions (force carriers), or the constituents of
radiation.” (2) 72

As Wikipedia says regarding Bosons:

“Whereas the elementary particles that make up matter (i.e. leptons and quarks) are
fermions, the elementary bosons are force carriers that function as the ’glue’ holding
matter together.” (2)

An example of an ‘on failure is that of the Graviton. Some people put the word “hypothetical” in
front of it, and I would too. (as we’re discussing, ALL the ‘ons are hypothetical) In fact, the most
recent version of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) was built specifically to find the Graviton – to no
avail.

Just for a refresher, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN found the Higgs particle.
That was then altered for many news stories to say that they had found the Higgs Boson.
They did not. They could not have, because there is no Higgs Boson to “find.”
There IS a Higgs particle, but not a boson.

These Bosons, or “carriers” of force are just math representations that work to show the
(atomagnetic or other word) field interactions going on between the various particles.

Some imaginary Bosons: Axion, Magnon, Graviton, Photon, Gluon, W and Z Bosons, and all
Quasiparticles. Again, any Particle (which isn’t really a particle, but that’s for advanced thinkers) that
we find exists. We found it through physical observation. Most of the Bosons are mathematical
explanations for observed phenomena caused by field and topological interaction.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Recent examples of failures to find the Axion:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/16/dark_matter_axions/

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/nov/17/measurements-of-electric-dipole-
moment-rule-out-axion-like-dark-matter-candidates
73

And my Favorite, past and recent example of failure to find the Graviton:
https://home.cern/topics/large-hadron-collider

After not finding the Graviton, and re-building the LHC to definitely find the Graviton, they still
didn’t find the Graviton.

Time for a…

#gravitywavefake

:^)

The only sad part is that these experiments cost Billions of dollars and are completely pointless,
since the people involved with them have no idea what they’re doing or looking for.

That’s your tax dollars at work – building egos and arrogant attitudes, but not much else.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 74

Hot / Cold

Closely allied with light are the ideas of hot and cold.

More electrons and higher frequencies – heat

Few electrons and lower frequencies – cold

How these are transferred between atoms is important.

Every atom has a field and associated frequency. Again, this is not a new concept.

When atoms, or combinations thereof, are being struck by electrons (heated up, in some
parlance), they have various abilities to absorb said electrons. Some can absorb more, some
can absorb less, and some essentially not at all. That obviously relates to their structure.

When they acquire too many, or when electrons jump shells or orbits, they may become
imbalanced, and finally throw or lose one of these electrons. In doing so, they wobble, passing
through a frequency range whilst returning to their natural frequency. The higher the frequency,
the “hotter” it is.

We know this completely scientifically, and for one example, use the field of spectroscopy (using
different types of light, even such as infrared) to analyze materials to determine what they are
composed of. If you’ve seen most crime TV shows, there’s some point where they use a
spectrometer or similar device to determine the exact “chemical composition” of something
relevant on the show, in order to bust the criminal.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Here’s an example of the spectrum of a Metal Halide Lamp from Wikipedia:

75

As Wikipedia says: “Spectroscopy is the study of the interaction between matter and
electromagnetic radiation.” (2)

Space is “cold” because it has few atoms and electrons, and also therefore few “ambient”
frequencies.

A Fire is “hot” because it has many electrons seeking new homes, after their host
atoms/molecules have thrown them and said hosts have momentarily wobbled through a
frequency spectrum.

Some of the atoms/molecules wobble through what we call Red, and Orange, and Yellow,
among other colors/frequencies.

We see flames as their atoms meet the “cold”/electron-receptive air.

(the use of various chemicals can obviously alter the “color” – hence the use of
fire additives to make interesting colors in the flames)

Wobble City.

Only marshmallows and a stick are needed to finish the “scientific” process.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Some other topics that relate to hot and cold, interestingly enough:

Sonic Sealing vs. Heat Sealing

Remembering that “heat” just refers to some frequency, you may find it interesting to notice that
76
various packaging you may have around your house for food has transitioned in the last few
years from “heat-sealed” packages to “sonic-sealed” packages.

The advantages to the manufacturers were many:

- The sonic sealing doesn’t produce as much heat, so the product being packaged is
less likely to be damaged.

- The seal is performed without heat, so there is virtually no “cool-down” time before the
product can be packaged and boxed up for shipment.

- The sonic sealed area is “shorter” than the heat sealed area on the end of the bag, so
less material is needed per sonic-sealed package.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 77

Spot and Sonic Welding

Many products have elements or parts that are connected to one another by spot welding or
sonic welding. Spot welding is generally thought of as relating to metals, and sonic welding
related to plastics and rubbers and other non-metallic materials.

In either case, a frequency is used that disrupts the atomic structures of the materials seeking to
be joined. Usually, various testing has determined the correct frequencies for the exact material
seeking to be modified, and the extent to which it is desired to be modified. (i.e. softened, melted,
vaporized, etc.)

Laser Cooling

Although it may seem counter-intuitive to some people reading this, things can only be “cooled”
down so far by placing them in an electron poor/hungry environment. (or what people would call a
“cold” environment)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “Laser cooling refers to a number of techniques in which atomic and molecular samples
are cooled down to near absolute zero through the interaction with one or more laser
fields.”(2)

“All laser cooling techniques rely on the fact that when an object (usually an atom)
78
absorbs and re-emits a photon (a particle of light) its momentum changes.” (2)

As usual, they’re in the neighborhood, but not sure where they are.

An interesting part of laser cooling is that they have to use very particularly timed pulses, and it
matters where on the atoms the pulses strike it.

If you’d like to get this image clearly in mind, think of The John Device, spinning around slowly.
If you throw a weight at it and you strike the weight coming towards you, (assuming various factors
relating to the speed and mass, etc.) it may slow down (get colder) and if everything’s just right, you
may stop it, or even knock it backwards for the moment that your weight “hit.”

Once the weight is gone, however, since The John Device is a driven system, similar to the
CMBR field driving quarks and sub-quarks, (or what some call Zero point energy) the system will
start to move “forward” again.

And that, in a paragraph, is why scientists struggle to get atoms to absolute zero, and if they
technically do (zero spin), they are unaware of the accomplishment. Many groups have gotten
better and better at timing their laser pulses and making sure to use apparently correct
frequencies, and the result has been that they’ve been getting closer and closer to “reaching
absolute zero.”

“Light” Powered Nano-sized 3-Wheelers

A direct cousin to laser cooling, and also an interesting article to read for the future, relates to
using laser pulses to “drive” nano-sized vehicles.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “Rather than drive them chemically or with the tip of a tunneling microscope,…the
researchers used light at specific wavelengths to move their nanoroadsters along a
copper surface. The vehicles have rear-wheel molecular motors that rotate in one
direction when light hits them. The rotation propels the vehicle much like a paddle wheel
on water.” (21)
79

Credit: Alex Saywell/Leonhard Grill

“Powering them with light frees them to be driven wherever one can shine a light – and
eventually we hope they will carry cargo. This is precisely what we seek – to use a light
to activate motors and have swarms of nanovehicles moving across the surface, made
directional through electric field gradients.” (21)

As you probably see, this is exactly the same concept as laser cooling, but just with a bunch of
atoms stuck together instead of a single atom. It’s simply electrons being thrown around, and
all the frequencies from everything wobbling, trying to get back to equilibrium.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Another group of researchers sees the ability to drive nanomotors with pulses of light. In an
article entitled: “Topologically enabled optical nanomotors” they discuss how light can be used
to drive nanoparticles. Of note to HEW readers is this statement:

“Specifically, even linearly polarized light that carries zero angular momentum can give
80
rise to a steady state in which a particle is spinning indefinitely around its stable
orientation.” (22)

That quote above is worth much thought: Something with zero angular momentum that strikes
another particle, causing it to spin indefinitely around its stable orientation.

Sure sounds like a relative of The John Device’s CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane).

“Here, we show that a simple spherical Janus particle illuminated with light in the
appropriate spectral range can become a stable nano-scale motor. When illuminated by
a plane wave, such a Janus particle – consisting of a dielectric core and a thin metallic
half-shell – exhibits rich rotational dynamics, which include the existence of precessing
steady states in a light field that carries no inherent angular momentum.” (22)

Uh oh.
Another, less scientific way to say it is: The stuff’s going to hit the fan.

Or, as they say in the same research article:

“Full-wave simulations demonstrate the existence of steady-state orientations with

nonzero net torque, resulting in a spinning particle even in the absence of the angular
momentum of the external electromagnetic wave.” (22)

Not that the authors of this research are implying this in any way, but I am…

Can you say Zero point energy?

(this is discussed in the section on Perpetual Motion in this document)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Dental Work / Other Light/UV Activated Adhesives

If you’ve been to the dentist lately, or perhaps work in a manufacturing or other

production-type facility.

If you’ve had a dental filling, you may have had a polymer-type filling put in, and then the dentist 81

or dental assistant shines a bright blue light (ultraviolet) on the material, hardening it in seconds.

In many manufacturing environments, new “light-activated” adhesives also come into play for
the exact same reasons:

o Very little heat produced when compared to conventional methods.

o The quickness of “setting” of the final joint or connection.

o Additionally – parts can be moved about with the adhesive in place until
“solidifying” the connection with the appropriate light source or frequency.

In other words, the frequency of visible light normally isn’t correct for breaking the molecular
structures of the components of the adhesives and items to be connected, but a higher
frequency, such as infrared or ultraviolet, is. (although they do make regular visible-light activated
compounds too)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Fission
Fission, as we commonly refer to it, is thought of as relating to atomic bombs or nuclear
reactors, or perhaps nuclear medicine.

It is used and related to those things, but that type of fission is simply atomic. Other known 82

types of fission include (at least) biological, molecular, and sub-atomic fission.

The chart below summarizes some points about the different types of fission:

LEVEL OF FISSION > MOLECULAR ATOMIC SUB-ATOMIC

Common Terms Chemicals, Wood, Atomic, Elements, Various Quarks, Particles,

associated with Gas, combustion fission fusion

Examples Fire / Engine Sun Black Hole

Conventional Nuclear/Atomic Bomb Hydrogen Bomb
explosive Nuclear Reactor Fusion Reactor (?)
Chemical reaction Particle Accelerator Hadron Collider/CERN

What Happens Molecules are broken Atoms (elements) are Quarks or particles are
down into their broken down into their broken down into their
constituent elemental constituent elemental constituent elemental
components components (depending components (depending on
(depending on on variables*), typically variables*), typically referred
variables*), typically referred to as quarks or to as ? or ??. (sub-quarks and
referred to as particles. sub-particles)
elements or atoms.

(note on what You may notice that in the examples above, the concept is the same. The only
happens) thing that changes in the term for what is broken down and what it is broken
down into. This concept can be extended upwards or downwards beyond the
three levels or examples shown here.

*variables The variables referred to above include the basic assumed composition of the
elemental objects (be they molecule, atom, or sub-atomic) and the groupings they
have established, the distribution of the objects and their “surface” contact area
with other disparate areas, and the energy (frequencies) in the system, either
ambient or available, generally referred to as heat and cold.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

How it Happens How the concept of Fission happens is the same process in all environments. The
process just occurs at different frequency ranges, depending on whether dealing
with the combination of atoms that make molecules, or the combination of sub-
the same atomic particles that make atoms. (technically, as these processes apply to
everything, they go beyond the three “levels” discussed here)

83
The local environment has an excess amount of electrons and neutrinos
- although we only perceive electrons because neutrinos are at too high a
excess frequency for our current scientific methods to detect, other than through having
electrons neutrinos striking atoms that have a particular affinity for being able to be
suspended in a medium, and are probably one-sided or lop-sided constructs (in
John Device concepts) in order to highlight maximum effect from the neutrino
strike.

When an object ordinarily accumulates too many (or too large) electrons, it would
shed electrons by “throwing” them. After releasing the electron, the structure of
the object wobbles slightly as it returns to its’ equilibrium. Since all objects
throwing (molecules, atoms, quarks, and particles) have a known frequency, this wobbling
electrons causes them to pass through a range of frequencies around this. Depending on
the structure and resultant frequency of said object, these frequency ranges may
be what we refer to as higher, or shorter duration wavelength, or also what we
refer to as hotter. (this is the same process that creates visible light – it just
depends on the objects’ natural frequency range and if its’ wobble range takes it
through the visible spectrum in any area)

breaking If the environment is already “overloaded” with electrons - the medium is called
apart “hot” (high frequencies from other objects reacting to the electrons) and also the
objects are constrained by other objects (collected together like Wood, or
compressed like Uranium), their atomic structure may break apart, resulting in a
wave near their frequency, but also exposing the higher frequency inner structures
(that comprise them) to the environment.
recombining,
reducing These constituent parts will then bond with other constituent parts into
structures. If the environment continues to be electron-rich, the cycle continues
until the most basal elements remain. This level of reduction depends on the
environmental factors to a large degree. Ultimately, high levels of “heat” or
“radiation” – electron and frequency rich environments such as the Sun - will
reduce even the most steadfast of the normal Atomic elements. Sub-atomic
elements find their ultimate homes in Black Holes and similar constructs.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Fusion
Fusion, as we commonly refer to it, is thought of as relating to hydrogen bombs or the attempts
to make viable fusion reactors. It is used and related to those things, but that type of fusion is
simply atomic. Other known types of fusion include (at least) molecular and and sub-atomic
fusion..
84

The chart below summarizes some points about the different types of fusion:

LEVEL OF FUSION > MOLECULAR ATOMIC SUB-ATOMIC

Common Terms Elements, Compounds, Atomic, Elements, Various Quarks, Particles,

associated with chemical reactions fusion fusion

Examples Earth Sun Black Hole

Chemical reactions Welding Fusion Reactor (?)
Sex (organism fusion:^) Atomic Enrichment Hadron Collider/CERN

What Happens Molecules are Atoms (elements) are Quarks or particles are
combined into new combined into new combined into new
groupings of molecules groupings of atoms or groupings of quarks or
or components components particles (depending on
(depending on (depending on variables*)
variables*) variables*).

(note on what You may notice that in the examples above, the concept is the same. The only
happens) thing that changes in the term for what is combined and what it is combined into.
This concept can be extended upwards or downwards beyond the three levels or
examples shown here.

*variables The variables referred to above include the basic assumed composition of the
elemental objects (be they molecule, atom, or sub-atomic) and the groupings they
have established, the distribution of the objects and their “surface” contact area
with other disparate areas, and the energy (frequencies) in the system, either
ambient or available, generally referred to as heat and cold.

How it Happens How the concept of Fusion happens is the same process in all environments. The
process just occurs at different frequency ranges, depending on whether dealing
with the combination of atoms that make molecules, or the combination of sub-
the same atomic particles that make atoms. (technically, as these processes apply to
everything, they go beyond the three “levels” discussed here)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 The local environment has an excess amount of electrons and neutrinos
- although we only perceive electrons because neutrinos are at too high a
frequency for our current scientific methods to detect, other than through having
excess neutrinos striking atoms that have a particular affinity for being able to be
electrons suspended in a medium, and are probably one-sided or lop-sided constructs (in
John Device concepts) in order to highlight maximum effect from the neutrino
85
strike.

When an object ordinarily accumulates too many (or too large) electrons, it would
shed electrons by “throwing” them. After releasing the electron, the structure of
the object wobbles slightly as it returns to its’ equilibrium. Since all objects
(molecules, atoms, quarks, and particles) have a known frequency, this wobbling
throwing causes them to pass through a range of frequencies around this. Depending on
electrons the structure and resultant frequency of said object, these frequency ranges may
be what we refer to as higher, or shorter duration wavelength, or also what we
refer to as hotter. (this is the same process that creates visible light – it just
depends on the objects’ natural frequency range and if its’ wobble range takes it
through the visible spectrum in any area)

If the environment is already “overloaded” with electrons - the medium is called

“hot” (high frequencies from other objects reacting to the electrons) and also the
objects are constrained by other objects (collected together like Wood, or
breaking compressed like Uranium), their atomic structure may break apart, resulting in a
apart wave near their frequency, but also exposing the higher frequency inner structures
(that comprise them) to the environment.

In the concepts of Fission and Fusion, the objects are under pressure, or in
extremely close proximity on all sides with neighboring objects, which contributes
to them being unable to “throw” their electrons. This may be because their
recombining, neighbors are also already overloaded with electrons, or also because of their
reducing individual structures (atomic or otherwise) are inherently overloaded.

These constituent parts will then bond with other constituent parts into
structures. If the environment continues to be electron-rich, the cycle continues
until the most basal elements remain. This level of combination and reduction
depends on the environmental factors to a large degree. Ultimately, high levels of
“heat” or “radiation” – electron and frequency rich environments such as the Sun -
will reduce even the most steadfast of the normal Atomic elements. Sub-atomic
elements find their ultimate homes in Black Holes and similar constructs with the
subsequently higher frequencies found in those objects.

A self-sustaining reaction occurs when a sufficient quantity of base material has

been “overloaded” and has broken apart, exposing the higher frequencies of the
sub-objects, and additional materials are available to become overloaded to the
point of breaking apart in the normal electron release/absorption process.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 86
Matter / Mass

Richard Feynman, considered one of greatest physicists (or at least explainer of physics) of all
time, said this: “All mass is interaction.” (3)

On a molecular level, Wikipedia says: “A molecular vibration occurs when atoms in a molecule
are in periodic motion while the molecule as a whole has constant translational and rotational
motion. The frequency of the periodic motion is known as a vibration frequency, and the typical
frequencies of molecular vibrations range from less than 1012 to approximately 1014 Hz.” (2)

And: “Perhaps surprisingly, molecular vibrations can be treated using Newtonian

mechanics to calculate the correct vibration frequencies.” (2)

In the standard model, the Higgs Field is what gives or imparts mass through the mechanism of
the Higgs particle, or what in John Device terminology would be the Torque Shaft or Torque
Shaft Mechanism.

In this same model, these particles, quarks, etc. are considered the smallest or ultimate division
of energy and mass and matter. Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are not. That is not relevant
to this document.

Perhaps (and actually – probably) each Electron, Neutrino, etc. is nothing more than the beginning
of the same field and construct as an Atom is to us currently.
For example, a neutrino is the same as an electron, but sub-atomic in nature.

In that case, not only could the entire “mass” of the Human race fit into a sugar cube, as some
scientists show it would… it would easily fit onto the head of a pin… smaller than the period at
the end of any of these sentences.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

.All the Human race, including all those who have ever lived - inside of a simple period.

We ARE energy.

87

That image is sometimes hard to think of – so remember that an atom is just some bits that are
spinning so fast (at the atomic level – up to the speed of light and the constituent particles – up to the
higher E=mcx speed) that they appear solid.

Also, take note of arrangements – the hexagon, or actually, the double equilateral triangle. :^)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Here are some examples to show this effect – starting with the drawing in 2D, and then showing
the 3D shape constructed from it. (Of course it is shown in 2D since it’s printed on paper or viewed on
a 2D display)

The “visible” atom’s size and shape is really the overall “swept” shape. (Note: this also relates to
88
the concept of a star’s collapse – black holes, neutron stars, etc.)

This first example uses a shape somewhat similar to the shaft with weights attached shown
earlier. The double end is because each “weight” rotates at a different location.

2D

3D

3D Rotated

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In the following example, the shape representing the center is the large circle and the three (3)
small circles represent objects circling the center large circle. After those 4 circles are rendered
in CAD and “swept” through 360 degrees, you see the examples in 3D.

2D
89

3D

3D Rotated and rendered

Descriptions and renderings of atomic and molecular orbitals are known and available that show
similar features.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

As Wikipedia says: “Atomic orbitals are the basic building blocks of the atomic orbital model
(alternatively known as the electron cloud or wave mechanics model), a modern framework for
visualizing the submicroscopic behavior of electrons in matter.” (2)

90

Source: Wikipedia

“Each orbital in an atom is characterized by a unique set of values of the three quantum
numbers, n, l, and m, which respectively correspond to the electron’s energy, angular
momentum, and angular momentum vector component (the magnetic quantum
number).” (2)

Energy and angular momentum.

Everything spins.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

An article in Scientific American, entitled:
“What exactly is the ‘spin’ of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons?
Does it have any physical significance, analogous to the spin of a planet?”
91
discusses the opinions of several scientists, and is discussed below with commentary.

Morton Travel, a professor of physics at Vassar College, responds:

“When certain elementary particles move through a magnetic field, they are deflected in
a manner that suggests they have the properties of little magnets. In the classical world,
a charged, spinning object has magnetic properties that are very much like those
exhibited by these elementary particles.” (23)

“Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down, and we have come to realize that that it is
misleading to conjure up an image of the electron as a small spinning object. Instead we
have learned simply to accept the observed fact that the electron is deflected by
magnetic fields. If one insists on the image of a spinning object, then real paradoxes
arise; unlike a tossed softball, for instance, the spin of an electron never changes, and it
has only two possible orientations. In addition, the very notion that electrons and
protons are ‘solid objects’ that can ‘rotate’ in space is itself difficult to sustain, given what
we know about the rules of quantum mechanics.” (23)

Commentary on Morton Travel quotes:

As you can see, Morton makes some great statements, especially with the first quote.
As with everything, he is basically correct. The ‘paradoxes’ he refers to are only a problem or a
paradox for people who believe in Gravity and all the old-school stuff.

Why would the spin of an electron change? I suppose if you don’t know how it spins in the first
place, you’d have some type of Gravity expectation that it would slow down?

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Since everything has/have only two possible orientations in their most basal states, it goes
without saying that electrons, which are part of everything, also have two possible orientations.

And finally, according to HEW principles, protons and electrons are no more “solid” than
anything else is, and are constructed of sub particles rotating at higher speeds.
92
CVRP and swept area.

Kurt T. Bachmann of Birmingham-Southern College, adding historical background, said:

“Starting in the 1920s, Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach of the University of Hamburg in
Germany conducted a series of important atomic beam experiments. Knowing that all
moving charges produce magnetic fields, they proposed to measure the magnetic fields
produced by the electrons orbiting the nuclei in atoms.” (23)

“Much to their surprise, however, the two physicists found that electrons themselves act
as if they are spinning very rapidly, producing tiny magnetic fields independent of those
from their orbital motions.” (23)

“Spin is a bizarre physical quantity. It is analogous to the spin of a planet in that it gives
a particle angular momentum and a tiny magnetic field called a magnetic moment.” (23)

“Based on the known sizes of subatomic particles, however, the surfaces of charged
particles would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order to produce the
measure magnetic moments.” (23)

“In a broader sense, spin is an essential property influencing the ordering of electrons
and nuclei in atoms and molecules, giving it great physical significance in chemistry and
solid-state physics. Spin is likewise an essential consideration in all interactions among
subatomic particles, whether in high-energy particle beams, low-temperature fluids or
the tenuous flow of particles from the sun known as the solar wind.” (23)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “Indeed, many if not most physical processes, ranging from the smallest nuclear scales
to the largest astrophysical distances, depend greatly on interactions of subatomic
particles and the spins of those particles.” (23)

93
Commentary on Kurt’s quotes:

The first quotes just re-iterate the point that everything spins.

The 4th quote, stating that the sub-atomic particles would have to be moving faster than the
speed of light is correct – but they just don’t believe it. This is referenced in the section E=mcx.

The last two quotes are two give the reader and understanding of spin and scale.

Victor J. Stenger, professor of physics at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, gives a

technical perspective:

“Spin is the total angular momentum, or intrinsic angular momentum, of a body. The
spins of elementary particles are analogous to the spins of macroscopic bodies. In fact,
the spin of a planet is the sum of the spins and the orbital angular momenta of all its
elementary particles. So are the spins of other composite objects such as atoms, atomic
nuclei and protons (which are made of quarks).” (23)

“At our current level of understanding, the elementary particles are quarks, leptons (such
as the electron) and bosons (such as the photon). These particles are all imagined as
pointlike, so you might wonder how they can have spins. A simple answer might be,
perhaps they are composite, too.” (23)

“But deep theoretical reasons having to do with rotational symmetry of nature lead to the
existence of spins for elementary objects and to their quantization.” (23)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Commentary on Victor’s quotes:

The first quote is correct.

The second quote’s point, is that yes, they are composite.

94

The third quote relates to not having an understanding about CVRP (Continuously Variable
Rotating Plane) technology and the problems physicists have always had accounting for spin, in
the Universe, the Galaxy, Solar System, and all the way down to atoms and sub-atomic
structures.

Here are 3 recent interesting research articles:

Spinning electrons open the door to future hybrid electronics

Internet: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-electrons-door-future-hybrid-electronics.html

“Just as the Earth spins around its own axis, so does an electron, in a clockwise or
counter-clockwise direction. ‘Spintronics’ is the name used to describe technologies that
exploit both the spin and the charge of an electron.” (24)

A sea of spinning electrons: Discovery could spawn a wave of new electronic devices
Internet: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-sea-electrons-discovery-spawn-electronic.html

“Most importantly, the electrons’ spinning axes are level and perpendicular to their
velocity.” (25)

Spin current detection in quantum materials unlocks potential for alternative electronics
Internet: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-current-quantum-materials-potential-alternative.html

“The spin current, namely the total angular momentum of moving electrons, is a behavior
in topological insulators that could not be accounted for until a spin-sensitive method
was developed.” (26)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

This image shows calculated atomic orbitals:

95

Source: https://chemlinks.beloit.edu/Stars/pages/orbitals.html

“In atoms with multiple electrons, the energy of an electron depends not only on the
intrinsic properties of its orbital, but also on its interactions with the other electrons.” (2)

Of course molecular orbits, or MO’s, which represent the regions in a molecule where an
electron occupying an orbital are likely to be found, are the combination of atomic orbitals.

In fact:
“They are invaluable in providing a simple model of bonding in molecules, understood
through molecular orbital theory. Most present-day methods in computational chemistry
begin by calculating the MO’s of the system.” (2)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

As Wikipedia points out:

“Many molecules have such dipole moments due to non-uniform distributions of positive
and negative charges on the various atoms.” (2)

96
“Therefore, a molecule’s dipole is an electric dipole with an inherent electric field
which should not be confused with a magnetic dipole which generates a magnetic
field.” (2)

In a related concept, researchers from the Brookhaven Lab collaboration with the U.S.
Department of Energy have:

“combined atoms with multiple orbitals and precisely pinned down their electron
distributions. Using advanced electron diffraction techniques, the scientists discovered
that orbital fluctuations in iron-based compounds induce strongly coupled polarizations
that can enhance electron pairing – the essential mechanism behind superconductivity.”
(27)

Here is an image created by Brookhaven Labs showing atoms before doping and after:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

“Doping” means adding an impurity or other substance to a crystalline substance generally
altering its electrical properties. (you’re adding atoms and/or electrons)

In HEW terms, you just added more weights of some type, or additional structure and weights.

97
After all this, here are a few John Device “orbitals” to ease the eye…

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

More orbitals/systems:

98

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Anti-Matter 99

Since the concept of a “Big Bang” is acceptable under this theory, the issue of anti-matter is
relevant. (Extending this document “upwards,” the “Big Bang” would be perhaps be analogous to a
Supernova, but at the sub-sub-atomic level.)

“Theories of physics require that for every particle of matter created at the big bang – the
cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe – so too was its antiparticle
equivalent, or anti-matter” (28)

One of the problems facing physicists is that they think they only can see matter.

So, they conclude that they (scientists) cannot find anti-matter, or one half of the potentially
available material needed to construct quarks and atoms.

In fact, the quote above is from an article entitled:

“Scientists Ponder Universe’s Missing Antimatter.”

And ponder they do, rambling on and on about if our part of the universe is unique, or different,
and complex math on the expansion and rapid heating and different kinds of space at the
beginning versus today, and on and on and on.

Let’s cut to the chase:

Because of various types of media and also general education, people (including myself just a few
years ago) have no real idea of what “anti-matter” is. We are all told that it will “annihilate
instantaneously” in an explosion when it comes into contact with “regular” matter.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

However, scientifically speaking, it is “matter” that’s upside down and spins backwards.

That is simple sounding, but even more so if you spin a top on a table and observe the direction
of rotation – then imagine (or perform a “thought experiment”, as physicists like to say:^) that top
flipped over and you will see the rotation would be in the other direction.
100
In other words, it’s upside down and spinning backwards.

“Matter and antimatter share nearly identical properties except the antiparticle has an
opposite electric charge from the particle. For example, an electron has a negative
(28)
charge, so its antiparticle, the positron, has a positive charge.”

Experiments have also shown identical characteristics with hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, both
regarding the charge:

“ The ALPHA experiment (http://alpha.web.cern.ch/) reports a measurement of the

electric charge of antihydrogen atoms, finding it to be compatible with zero to eight
decimal places. This is the first time that the charge of an anti-atom has been measured
to high precision and confirms scientists’ expectation that the charges of its constituents,
(29)
the positron and antiproton, are equal and opposite.”

…and also the spectral lines (or what some think of as light) emitted by them:

“When the spectral lines of anti-hydrogen and hydrogen were compared it was found
that the spectral lines were identical within experimental limit.” (30)

Even neutrinos, which we currently believe do not have a charge (they do, but we don’t understand
charge at that frequency level) have a property called helicity. The concept of twisted field lines in
space is common in field and frequency arenas, and also to HEW.

“Neutrinos have a property called helicity, which describes whether they spin to the
left or the right as they travel through space. Matter neutrinos have left-handed
helicity, while antimatter ones have a right handed helicity.” (31)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Again, we have been led to believe, by hook or by crook, that when anti-matter “meets” matter
that a violent explosion (annihilation) or “flash of pure energy” will occur.

In some cases, our belief system is so extreme that it may even include the annihilation of the
101
locality, the Earth, or even the Universe – all from an “anti-matter” particle or group of particles
“meeting” a “matter” particle or group of particles.

Even in describing the Positron, or anti-electron, Wikipedia says:

“When a positron collides with an electron, annihilation occurs. If this collision occurs at
low energies, it results in the production of two or more gamma ray photons” (2)

In our current belief system, almost all of the matter and antimatter created in the Big Bang did
annihilate, with estimates of 1 part per Billion or per 10 Billion of matter left over to create what
we experience as the Universe today.

This is related to CP (charge-parity) violation, which indicates that matter and antimatter decay
differently. However, scientists still can’t find an answer.

“…the degree of CP violation determined by this experiment – and others – fails to

account for the entire matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe. ‘We don’t have a
complete understanding yet. Our current picture and understanding doesn’t give enough
CP violation,’ said Persis Drell, a particle physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator
(28)
Center”

In fact, they get so lost in what they’re looking for that they (CERN – BASE Baryon-Antibaryon
Symmetry Experiment) have recently concluded, in the most detailed study ever done, that you
- the reader, and I - the writer of this document, don’t exist.

“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which
is why the universe should not actually exist, an asymmetry must exist here somewhere
but we simply do not understand where the difference is.” (32)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

That’s right. Scientists, following the Standard Model and their current belief system, can
explain to you, mathematically, that either: a) they are wrong in their belief system or
b) you, I, and everything ever known simply don’t exist and never did.

If you can’t understand that the paragraph above leads to the inevitable conclusion that
102
scientists are wrong in what they believe about the Universe, then you need to read it again,
because if you continue with that thought line, then you can’t exist to read this document.

So, antimatter seems somewhat mystical and dangerous, but:

“Did you know, the bananas that are probably sitting in your kitchen right now produce
antimatter – they spit out a positron every 75 minutes.” (30)

UPSIDE DOWN and BACKWARDS

In designing a version of The John Device, it became apparent that in order to have a single
drive source for a group of systems that interact, alternating systems would need to rotate in
opposite directions.

This was not automatically constructed or designed to obviate vibrations and stresses or
imbalances (although that is a wonderful side-effect), but rather due to simply mechanical drive
restrictions. These restrictions maintain the philosophy of the absolute minimal number of
pieces or parts used to construct this or any system.

In the simplest terms, it was easiest to take an existing John Device construct, and simply flip it
upside down. In doing so, if the device were to continue to rotate in the direction it had been
prior to being flipped, it would now be spinning “backwards.”

So – the second John Device added is “Upside Down and Backwards” when compared to the
first John Device in the system. Each one connected to either of those described would also
have to be “upside down and backwards” in relation to who it was connected to.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

This section on anti-matter is new, as with most topics, I was unaware of the complete
confusion and state of “science” today. As you are aware, scientists “can’t find” half of the
Universe they believe should exist – the anti-matter.

103
Not to necessarily propose “where” the missing anti-matter is, the following simplified examples
of potential constructs of elements (atoms) are shown for your consideration.

In viewing them, please pay attention to the colors on the spheres, attempting to show the
dipole concept.

Also note that as they grow and add PHUN units (Proton, Higgs Unit, Neutron), the additional
units are “Upside Down and Backwards” when compared to those they are attached or
connected to.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen is “anxious” to find a partner and complete its most basic dipole relationship…

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Helium

104

…and so, Hydrogen “likes” to become Helium, a relatively balanced structure.

Lithium

Lithium, like Hydrogen, is “anxious” to find a partner and complete basic dipole relationships.
That’s why it reacts so violently with various elements and breaks apart.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Beryllium

105

Beryllium is a relatively balanced structure with two completed dipole sets.

Boron

Boron is even more “anxious” to find a partner and complete basic dipole relationships and
complete the larger inherent hexagon structure.
That’s why it reacts with various elements, bonding them to it.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Carbon

106

Ahh, Carbon.

Carbon is perfect.

The dipole relationships are complete, echoing the underlying hexagonal patterns.

This system can pass electrons simply from one system to the next, which is why they are
inherent in superconductors. However, everything from this point on in the Periodic Table is
“based” on carbon, so that’s why all kinds of various elements are found to have
“superconducting properties.”

Images such as those above are fine in helping discern the “upside down” aspect, but without
motion, it’s difficult to see the “backwards” part of the process.

This video on Youtube, shows a John Device system or a Carbon Atom (they’re all related), but
still shows the motion to give you a much better visualization:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0N5RA6OpxQ

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 107

Black Holes

A “Black Hole” has two interesting things about it: It is one of the “brightest” things in the
Universes, and isn’t a Hole at all.

It just depends on what you mean – does the “brightest” mean the strongest and highest in
frequency in the visible light range, or the strongest and highest in frequency, overall? (e.g. Is a
Gamma-Ray “brighter” than a Visible Light Ray?) Think and evaluate words carefully. Use them
more carefully, because of the harm and misinformation they can cause.

All Suns (atomic structures) may eventually become Black Holes - or sub-atomic structures.
(technically, all objects may eventually become black holes, but that’s real big picture, long term stuff)

As an object continues to gather additional atoms (fields) becoming what we call a black hole,
its’ own field will eventually become so powerful and at a higher frequency because of its’ sub-
atomic structure, that the atoms nearest the surface (or interface area with the cooler area with lower
frequencies/less electrons) are breaking into their constituent particles, and in doing so, they may
or may not wobble through the lower frequency visible spectrum as they break up into their sub-
atomic pieces.

Finally, once reduced to the constituent parts of atoms, the attendant frequencies will be much
higher than that of the visible spectrum, so there would be no perception of visible light from an
object like that anyway – except perhaps at some interface layers.

Size-wise, the “collapse” of matter is somewhat grasped, and we already have a calculated
“Schwarzschild radius” that estimates this “compressed” or “collapsed” estimated volume of a
Black Hole. (note: collapsed is a better term)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The collapse idea relates to the volume occupied not by the swept area of the constituent
quarks/particles, but by the quarks/particles themselves.
This is also discussed in the section on Matter and Mass.

108
In other words, a Black Hole may make some visible light – and does produce lots of
frequencies, in fact. Many other higher frequencies are also apparent because of the various
constituent sub-atomic structures. We just don’t “see” it because possibly, the frequencies of
the visible spectrum are unable to propagate through the higher frequency field; the frequencies
of the visible light may also be distorted by the “breaking” of the atomic structure; and since a
black hole is itself comprised of sub-atomic particles, they produce higher frequencies than
visible light at rest and then, after throwing a weight, when they wobble through a frequency
range attempting to return to equilibrium. In other words, a black hole acts just like our Sun, but
in a higher frequency range, so we just don’t “see” it.

The good news for readers of this document is that many new telescopes are becoming
operational all over (and above) the World, using techniques to observe frequencies far beyond
the normal visual range. This is being heralded as a new era in astronomy – viewing
frequencies instead of visual light. Comically enough – LIGO, which detects “collisions” of fields
of objects, and was therefore used as a last ditch effort to fake out the public on the concept of
Gravity, (which they know doesn’t exist because they haven’t found any mechanism for it) is considered
one of these new observational tools. It is one, in fact, but not much of one.

In fact, a recent article discusses, visible light has been detected and may even be visible to
amateur astronomers, coming out of a Black Hole.

In the article link below, Mariko Kimura of Kyoto University said:

“We now know that we can make observations based on optical rays - visible light, in
other words - and that black holes can be observed without high-spec x-ray or gamma-
ray telescopes,”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/06/visible-light-black-holes-detected-for-first-
time-v404-cygni

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

As of this writing, the World is awaiting the first ever “Picture” of a Black Hole, taken by a group
of observatories using a variety of frequencies. This picture is expected to be finally put
together around February, 2018.
The scientific community is thrilled awaiting the view of a Singularity (an infinitely small point) with
109
an accretion disk circulating around it.

Unfortunately, that isn’t what they’ll be seeing, as the concept of a Singularity as an

infinitesimally small point is incorrect. They’ll be seeing a large “black” object with an accretion
disk. (The accretion disk is just the matter being pulled from all around into the B.H. and since it’s
rotating, forms a disk-like structure.)

We believe that at the center of our Sun is a ball of fusion, surrounded by a layer of fission,
surrounded by an outer layer.

To speak in general terms, at the fission layer, atoms are breaking apart (while being
compressed) and shattering each others’ atomic “shells” and perhaps parts of their structures.
In fusion, the continued staggering pressure has removed all shells and the sub-atomic
structures are “rubbing” against each other. (More correctly, their fields are being pushed together so
hard that they are exhibiting increasing repulsive force as they are attempted to be forced together.)
This rubbing, combined with the probable transfer of sub-sub-atomic material causes the same
wobbling effect as with atoms, but on a smaller scale – and also at higher frequencies.

After this point, speculation prevails. The shells of the sub-atomic components would begin to
finally reach a frequency where they would shatter – which could be called sub-atomic fission,
and finally where the constituent components, being held under increasing pressure, would
begin “rubbing” together, in preparation for the next level, which would be, of course, sub-sub-
atomic fission and fusion.

The visible light produced may simply be stopped by the higher field frequencies of the object
(black hole or other). This stopping of the field wave is similar in concept to a field that bends light
– or what is currently referred to as gravitational lensing. Again, a possible explanation is that
as the frequencies at the core of the object get higher (hotter), the overall field intensity, and

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

probably more importantly, the frequency, is so high that they contain the lower frequencies,
including those of visible light, so they don’t propagate further outwards.

Another explanation is, as mentioned, the higher frequencies produced by the sub-atomic
actions simply don’t register to us because they are beyond “visible” light.
110

This concept would indicate that black holes should put out a tremendous amount of what could
be called radiation, but of course at the higher gamma and x-ray levels that their very parts are
used to. Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) and Fast Radio Bursts (FRB) are completely normal and
simply caused by unbalanced versions of these higher frequency objects.

This may very well be related to the dark areas or sunspots on our Sun – a much more probable
explanation than the old “those areas are bright, they’re just dimmer than everything around
them…so they just look black.”

The M-sigma relation indicates that Black Holes have mass, and this is why scientists have
been using the terms Massive Black Hole and Super Massive Black Hole in their descriptions.

The idea that a black hole is in fact a hole in space in which things disappear is a problem for
many scientists because of the Information Paradox and various entanglement issues.

As Joseph Polchinski (the “P” in the acronym: AMPS) said:

“Hawking had identified a deep conflict between the predictions of quantum theory and
relativity in these extreme environments. (a black hole) According to his reasoning,
either quantum mechanics or Einstein’s depiction of spacetime is flawed.” (33)

Simply put: Black Holes don’t work well with science as they are currently perceived to exist.

However, since they are not as currently perceived, there are no problems.

They are exactly what they seem to be: Massive objects that have other objects orbiting them,
and others that they interact with.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Recent research has shown that Black Holes have a direct relationship to the formation of stars
in a galaxy:

“Our findings suggest clearly that, in effect, supermassive central black holes can affect
111
the formation of stars throughout the lifetime of the galaxy, and that this effect depends
(34)
on their masses.”

For example, we now know that 13 (thirteen) galaxies orbit the Andromeda galaxy, which is
shown below in a wonderful image from NASA. (This also violates Gravity-based models but is in
perfect agreement with the ideas presented in this document.)

“The Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model struggles to explain the formation
of these thirteen satellite galaxies orbiting around Andromeda.
The Lambda-CDM is a standard model in astrophysics that assumes galaxies collide
and merge with one another to grow mass.” (35)

Credit: GALEX, JPL-Caltech, NASA

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Black holes are closely related to other areas of interest to physicists – Active Galactic Nuclei
(AGN), Neutron Stars, Magnetars, and objects that emit Fast Radio Bursts (FRB) and Gamma
Ray Bursts (GRB), both periodic and rapid, to name a few.

For example, according to Wikipedia:

112

“An Active galactic nucleus (AGN) is a compact region at the center of a galaxy that has
a much higher than normal luminosity over at least some portion – and possibly all – of
the electromagnetic spectrum. Such excess emission has been observed in the radio,
microwaves, infrared, optical, ultra-violet, X-ray and gamma ray wavebands.” (2)

Credit: NASA

When you become familiar with the Continuously Variable Rotating Plane (CVRP) concept
displayed by The John Device, and indeed, planets and plants and everything, you will see this
is what you’d expect with an out-of-balance system. Relatively well-balanced systems have no
“jets” or at least not as pronounced as is found on this wild crowd.

When you take the tilt or angle of a torque shaft out too far, the field it generates is forming in
such a way as to allow the higher frequencies at its’ core be exposed at either “end,” generating
the perceived “jets.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The way you tilt or angle it is through an imbalance in what, for the lack of a better term, we will
call mass. Sometimes imbalances work themselves out, but it depends on the fluidity of their
construct and exactly when and where additional mass is acquired.

113
- Guess why continents drift and volcanoes form and all kinds of geologic things happen?

The “masses” in a dipole situation with the CVRP concept can be connected in an endless
variety of ways to the torque shaft, but a natural configuration – other than straight on – is to be
at 45% angles – joining at the center of the torque shaft.

For a thought experiment, consider the X-shaped bulge of the Milky Way.

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Then, consider this possible configuration of The John Device’s CVRP technology:

114

Or, to give more of an idea of the area being swept if this shaft was rotating:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 115
Dark Matter

People have heard about “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” through various media forms for
many years, to the point that the terms are well known and also somewhat “co-joined” in that
people think that they “go together.”

“Dark matter and dark energy are mysterious, unknown substances that are thought to
make up more than 96 percent of the universe. While we may have never directly seen
them, they beautifully explain how stars and galaxies move and how the universe is
expanding. But a new study, published in The AstroPhysical Journal, suggests they may
not exist at all.” (36)
(Quick note: the “beautifully” they refer to is because they were used to stretch Einstein’s work in
order to keep it relevant due to new observations. No one wants to know they’ve wasted years of
their life, both in University and/or in professional life, hence the use of an adorative adjective,
instead of just saying: “…they explain how…” )

Here’s beauty in another way:

“The beautiful, spinning pinwheel of the Andromeda galaxy, our celestial neighbor,
poses a mystery. The breakneck speed of its rotation cannot be explained by applying
the known laws of physics to the disk’s visible matter.” (37)

This is an example of what happens throughout physics and cosmology. What we observe
doesn’t fit the model or the “known” laws of physics.

“Most of the visible matter of a galaxy is concentrated near the center of a galaxy, so we
would expect that more central stars should move much faster than stars on the outer
rim. Thus the rotation curve should decrease with distance. However most galaxies

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 have a fairly flat rotation curve, meaning outer stars move about as fast as inner stars.
This and other evidence has led us to develop the theory of dark matter. But new
research on galactic rotation curves has found an odd correlation, and it could mean that
dark matter is wrong after all.” (38)

116
Even when you move beyond a single galaxy into groups of galaxies, research shows multiple
things interesting to readers of this document:

“Most of the small satellite galaxies orbiting the large galaxy Centaurus A rotate in
the same direction in a well-defined plane. This coordinated motion is contrary to
predictions made by the cold dark matter (CDM) model of structure formation in the
universe. The finding was made by an international group of astronomers and is
consistent with previous observations in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies.
The team suggest these puzzling observations should prompt astrophysicists
to consider alternatives to CDM.” (39)

At first glance, you might think the articles above are from the same research since they deal
with galaxy rotation(s). They’re not, and not related at all. They show the same thing, however
- that our current model MUST be wrong. Different objects and things were observed, using
different methodologies, but with the same result.

“But despite decades of searching for direct evidence of the dark matter particle, no one
has been able to prove its existence. Further, a few discrepancies remain between
astronomical observations and this simple theory.” (37)

Then, as is the current fashion in physics, we must begin to imagine some new science fiction
material as the possible answer. A later sentence from the article quoted above pretty much
sums up the mindset:

“The combination of these residual disagreements with the failure to detect this elusive
substance has led some scientists to question the traditional theories and imagine a
more complicated form of dark matter.” (37)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Of course it must be more complicated… then more research dollars can be spent (wasted)
looking for it – inside of the Earth’s own field, where it will NEVER be found, because the matter
is organized. (For advanced readers – ask a physicist how long a Higgs particle will stay by itself before
combining with quarks… you will learn new terminology for incredibly, infinitesimally small increments of
time for your effort!)
117

Regardless, without a field to orient and organize them, the various elements that we perceive
as making up an atom have no structure and float freely in space, with only their own sub-
atomic “Atomagnetic” force to attract and repel others (and sub-sub-atomic if smaller particles are
found). Because the energy available is only the CMB field/frequency, it may be sufficient in
effect to begin to organize atoms, or may only be sufficient to organize sub-atomic structures
such as quarks and electrons.

Regarding how these supposedly basal structures in free space can themselves spin and have
energy - each element has its own field and it may receive the energy for that field from the Sun,
or the nearest, largest Black Hole, which may in fact be the one at the center of our Universe, or
the Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, or what is apparently our new
“grandparent” galaxy – Andromeda, or more practically, combinations of all of them. (because if
you extend 1+1=3 and fields, you find out you’re part of… everything)

If, in fact, the known elements of the atom are in fact the smallest building blocks, then the idea
of those elements receiving their energy from that particular Black Hole seem to make some
sense. However, when you understand field theory, you will understand that the Black Hole at
the center of OUR Universe should be, in fact, driven by a similar field that drives all the
Universes, it gets a little fuzzy.

Regardless, the unorganized components become organized when they encounter a field of a
sufficient strength, or when enough have gathered together to begin the 1+1=3 idea.
On a large scale, in three examples we can see the fields of the universe, galaxy, and solar
system quite clearly. We don’t actually see the field, because fields don’t ordinarily have the
frequency of visible light. What we see are the effects of those fields as they bend background
radiation (light) and organize matter, which further coalesces into various astrophysical bodies
like the Sun, Earth, and Moon, amongst others.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Also, Dark Matter is composed of unorganized matter, so may therefore appear “dark” as we
tend to look for the spectrum of various known elements and some known parts of atoms.

Even if they don’t know what Dark Matter is, scientists are learning what it isn’t.

118
A recent paper that analyzed six years of data from the Fermi Large Area Telescope concluded
that they’ve eliminated Axion-Like Particles (ALP) and Axions as potential candidates for Dark
Matter. These particles, according to scientists, are theoretical and were devised to address
problems with quantum chromodynamics, and were perfectly situated to continue to solve
problems with Dark Matter.

The article: “Search for Spectral Irregularities due to Photo-Axionlike-Particle Oscillations with
the Fermi Large Area Telescope” can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.06978v2.pdf

Other previously mentioned research projects done at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland
and also at the Laue-Langevin Institute in Grenoble, France, as part of the Neutron Electric
Dipole Moment Collaboration also found No evidence of the Axion through a wide mass range
of electronvolts covering most predicted values.
The co-author of the paper said, regarding their results:

“They disprove the existence of axions with a wide range of masses and therefore help
to limit the variety of particles which could be candidates for dark matter.” (7)

So, we know two things:

a) Axions and Axion-Like Particles are NOT Dark Matter, and
b) Physicists make new things up whenever something else doesn’t “fit.” (but of course
we already knew b) – so we only actually learned a) :)

Dark Matter, or more correctly, unorganized sub-atomic structures, also have a direct
relationship to problems with Diffuse Interstellar Bands, or DIBs.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “The great problem with DIBs, apparent from the earliest observations, was that their
central wavelengths did not correspond with any known spectral lines of any ion or
molecule, and so the material which was responsible for the absorption could not be
identified.” (2)

119
…and
“One important observational result is that the strengths of most DIBs are not strongly
correlated with each other. This means that there must be many carriers, rather than
one carrier responsible for all DIBs.” (2)

So, in other words, they don’t match anything that we know of, or at least think of. (For advanced
thought – our measurements are taken in the Earth and Sun and Andromeda and the Milky Way at the
very least and are therefore suited/modified/tainted to that extent.)

Some of the DIBs, at least, are thought to be large Carbon-based molecules because of their
longevity and resistance to outside forces. This may well be true, as recent research shows,
and also because the natural structural element of carbon, namely the hexagon, is the basis for
many things and is also discussed elsewhere in this commentary.

Finally, research of multiple galaxies by multiple scientists using different methods are all
showing the same result: the Lambda-CDM model doesn’t work anymore.

“An international team of astronomers has determined that Centaurus A, a massive

elliptical galaxy 13 million light-years from Earth, is accompanied by a number of dwarf
satellite galaxies orbiting the main body in a narrow disk. The significance of this finding
is that it calls into question the validity of certain cosmological models and simulations as
explanations for the distribution of host and satellite galaxies in the universe.” (40)

“The researchers were able to demonstrate that 14 of the 16 Centaurus A satellite

galaxies follow a common motion pattern and rotate along the plane around the main
galaxy – contradicting frequently used cosmological models and simulations suggesting
that only about 0.5 percent of satellite galaxy systems in the nearby universe should
exhibit this pattern.” (40)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “’So this means that we are missing something,’ Pawlowski said. ‘Either the simulations
lack some important ingredient, or the underlying model is wrong. This research may be
seen as support for looking into alternative models.” (40)

120

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 121

Dark Energy

Since the late 1990’s astronomers have claimed to have noticed that the expansion of Universe
has been speeding up rather than slowing down, as it would with a Gravity-based model. (Don’t
forget that according to Einstein, the Universe CAN’T be expanding at all, which is why we have the
theoretical concept of Dark Energy in the first place.)

This oddity, along with other math fun, caused scientists to “attribute” this to a thing which they
named Dark Energy, which they then estimated makes up 73% of the Universe.
Note: This estimate also relates to the10120 error discussed elsewhere. In other words, not
knowing about CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology, they thought it would take
a lot more energy to make galaxies, etc. spin or rotate than it actually does.

“Dark Energy” is a math construct, designed to keep Einstein relevant (pun intended).

Since we believe/know there is a large Black Hole (B.H. as discussed in HEW, not the old B.H.
concept of a hole in space), at the center of ours and other Universes - and we also know that
Black Holes continually attract more “mass” to fall into them, then we know that the attendant
field of the Black Hole will continue to grow in size.

It’s as simple as that.

No form of Dark Energy has ever been measured or observed, leading many in the
scientific community to question the whole Dark Energy / Dark Matter concept for years.

A recent event, where two Neutron stars collided, provided additional insight into what current
cosmologists refer to as Dark Energy CAN’T be, even according to their models.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In the event, the field wave caused by the collision was detected by LIGO (although they refer to
it as a Gravitational wave) and visible light was detected 1.7 seconds later.

Since cosmologists have never found Dark Energy, and know it is primarily needed to extend
Einstein’s work, other theories have emerged over the years to try and change or replace the
122
existing thoughts. This virtually simultaneous observation of the field (gravitational) wave and
visible light eliminate many of them. Of course it has no impact on the thoughts discussed in
this document – other than being right in line with what would be expected.

“In the absence of compelling data, it is still possible that we can update Einstein so we
can account for dark energy. But the wiggles from the gravitational wave data has left
very little wiggle room.” (41)

“All the theories that have survived the pruning are much simpler than those that were
allowed before; and the simplest theory and the frontrunner, is that dark energy is the
energy of empty space, and just happens to have the value we observe. Another
explanation that has survived is that it’s a Higgs-like field.” (41)

Andre Maeder, of the University of Geneva, looked at the concept of scale invariance:

“Scale invariance means that the properties of a given law of physics (or set of physical
objects) do not change, even if we were to multiply their lengths or energies by some
number. They are the same, independent of scale.” (42)

I hate to say it, but this is the concept of scalability, which is a fundamental concept.

Only physicists, with their multiple realms where they “turn on” and “turn off” various “laws” of
physics in order to “make things work” have forgotten scalability.

Cooks, carpenters, teachers, manufacturers, shippers, designers, and literally every science
and profession known to Mankind is VERY familiar with scalability… except physicists.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Here are some good quotes:

“Suppose for a moment that both dark energy and dark matter are too strange a pill to
swallow. What would the alternatives be? One way out would be to suppose that
our understanding of the universe is at fault. Perhaps gravity and general
123
relativity do not work in quite the way that we think they do.” (51)

“In the same way that Newton’s laws – which we long thought told the whole story about
movement – are a simplification of the more complicated theory of relativity, perhaps our
understanding of relativity is a simplification of something else?” (51)

“More fundamentally, perhaps we have made some error of judgement about the
assumptions that underpin the equations we deal with? Maybe we need to modify the
equations of gravitation?” (51)

According to another author, Maeder is now:

“…re-examining the Standard Model of the universe, pointing out that the scale
invariance of emply space is also present in the fundamental theory of
electromagnetism.” (53)
“When Maeder carried out cosmological tests on his new model, he found that it
matched observations. He also found that the model predicts the accelerated expansion
of the universe without having to factor in dark energy.” (42)

“In short, it appears that dark energy may not actually exist since the acceleration
of the expansion is contained in the equations of the physics.” (42)

And that’s just one paper. There are hundreds of others discounting or arguing against dark
energy and also dark matter. I selected that one because it is relevant to HEW topics.

Since the author of this and other papers don’t know about CVRP, so they will have problems
accounting for spin that lead them into variations of the old thinking… for the time being.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 124

Galaxy Formation

The current model of the Universe, to some extent, is called the Lambda-CDM (Cold Dark Matter)
or just CDM model, which should operate like this:

“Conventional wisdom says that a network of filaments of dark matter pervades the
universe. Large galaxies form and grow as multiple dwarf galaxies are drawn in along
these filaments. ‘The satellite [galaxies] will fall into the potential of their host galaxies
from different directions.’ Explains team member Oliver Muller of the University of Basel
in Switzerland. ‘They have all these different initial directions, so they will have all
different orbits’” (39)

Unfortunately, as discussed in prior sections, observations now indicate that a number of

galaxies are shown to be moving and/or rotating in a plane or flat structure, with elements not in
the “center” or “flat” part of the plane moving towards alignment with it.

“Observations, however, show that most satellite galaxies around the Milky Way,
and the nearby Andromeda galaxy, orbit in step in single planes.” (69)

“They found that rather than following random orbits, 14 of the dwarfs of Centaurus A
are surprisingly coplanar, that is, they share the same orbital plane – a bit like bees
flying in a well-ordered ring around a hive. The puzzling configuration – which Muller’s
simulations suggest only have a 0.5 percent probability of occurring by happenstance –
has some scientists questioning just how much they understand the behavior and
environment around these satellites. If seen around many other galaxies across the
universe, Muller says, such bizarrely coplanar dwarfs could even challenge

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 cosmologists’ ‘Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) conception of the universe – the
standard model used to explain how galaxies and galaxy clusters emerge and evolve.”
(43)

“In their study, Muller and his team argue that if coplanar alignments of dwarf galaxies
125
are widespread, this would pose a worthy challenge to the LCDM model – which predicts
a random distribution of dwarfs. Finding many coplanar arrangements would suggest, in
short, our already limited understanding of dark matter is even more incomplete than
previously appreciated.” (43) (note: It is.)

Simply put, we know everything rotates along a plane, and those that are not, thrown there by
explosive forces, are in the process of aligning to it.

However, we can observe objects such as Galaxies that are not currently “aligned” with the
plane. We can see that idea in imagery from Hubble and other sources.

Something to consider is that if everything is planar and in a dipole situation, how can Galaxies
and other objects NOT be in direct alignment with the plane?

First of all, people are aware of Supernovae and other explosions. (Or what more properly could
be thought of as sub-sub-atomic fission, or sub-sub-sub-atomic fission, depending on where you start
your subs) These explosions will cause atoms and sub-atomic atomic structures to be thrown in
all directions, as explosions tend to do.

From that point, these pieces and parts will eventually coalesce with others, creating objects
such as Suns and Black Holes, and of course Planets and Moons and Asteroids and such.
Since they were distributed over a vast circular area, they are not necessarily in “alignment” with
the plane at their inception.

Over time, however, the objects WILL move into orientation with the plane. This very concept
has been recently confirmed on many scales and many situations.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

A separate idea to consider relates to concepts of rotation of objects.

We normally think of objects that rotate around each other, like the Sun and the Earth, with one
object being “inside” of the other, thus maintaining a relatively stable distance between the
126
objects.

However, two dipole objects that are rotating, with one being 90 degrees offset to the other,
(think of the letter T or something like --| ) can rotate in exactly the same fashion, maintaining a
stable distance between the objects, with the same “push” or “pull” between them.

That may sound odd, but you can experiment with it yourself, and find how you can rotate two
dipole objects (regular magnets will work) offset by 90 degrees and never change the distance in a
straight line between the two objects, while also discerning the field interplay between them.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 127

Neutrinos

In a 2016 article in Symmetry magazine, “The neutrino turns 60”(19), they point out:

“The Standard Model – the theoretical model that describes elementary particles and
their interactions – does not include a mechanism for neutrinos to have mass.
The discovery of neutrino oscillation put a serious crack into an otherwise extremely
accurate picture of the sub-atomic world.” (44)

Unfortunately in some regards, the famous 1998 Super-Kamiokande experiment in Japan, as

well as other observations, have now given us evidence to confirm that neutrinos oscillate. This
confirmation was well-received because it also solved issues collectively called the Solar
Neutrino Problem.

“The fact that neutrinos oscillate is interesting, but the critical thing that it tells us that
neutrinos must have mass,” says Gabriel Orebi Gann, a neutrino researcher at the
University of California, Berkeley, and the DOS’s Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory ana SNO collaborator. “This is huge because there was no expectation in
(44)
the Standard Model that the neutrino would have mass.”

As a matter of fact: “The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015 recognises Takaaki Kajita in Japan and
Arthur B. McDonald in Canada, for their key contributions to the experiments which
demonstrated that neutrinos change identities. This metamorphosis requires that neutrinos have
mass. The discovery has changed our understanding of the innermost workings of matter and
can prove crucial to our view of the universe.” (45)

“For particle physics this was a historic discovery. Its Standard Model of the innermost
workings of matter had been incredibly successful, having resisted all experimental
challenges for more than twenty years. However, as it requires neutrinos to be

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 massless, the new observations had clearly showed that the Standard Model
cannot be the complete theory of the fundamental constituents of the universe.”
(45)

Olga Botner, a member of the Nobel Committee for Physics and professor of physics at Uppsala
128
University in Sweden, added:

“The neutrino has a mass and it’s more than a million times lighter than the electron.” (44)

Michael Turner, Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of
Chicago contributes my favorite:

“Neutrinos punch above their weight. They contribute as much mass as stars do.” (44)

Turner simply says this: “…provided evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model, that
there was something more to the understanding of particles and forces.” (44)

We know that neutrinos act both as a particle and a wave, to use the common parlance.
In that regard, they act just like other things do.

What a surprise. Something very small could be the same as something bigger.

Neutrinos “spin,” have what is referred to as “mass”, angular momentum and a charge, even
though we currently state that neutrinos don’t have a charge.
The correct statement for our “scientists” is that neutrinos don’t have a charge that they can
detect. The statement they “don’t have a charge” implies omniscience, which I can personally
assure you is not a word to ever, ever, ever use when talking about physics.

In a simple way of looking at it: neutrinos are to the sub-atomic world as electrons are to the
atomic world. (This is discussed elsewhere in sections on black holes, fission and fusion.)

On a side note, neutrinos or electrons are never created or destroyed, just re-deployed or
re-distributed, so to speak.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 129

x
E=mc

The above topics ultimately relate to Atomic (E=mc2) concepts, which as the name implies,
relate to Atoms. In our known, observable universe, E=mc2 apparently is true.

One immediate “problem” with the formula is that of mass – is that we now know “mass” on the
atomic scale (and therefore, ultimately at all scales) really consists of the swept area of smaller
particles – so what really is the “mass” in this formula?

Those smaller sub-atomic particles, such as neutrinos, will be found to have a higher “speed
limit” than regular atomic particles.

Not being a mathematician or physicist, I have no idea what that number will be – other than the
knowledge that it will be a natural harmonic of what we call the speed of light, at least
formulaically.

Being a natural engineer, I can assure you these sub-particles have to have a higher speed in
order to be exchanged and integrate without destroying their basic structure.

There are “seismic” waves – electrons propagating through a very dense medium.

There are “sound” waves – electrons propagating through a thick medium.

There are “light” waves – electrons propagating through a thin medium.

Interestingly, while researching this, I found that scientists refer to one as mechanical waves
and the other as electromagnetic waves.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

I had mentioned to my father that I wasn’t sure, but I thought that perhaps scientists, as it were,
consider propagation (and of course the creation, etc., of) of waves in liquids, and sound and
visible light, and higher frequencies like x-rays or gamma rays as somehow different
phenomena.
130

I don’t know if they actually do, or it’s just easier for classification and educational purposes.

Regardless, they’re all the same, by the way.

It’s just moving electrons, or neutrinos.

There’s nothing weird or strange going on at all.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Big Bang / Inflation Theory 131

The “Big Bang”, which has now become a part of our language and culture, may or may not
have happened according to the principles of this theory.

To some extent, if it did happen, it would be roughly analogous to the idea of a Supernova or
exploding neutron star, but with THE Black Hole at the center of our Universe being the object
exploding. (That would probably be very bad, since all fields are connected.)

The concept of reducing everything to virtually nothing, or a single, infinite point is acceptable to
HEW, but there is no criteria that this point relates, as we generally think, to the other requisite
Universes, as they would have their own infinitely small points, which of course combined, lead
to nothing but an infinitely small point.

Also, HEW is fully compatible with the idea of pulsing Universe(s) that grow and collapse.
The origin and the end are not requisite concepts to any scientific thought – just extremely
important to Mankind for some reason.

What most people don’t realize is that the Big Bang was primarily constructed to mathematically
account for Spin in the Universe, and of course by extension, the spin of the Sun and the Earth
and the Moon, and atoms to this day. Total Angular Momentum rules, to some.

One obvious problem that has popped up was with the concept of an explosion, which anyone
can grasp, is that it is omni-directional, and couldn’t account for a “flat” universe, which we now
know is what we have, by actual observation. This is referred to as the Flatness Problem.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Other problems relating to the Big Bang Theory are the Horizon Problem and the Monopole
Problem. While they are interesting to a HEW reader, they aren’t problems, per se.

The Horizon Problem is a problem for traditional physics because all the regions of the Universe
that we can probe have similar temperatures. This indicates to them that the different regions
132
were in contact with each other at some point in the past. Since we know that these regions are
in fact in contact with each other even to this day, the “problem” is clearly not a problem, just an
area to study.

The Monopole Problem is a “created” problem, made by physicists, whilst trying to explain the
“Big Bang.” Not only is it not a problem, it’s not worth any study at all.

Finally, our scientific community agreed upon the concept of Inflation. As they would teach you,
pretend you are an ant on a balloon that has blown up - even though you are on a sphere (or
other shape), it will appear “flat” to you in your small plane of reference.

As discussed on this NASA link, Inflation Theory “answers” many problems associated with the
Big Bang Theory. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

The following graphic attempts to show this idea visually:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

This is a wonderful construct to answer many problems physicists face.

Oh, except they forgot to explain (which they can’t) how it began, and perhaps more importantly,
why it (inflation) stopped.

133
While the idea of Inflation is acceptable to HEW readers, if one must place a beginning and end
on the Universe, it brings up one inevitable point:

The math involved to ascertain the size of a region required, with the “height” of an observer
and any other observational parameters known, while maintaining the illusory experience of
observing “flatness” (i.e. no observable drop from sides to center of horizon) should be quite simple
for someone as advanced as a physicist.

I should think it would be fun for them to do, because then they could calculate exactly what
incredibly tiny, small percentage of space they have ever seen with their most advanced tools.

In fact, an article in Scientific American titled: “Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges” states
it simply:

“The data suggest cosmologists should reassess this favored paradigm and
consider new ideas about how the universe began.” (46)

That article drew many responses, including direct critics such as Steven Hawking. It’s fun to
read this part of an FAQ page from Princeton regarding it:

“Inflation has two major problems: First of all, we have learned that inflation is highly
sensitive to initial conditions. This is the opposite of what everyone thought originally.
For example, in the 1990s, by considering different initial conditions and parameters,
Linde (and others) championed models of inflation that would lead to an open universe
rather than a flat universe, because, at the time, observations seemed to point that way
(see, e.g., Phys. Lett. B 351, 99 (1995); Phys. Rev. D 52, 3314 (1995); Phys. Lett. B
425, 25 (1998)). We do not hear about these models anymore because later
measurements showed the universe to be flat.” (46)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “Second, we have also learned that inflation generically produces a multiverse
(“multimess”) of outcomes – literally an infinite number of patches with an infinite diversity
of possibilities - and there is currently no criterion to prefer one possibility over another.”
(46)

134
As Guth has put it,

“In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will
happen an infinite number of times. Thus, the question of what is possible becomes
trivial—anything is possible […] The fraction of universes with any particular property is
therefore equal to infinity divided by infinity—a meaningless ratio”. See, J.Phys.
A40,6811 (2007).
In other words, there is nothing that says that what we observe in our patch is typical or
could be predicted a priori on the basis of the theory.” (47)

In other words, if you believe in inflation, above and beyond the < 3% Section in this document,
then you believe you know almost nothing. (by your own estimation, in case that makes you mad)
Refer to the picture of the ball and Man’s supposed awareness level.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 135

Oort Cloud

From Wikipedia: “…is a theoretical spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetismals to

surround the Sun at a distance of up to around 100,000 AU. This places it at half of the
distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun.”

This representation of the Oort cloud is from NASA. Notice the shape.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

A classic field, being driven by Cosmic Microwave Background.

For an interesting thought experiment: Look at the Oort cloud above, then look at a single-pit
fruit cut in half. Not only is there a striking similarity in shape, but consider that the center of
both can easily be construed as a seed.
136

Along the same lines, NASA recently announced that Hubble observations have led to this
example of a cloud that surrounds the Andromeda galaxy.

“Scientists using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense
halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is
about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The
dark, nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy,
halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy.” (48)

Credit: NASA/STSci

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 137

Time

I thank you, the reader of this tome, for taking time out of your valuable day to learn the
fundamentals of the Universe and everything you can imagine.

It’s very special - the time you spend reading this – because it can never be retrieved.

It has passed. It is the past.

All of the endless numbers of, at the least, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, and bigger
and bigger and bigger objects with lower and lower frequencies will never be in that same
location of space again, because in passing electrons and neutrinos around, they are no longer
as they were in the past.

Time is absolute. Immutable.

The concept of “time travel” is a direct result of Einstein’s work regarding “space-time” and
E=mc2.

Collectively, you could just say that, according to Einstein, the speed of light is the fastest any
object can travel, because at the speed of light (and beyond), it would be nothing but pure
energy.
From the same Einsteinian point of view regarding time - as the object accelerates, time would
“slow down” for it and anything in or on it, traveling at the same speed.

First of all, everything IS pure energy.

The quarks that make up the atoms in your body are moving at the speed of light at least.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

You ARE pure energy.

You don’t need to accelerate to the “speed of light” for that to be true.

As far as time, there are numerous papers, studies, and articles that refute Einstein’s thoughts
138
on time dilation, etc. Here’s an excellent point from a paper entitled: “Clock Time is Absolute
and Universal”

“Actually, a clock can never directly measure the abstract time, but can only record the
result of a physical process during a period of the abstract time such as the number of
cycles of oscillation which is a multiplication of the abstract time and the frequency of
oscillation.” (49)

In simple terms, with an Atomic clock, we measure the number of cycles, or frequency, of an
atom that occur in what we refer to as a second.

The reason that there are so many problems with clocks fundamentally lies in Man not
understanding field concepts. An Atomic clock will show a different rate if it is far out in space in
a weak field when compared to the same type of clock on the surface of the Earth, or even
under the surface.

Mankind’s (waste of time) pursuit of time is based on several principles:

1. Time travel and wormholes and such are creations of someone to try and fit
their “theory” into “reality.” It’s hard to believe people fell for it, but since “scientists” said
it was a real possibility…

2. Personal problems and desires to “change” circumstances, situations, and

reactions in life to “better” your current self-perceived status or something.

3. Assumption that the speed of light is some type of limit of speed.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 4. (ties in with 3) Fascination with visible light and photons and also having
learned that when you “see” things, those things technically happened at a point in the
past, as the visible light had to travel to your eye.

Because of not understanding Atomagnetism (topology effects) and believing in Gravity,

139
scientists subsequently don’t know how to measure time accurately, and their inaccurate
assumptions about atomic structure and Gravity have caused them to derive incorrect
conclusions from the results of comparing when clocks that have been out of the Earth’s
Atomagnetic field (what is called the Gravity Field or Well) to those that have not left said field.

In fact, a detailed knowledge of the methods they used, combined with the particular
Atomagnetic properties of the parts, would provide invaluable insights into field effects for said
parts.

Additional information about Time and Einstein are discussed elsewhere in this
document relating to the “Flyby Anomaly.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 140

Biology / Life / Cancer

How/Why do cells differentiate?

Although the biological aspects of DNA and the “Why” aspects are beyond this, the essential
elements are: An undifferentiated cell arrives at its new location. Through a process similar to
what we now call quantum entanglement, the field and frequency of the new atoms and
molecules in the cell “matches” the field/frequency of the overwhelming number of cells around
it. It now can complete the encoding and grow into a fully functional “whatever” cell.

Credit: GE Healthcare Life Sciences

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Before cells differentiate, they are highly susceptible to their surroundings, causing great
difficulties for researchers working with them.

An article from GE (General Electric), titled: “This Discovery Could Help Us Regenerate Body
Parts One Day”, talks about some of the problems and a GE solution.
141

“It hasn’t been easy. Stem cells are delicate things that need pitch-perfect conditions to
remain ‘blank’ and keep dividing. Even the slightest disturbance can set them off on an
irreversible journey to becoming, say, an eye. Worse, vibrations or changes in their
environment can easily kill them.” (50)

“Like a school of sardines, they also clump together. If they lose contact with one
another or even the bottom of a petri dish, they’ll die unless pre-treated with a protein
that inhibits cell death.” (50)

Elsewhere in this commentary, it is discussed that a clumping effect was also noted by NASA in
microGravity experiments. The clumping effect would be natural in the field World of HEW.

This field concept also explains some other interesting questions in biology. In this image,
which is a from a fruit fly embryo, we can see cells being stretched and pulled and generally
being “forced” into some type of shape. (The Field of Life)

Credit: Thomas Gregor and Eric Wieschaus, Princeton University

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “To make complex morphogenetic decisions, our cells must constantly communicate
with each other. Much of the intercellular communication is through chemical signals,
but growing evidence suggests that physical mechanisms provide significant control as
well.” (51)

142
These physical mechanisms they refer to originate all the way down to the sub-atomic level, but
the key is fields. Examples can be found at the molecular level, and may even include clues as
to the anti-matter discussion previously. In research, a large group of chemists from several
institutions have identified a new mechanism that makes some biomolecules attach or become
attracted to each other.

“The researchers were very surprised when the data indicated that the small
biomolecules were drawn to each other even though they had the same electrical
charge. Nevertheless, the results were later confirmed by experiments.
‘We were very surprised. These biomolecules have a high electrical charge, and the
expectation was therefore that this would make them push each other away,’ says
Mikael Lund. Instead, the biomolecules in this study demonstrated apparently
paradoxical behaviour. And the explanation for this lies at the atomic level.
More specifically, it is about how certain atoms bind together at the ends of the
molecular chain. The researchers' study can be described as atomic level
detective work, which involves mapping the exact structure of all the atoms of the
(52)
molecule.”

Correct.

The physical shapes have various phrases to refer to them like topology and also geometry, as
research from the University of Pennsylvania discusses:

“The most exciting thing we found is that geometry really matters when it comes to cell
behaviors, I think it’s something that has been somewhat overlooked compared to
(53)
stiffness and other important environmental factors.”

“The reorganization is very striking. We think of it as the cells doing calculus; the cells
sense and respond to the underlying curvature. Apparently, curvature is a cue that is

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 playing a very strong role both in the organization of the cell itself and of the
microstructure within the cell.” (53)

“The researchers have also shown that, at the most basic level, they can pattern the
internal structure of the cell. The patterns in those structures have important
143
implications in downstream cell behaviors like migration and proliferation. The ability of
these cells to divide and migrate quickly may be influenced by geometry and curvature.”
(53)

Curvature or shape or topology or geometry definitely plays a “role” and other research has
shown:

“…stem cells were grown on microscopic glass balls immobilized in a gel medium.
Unlike the well-spread stem cells grown on a two-dimensional surface, the stem cells on
the glass balls were almost uniformly spindle-shaped .
More interestingly, this surface-curvature-induced-restriction in cell spreading also
induced the differentiation of the stem cells.” (54)

“This means that surface curvatures of a substrate could potentially be designed and
optimized to achieve or change a specific cell shape and function.” (54)

In another study Dr. Michael Levin and colleagues at Tufts University have found out while
researching bioelectricity (and in this case the eyes) in frogs:

“If you ask the question, ‘Where does the eye come from in the first place?’ you look in
the embryo, and you can see that there’s a particular bioelectric pattern that sets up the
endogenous eye field.” Levin explains, “Now if I set up that same pattern somewhere
else, will I get an eye? The answer, as we know, is yes.” (55)

In other words, they can make an eye grow wherever they want.

“The endgame of this field,” Levin says, “is to complete specifications of shape. You’d
be able to sit down on a computer, like in Photoshop, and draw what you want, and out it

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 comes. If you said, ‘I want a triangular frog with seven legs, and the eyes should be
over here,’ I don’t see any reason you couldn’t do that.” (55)

In fact, Dr. Levin and his researchers at Tufts are onto some amazing things that will only
become more amazing once scientists like them realize the implications of this document to
144
their particular areas of research. (it IS a theory of Everything, and so, tends to relate to… well,
Everything.)

In May, 2017, an article discussing some of their recent work was titled: “Researchers reveal
bioelectric patterns guiding worms’ regenerative body plan after injury,” and in it Dr. Levin says:

“With this work, we now know that bioelectric properties can permanently override
the default body shape called for by a genome, that regenerative target morphology
can be edited to diverge from the current anatomy, and that bioelectric networks can be
a control point for investigating cryptic, previously-unobservable phenotypes,” (56)

Regarding where the information for cells was “stored” – their knowledge of what to be and do:

“The research showed that the altered target morphology – the shape to which the
worms regenerate upon damage – was encoded not in their histology, molecular marker
expression, or stem cell distribution, but rather in a bioelectric pattern that instructs
one of two possible anatomical outcomes after subsequent damage.” (56)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Why do wounds stop healing? (related to the question above)

This question is one that most people just avoid. Why does a cut or other visible injury “stop”
healing, even if you can’t see it because it’s covered? Do the cells excrete some type of fluid?
How do they know when to do that? Why don’t different organs, when injured (cut into or opened
145
in some way), grow into the other parts of the body?

As every atom has a field and frequency and every combination of atoms (molecules, etc.) have
a field and frequency, and so on. Eventually, you arrive at chemicals and fluids and organs,
each with their own unique fields and frequencies. (This fact will also lead to revolutionary changes
in the detection and treatment of cancer and all types of infections and diseases.)

Your skin cells have a field/frequency, your vein cells have a field/frequency, your heart cells
have a field/frequency… and those fields/frequencies also combine (remember 1+1=3?) to
make fields/frequencies for their entire systems, such as organs.

So, an internal organ “knows” what it is by its’ very field.

“More subtly, living tissues are remarkably sensitive to the mechanical cues provided by
their surroundings. Stem cells grown on soft surfaces are primed to differentiate and
form correspondingly soft tissues such as fat or nervous tissue, whereas cells grown on
harder surfaces differentiate to form bone cells.” (51)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Fields/Frequency

All of those various frequencies ultimately combine in your unique field/frequency.

Each of us are billions of fields/frequencies with one eventual overall field/frequency.

146
HEW affects how you think about things. Chemical interactions, heat or cold that happens
therein; biological interactions and topics such as the shape of DNA, and wound healing and
cell differentiation, are just a few that quickly come to mind.

Think of this: every atom has a field and associated frequency. Every molecule and
combination has a field/frequency. Every cell has a field/frequency. That means that the
frequency for a cancer cell, for example, can be determined.

 A future scan for cancer would literally be down to the atomic level – because the
scan would show the frequency of any individual cells of a certain type of cancer.
Obviously a catalog can be developed with all known frequencies.

 Instead of scanning people at the airport for their temperature to see if they’ve
been exposed to a virus or more importantly, are currently spreading it around –
we can scan them for that (and any other) virus or biological agent we desire.
Each of those things will have their own frequency.

 Your very organs have their own fields/frequencies too, so to imagine future
medical scanning – it’s best to look at Star Trek and other science fiction
representations as they are the most accurate. Whole body scans, yet detailed
down to the atomic level.

Since people don’t understand the relationship between the electromagnetic spectrum and their
very atoms, Cancer will continue to increase. On TV, I watched two different shows dated
almost one year apart, where they were discussing that “Early Onset Cancer” rates were
exploding and that they expected a 50% increase in the next 10 or so years – and had
absolutely no explanation as to how that could be possible.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Since, in the recent years, wireless communication has been exploding, with higher and higher
frequencies of the devices, there has been more cellular/molecular/atomic/sub-atomic damage
caused by all of our various devices. The use of sensor technologies that scan for objects and
the new autonomous vehicles will bring vast new numbers.

147
In that same sense, recent computer technological “breakthroughs” are pushing the terahertz
range for Wi-Fi transmission, and that will kindof officially be the end for Man, as those ranges
are starting to directly interfere or “bang into” the mechanisms of the quarks that make up our
atoms. Damaged structures and systems such as that are the root cause of all “Cancer” and
many other diseases or illnesses.

Already, people living in the U.S. have the highest rate of Cancer and no one knows why.
What’s really interesting is that people who move to the U.S. from areas that have low Cancer
rates end up with the same incidence as life-long U.S. citizens, so it must be something in the
environment. The only problem is that no research can figure out what it could be. (spoiler
alert: it’s the constant wash of electromagnetic waves that cover Americans all day long)

Some new work that relates to this document, for example, is that researchers at Stanford
University School of Medicine have developed a “Lab on a Chip” that only costs 1 (one) US
Cent to make. This inexpensive device has the potential to revolutionize medical diagnostic
abilities everywhere – from Third-World countries to highly developed ones.
The idea of how it works should make sense to HEW readers:

“…the chip separates cells based on their intrinsic electrical properties: When an
electric potential is applied across the inkjet-printed strip, cells loaded into the
microfluidic chamber get pulled in different directions depending on their “polarizability”
in a process called dielectropheoresis.” (57)

The various molecules or cells respond differently based on their overall topology or structure
and the related fields, which each have a dipole like structure at their foundation, giving them
the ability to have polarity in the first place.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

So, why is knowing about fields/frequencies important?

“…the lab on a chip has the potential to diagnose cancer early by detecting tumor cells
that circulate in the bloodstream.” (57)

148
“The technology (lab on a chip) has the potential to not only advance health care, but
also to accelerate basic and applied research. It would allow scientists and clinicians to
potentially analyze more cells in shorter time periods, manipulate stem cells to achieve
efficient gene transfer and develop cost-effective ways to diagnose diseases.” (57)

Other researchers have developed a technique that actually combines several other techniques
to detect various molecules in gas by their frequency.

“University of Michigan researchers have developed a laser-based method that could be

used to detect chemicals such as explosives and dangerous gases quickly and
accurately. Eventually, this method could be used in systems placed in airports, for the
environmental monitoring of pollutants or even in battlefields.” (58)

The basic concepts involved make complete sense:

“Many important molecules have a very rich spectra for certain colors of light – although
the ‘colors’ may actually be in the infrared, so not visible to the human eye – which
makes them easily identifiable.” (58)

Their results, using frequency combs, were more accurate than the individual techniques and
led to fantastic results:

“The frequency difference between absorption lines for the two isotopes is too small to
be observed using traditional approaches to MDCS, but by using combs, Lamsadze and
Cundiff were able to resolve these lines and assign the spectra of the isotopes based on
how the energy levels were coupled to each other. Their method is general and can be
used to identify chemicals in a mixture without previously knowing the makeup of the
mixture.” (58)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Remember, fields start at the sub-atomic (at least), and go to the atomic, the molecular, and all
the biological systems thereof. Fields extend beyond individuals into couples, families,
communities, societies, and beyond.

149
Currently, we already have groups like the therapeutic and healing touch programs and others
who believe in the power of touch, as well as religions that strongly believe in the “laying on of
hands” (one life field trying some entangling with another).

Unfortunately, because of the strong bias in the medical and other scientific communities
towards healing via chemicals and various cutting instruments, the idea of biological fields is
overlooked. This bias is caused by a variety of factors; some are related to society and
situations involving large groups of Humans, some are related to religious issues, and for many,
due to the influences of the last several thousand years, there is a “spooky” or “weird” factor,
based on a disbelief ultimately put in place by various institutions to protect their vested
interests.

But even today, regarding cancer - Dr. Michael Levin and colleagues have gained fame by
reversing cancerous tumors in frogs using light to alter bioelectric signaling.

Other cancer researchers have recently used “electrochemical imaging” to look at the
distribution and characteristics of bio-molecules in tissue.

Normal techniques use various chemical agents to interact with various cells and produce
markers, whereas this new technique uses the body’s own natural endogenous electrochemical
markers. In the article “Targeting cancer cells by measuring electric currents” they point out:

“Electrochemical imaging can also monitor the redox state of cancer cells, which is quite
different from that of normal cells. It can therefore reveal if there are a large number of
(59)
cancer cells and where they are located.”

Professor Hubert Girault, manager of the Laboratory of Physical and Analytical Electrochemistry
sees a potential future using this technology even during surgery.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “He envisions a device with interconnected microelectrodes capable of producing an
image that will test for tumors and then electrochemically destroying any cancerous cells
found by applying a burst of voltage.” (59)

Simply put, by understanding fields and frequencies and how they apply to biology, various
150
diseases, such as Cancer, will be easy (or easier) to detect and also to cure or eliminate.

People will be able to have their own organs (starting from their own undifferentiated stem cells)
grown in their exact field/frequency, so they will be perfect replacements. Because of perfect
organ replacements, and also because of the increased understanding and treatment of various
diseases and Cancers, people will be able to live several hundred years, at the least. As more
knowledge is acquired, and the tie-in of pure energy and life becomes apparent, that span will
extend even further, but may do so in different ways and different directions, so to speak.

And that’s just talking about replacing the existing parts and pieces of your body.

Remember, Dr. Levin predicts that, regarding biological parts, eventually:

“You’d be able to sit down on a computer, like in Photoshop, and draw what you want,
and out it comes.” (55)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 151

Quantum Entanglement and You

Quantum Entanglement

You may have already heard about “Quantum Entanglement.” If not, it’s just that two particles,
after spending some time together, become “entangled.” That means that even after they are
separated by distance, they still “know” what is going on with the other, or what the other is
doing, so to speak.

Scientists think of Quantum Entanglement as something that only happens to particles, because
they often forget that everything is always the same. They talk about how two atoms, or
particles, when near each other become entangled, and the longer they are together, the
stronger the entanglement. Sometimes they forget to look around to remember that almost all
atoms or particles are near other atoms or particles - even those that comprise the very
machines they are using to study entanglement.

Quantum Entanglement, according to Wikipedia, is:

“a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or
interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described
independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.” (2)

Further, when measuring spin, momentum, position, polarization, etc.,

“It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair ‘knows’ what measurement has
been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at
the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.” (2)

Or, as one guide to quantum entanglement said:

152
“Similarly, in all known cases the correlations between an EPR pair must be imprinted
when its members are close together, though of course they can survive subsequent
separation, as though they had memories.” (60)

The “mystery” of quantum entanglement is simply that the longer two objects are near enough
for their fields to interact, the closer the frequency – or harmonic – that they will have.
This entanglement extends to the sub-atomic and sub-sub-atomic levels (quarks and below), and
thus, by definition, includes frequencies where “light speed” (or the speed of a thrown electron) is a
low speed, giving them the seeming ability to communicate instantly, or “be aware” of the
actions performed on the other.

Extending beyond a single pair of atoms, researchers have entangled groups of atoms with as
many as 2,900, and using “photons” and crystals, researchers at the University of Geneva have
demonstrated entangling 16 Million “atoms”:

“In this way, the researchers succeeded in showing the entanglement of 16 million
atoms when previous observations had a ceiling of a few thousand.
In a parallel work, scientists at University of Calgary, Canada, demonstrated
entanglement between many large groups of atoms.” (61)

Quantum entanglement isn’t a mystery, as it has the same mechanical roots as everything, and
extends from sub-sub-atomic, to sub-atomic, to atomic, to molecular, and to all systems from
there up – including societal, planetary, and beyond.

At the biological level, for example, an article titled: “Experiment demonstrates quantum
mechanical effects from a biological system” discusses research showing “quantum
entanglement” at the biological system level, rather than at the atomic levels.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “Nearly 75 years ago, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Erwin Schrodinger wondered if the
mysterious world of quantum mechanics played a role in biology.
A recent finding by Northwestern University’s Prem Kumar adds further evidence that
the answer might be yes.” (62)

153
“Kumar and his team have, for the first time, created quantum entanglement from a
biological system. This finding could advance scientists’ fundamental understanding of
biology and potentially open doors to exploit biological tools to enable new functions by
harnessing quantum mechanics.” (62)

They used green fluorescent proteins from Escherichia coli, which are what we ordinarily think
of as producing bioluminescence, and are frequently used in biomedical research.

“Now that they have demonstrated that it’s possible to create quantum entanglement
from biological particles, next Kumar and his team plan to make a biological substrate of
(62)
entangled particles, which could be used to build a quantum machine.”

YOU

So, particles become entangled when they are around other particles for a period of time, the
longer the time period – the stronger and longer the entanglement.

Again, scientists often talk about entanglement of atoms and quarks and molecules and seem to
forget that those objects comprise everything they know, including their own body and their
family and their friends and their associates at work and their community and their nation and
their World and on and on and on.

They seem to think that the only things that become entangled or that are entangled are the little
bits they have in their mechanisms designed to study atoms.

EVERY atom and every group of atoms becomes “entangled” with others.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Throughout history, people have been regaled with, or personally experienced, things such as a
Mother who somehow “felt” that something had happened to a Child, or certain feelings when
they are around someone – whether negative or positive.

154
We experience strange events or common events at strange times that suddenly make sense.
Sometimes they are inexplicable events, at least to our limited perception.

For example, I remember once calling my old best friend, who I hadn’t spoken to since
childhood (about age 12) after 13 years. I got his phone number and called him.
He answered the phone, although I didn’t recognize the deep-voiced individual who had picked
up. I asked for my friend and he told me it was him. I said: “You’ll never guess who this is.”,
and he said immediately: “Is this David John? I was just thinking about you today, David.”
This was before caller-ID or anything like it existed.

Let’s re-iterate: I was 25 and hadn’t spoken with or written a word to him in over 13 years the
day I called him - the same day that he happened earlier to think about me.

We all have stories like that.

In fact, in one study, it was shown that people exhibited telepathy in relation to telephone calls,
text messages, and emails with people whom they have strong bonds or emotional connections,
with statistically higher than chance results in multiple tests performed by multiple researchers.
(8)

Most people generally like to tell others that they are a “good judge of character” for whatever
reason. Experience, perceptions, feelings, and just the “look in their eye” is what we all
combine to create our judgment.

We, as families, as friends, as colleagues and associates, as communities, as cultures, as

religions, as races, and as a species… are entangled.

For example, think of the physical pain a person feels when they lose someone close to them.
Everyone who’s experienced that knows it’s not just mental – it’s in your very body.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Internal GPS / Jet Lag
Even on a physical body level, there is entanglement with the Earth.

In April, 2011, the journal PLoS ONE reported on a study that had an interesting result:

155
“This means our perception of Gravity may be based less on visual cues of Gravity’s
real direction and more rooted in the orientation of the body.” (63)

This article from BBC Future about astronauts getting the “space stupids” discusses the odd
effects: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141007-why-astronauts-get-space-stupid

Some of the effects include feeling they are tumbling or being upside down, when in their local
environment of being inside a capsule, they are not. This may be related to the field theory
discussed in this commentary, in addition to other aspects mentioned in the article.

In fact, the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to John O’Keefe, May-Britt
Moser and Edward I. Moser, “for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in
the brain.” (64)

An interesting note from the announcement for hexagon fans: “Here, certain cells were activated
when the rat passed multiple locations arranged in a hexagonal grid. Each of these cells was
activated in a unique spatial pattern and collectively these ‘grid cells’ constitute a coordinate
system that allows for spatial navigation.” (64)

The committee went on to say: “The discovery of the brain’s positioning system represents a
paradigm shift in our understanding of how ensembles of specialized cells work together to
execute higher cognitive functions. It has opened new avenues for understanding other
cognitive processes, such as memory, thinking and planning.” (64)

In the language of HEW, your field is aware when its’ orientation to other fields changes.
Perhaps that’s why, for example, when you fly somewhere even during the middle of the day,
you feel extra tired after traveling. People try to attribute the effects to dehydration and stress,
but real travelers know there’s something more going on that you just can’t quite figure out.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Teacher
I had a teacher in Jr. High who had a gift – she could see an “aura” around people. One day we
got her to tell us about it, which she didn’t do often. She said she could see different colors
emanating from people.
There are different theories about this ability as a noticeable percentage of women have it – and
156
one recent study showed they had an additional cone in their eyes compared to “regular”
people.

Mother and Child

Many people are familiar with, or have heard of, mothers (and other family members) who “Have a
bad feeling”, or “Can sense” when something happens in the life of someone else, even if that
someone is at a great distance. Sometimes it happens immediately, and sometimes it may
come in a dream or by some other feeling.

Twins
Studies have been done, and everyone has also heard of Twins and their unique similarities,
and ability to “know” or “feel” what the other is experiencing, even at great distances.
Re-reading the second quote of this chapter is generally good now…

Paranormal Studies, Ghosts

Since everything is unresolved torque in free space, and ghost sightings generally relate to
individuals with powerful stories that include some form of unresolved issues (torque), it is logical
to conclude there is something worth further scientific investigation, with an understanding of
fields and frequencies.

A fun, real-life example would be that of the Greenbrier Ghost. It represents the first legal case
in The United States in which the testimony of the ghost of a murdered woman told her Mother
how she was murdered, which was subsequently proven to be true after her exhumation. The
story has been told on the TV Show: Mysteries at the Monument, and a Wikipedia page can be
found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenbrier_Ghost

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Another example from The Travel Channel’s Mysteries at the Museum was about a man, James
Chaffin, who died and had left a secret will. No one knew about this for years until his ghost
appeared to one of his sons with information that led to the will.
It’s a fascinating story, with a link from the Winston-Salem Journal – the newspaper from the
157
county in which the incident occurred, here:
http://www.journalnow.com/journal_west/news/travel-channel-explores-story-of-ghostly-
message-to-heir-in/article_47736a01-a8f2-5d0e-bcc9-35b3b6164068.html

Another article about it can be found here: http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Ghosts-and-

Phantoms/Ghostly-Beings-Spirits-of-the-dead.html

Sixth Sense
“I knew something was up – you could just feel it in the air.”
Detective: “I can tell when someone is lying – it’s like a sixth sense I have”

From personal experience selling motorcycles: “Wow! Did you talk to that guy? I spent an hour
with him – he is W E I R D! Just a freaky dude! Creepy…” (I later found out he was a murderer
who was planning the murder at the time I met him – he was looking for a getaway vehicle!)

Kirlian Photography
When I was younger, my Father and I did an experiment doing Kirlian photography. In this type
of “forced” electron photography, you zap yourself and photograph the field going out of your
body. In our case, we used our fingertips. When you do this, you can see the “electrical”
discharges going out of your body. When you consider that you just hit yourself with a load of
electrons looking for a home, it doesn’t surprise me now.
However, the phenomenon is still quite interesting and available to the layman for further
research and investigation.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Motivational Speakers
Any motivational speaker will tell you something like:

“Visualize your success.”

“Picture yourself doing thus and such successfully.”
158
“See yourself succeeding.”

In the language of HEW, that would be something like setting your field with your unresolved
torque (for success or whatever).

In English, it’s called Hope for the future.

Hope…
Hope is Unresolved Torque in Free Space.

Everything is Unresolved Torque in Free Space.

If you’re still following along, then we could say that:

Hope is Everything.

Hope for our children, hope for a better world, hope for … well, I could go on and on and on
here, but we’d run out of paper trying to list people’s “hopes.”

I hope you are learning that you not only are NOT alone… you technically CAN’T be.

It doesn’t even matter if you WANT to be alone – you never will be.

If God, or whatever term you like to use, wasn’t driving your atoms – you wouldn’t even exist.

And talk of Gods doesn’t even include your direct “quantum entanglement” with your family,
friends, co-workers, and people you run into on any given day.

You CAN’T be alone… ever.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 159

The Hexagon
The hexagon, or the dual equilateral triangle configuration, is found throughout nature.
Since life on Earth, and indeed the very Elements themselves, are what we call Carbon-based,
and Carbon is naturally a hexagon in shape, this is no surprise.

However, WHY carbon is so common, and WHY it shapes into a hexagon is a mystery to our
current science. Part of that mystery is caused by the traditional imagery of the nucleus of an
atom being a jumbled mess of Protons and Neutrons. It’s not. It’s an orderly structure. (if it
was a jumbled mass then that would lead to disorder in elements, molecules and nature, which
we do NOT see in any way – all we see and observe and measure is order.

Most people know one of the classic hexagons of nature, the snowflake:

Credit: Alexey Kljatov, wikipedia

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

But, as this next example shows - even the micro structure of a snowflake that is too small to
see with the naked eye… looks just like a snowflake. The hexagons are visible throughout.

160

Credit: Ledinician C., 2013

Big things are made from small things.

This is a tunneling electron microscope picture of silicon:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Many things in nature make the “hexagon” shape. Here are a few:

The “Giant’s Causeway” in Ireland:

161

Credit: Giants Causeway Tours

In the ocean lapping against the edge of the causeway are algae, which are often found in
hexagon shapes, like the Actinoptychus senarius:

Credit: Alessandro Bertoglio – eol.org/data_objects/27477509

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Many flowers, like those found on the causeway and elsewhere, also show the hexagon:

162

Even ticks that live on animals around the causeway have proteins that show the hexagon:

Credit: adobestock.com

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Animals that aren’t even alive today knew about the hexagon, as represented by this Glyptodon
asper armor (the Glyptodon asper was an ancient relative of the armadillo):

163

Credit: Internet / Unknown

And of course… we all know the honey comb:

Credit: Internet / Unknown

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

A Proton/Neutron observation: A proton may have the incredible lifespan it does because it is
almost naturally balanced – so can spin with almost no energy input. A neutron is also naturally
balanced, but could be considered more “volatile” by its’ very arrangement.

They are two almost perfectly balanced masses, yet combined, which they naturally do – are
164
beautifully imbalanced. As dumbbell baryons, they are essential building blocks (or should we
say “spinning blocks”) of everything we experience.

Here’s a representation of a Neutron in free space:

And a Proton:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

When the Neutron and the Proton meet a Higgs particle the result forms a hexagon, or more
properly, a dual equilateral triangle configuration with two sections of three parts in opposing
positions. For information, according to CERN, a free Higgs particle will join up with them or
decay within a fraction of a nanosecond, or fraction of a billionth of a second.

165
And here we have an example of a single PHUN (Proton - Higgs Unit - Neutron):

An interesting note is that, as a side effect to the construct being dual equilateral triangles and
the Proton and Neutron having slightly different “masses” is that there is no straight line that can
be drawn through it keeping the particles whole that has equal “mass” on both sides of the line.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

And think what happens if you combine them…

166

OR (with dipoles thrown in)…

And here’s the link to a Youtube video from the author sowing this same counter-rotating dual
equilateral triangle arrangement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0N5RA6OpxQ

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

If you watch the video above, you’ll better understand that a slice of watermelon shows the
counter-rotating dual equilateral triangles growing in nature beautifully:

167

On a seemingly different topic, researchers at Yale have taken spectroscopic images of how
water molecules conduct electricity, and in an article titled: “A Watershed moment in
understanding how H20 conducts electricity” point out:

“The oxygen atoms don’t need to move much at all. It is kind of like Newton’s cradle, the
child’s toy with a line of steel balls, each one suspended by a string. If you lift one ball so that it
strikes the line, only the end ball moves away, leaving the others unperturbed.” (65)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Another recent project, done by an international research group led by scientists at NIST
(National Institute of Standards and Technology), shows various properties of electrons flowing
through Graphene.(66)

The image below is their rendering to show the electron trajectories in circular Graphene
168
resonators and the grey area shows the projection or shadow if considering the object on the
horizontal plane.

Credit: Christopher Gutierrez, John Wyrick, CNST/NIST

Again, if you watched the youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0N5RA6OpxQ

…This would make much more sense.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In a Scientific American article, titled: “The Glue That Binds Us”, which is also available on the
Brookhaven National Laboratory website, they say:

“We also do not understand how a proton’s rotation – a measurable quantity called spin
169
– arises from the spins of the quarks and gluons inside it: a mystery because the smaller
particles’ spins do not easily add up to the whole. If physicists could answer these
questions, we would finally begin to comprehend how matter functions at its most
fundamental level.” (67)

Undoubtedly, they operate exactly as an atom does - Atomagnetism. Powered by the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), or the fields which originate (to some extent) at the
“Black Hole” at the center of our Universe. It is probable that there are other universes, with
their respective “centers” each being powered, and also rotating about, this next level.
And on and on…

Our current “Periodic Table of the Elements” should actually be called the “Periodic Table of the
Properties of Atomic Elements.” I know, because as time and motivation are available, I work
on the “Periodic Table of the Structures of Atomic Elements” and other things.

Here’s a picture of a piece of “Graphene” for your amusement: (it’s just hand-thrown together)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 Saturn South Pole Storm and North Pole Hexagon

These two unexplained effects, along with Saturn’s Rings, may be related to the concepts
described in this commentary.

170
The South Pole storm, approximately 5,000 (five thousand) miles across, provides us with a
window into the atmosphere, as it is like the eye of a hurricane. On Earth, hurricanes are
located along the equator, not the poles. What powers this storm is unknown to current theory.

Credit: NASA)

The Hexagon on the North Pole, or North Pole storm, is also a mystery. There seem to be
some similarities to Earth’s polar vortex, but the shape is unexplained by current theories.

Credit: NASA)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

While not providing any more detail, this new image is wonderful, and so is included here.

171

Credit: NASA

Here is the link to a fantastic video from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab showing the storm in action.
Not only is it neat to watch, but of course no one will mention that what it shows can’t be
explained with our current “Gravity-based” solution of planetary rotation.

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/764/

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

There are some things for other researchers to consider:

First of all, the overall construct, with a hexagon, or dual equilateral triangle pattern/shape at the
top and a central point at the bottom, is exactly the same as one variation of The John Device’s
CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology. Exactly.
172

Secondly, the hexagon, or dual equilateral triangle, is integral to the “shape” or structure of
protons and neutrons, the very building blocks of every atom and element.

However, having a hexagon (six sided) pattern at the top is not at all an ideal situation. If the
orbit of Saturn is degrading, then Saturn is the most dangerous object known to Mankind.
There really is no heptagon pattern that works. Hence, if for some reason the orbit decayed
further, Saturn would begin rapidly losing the objects in its’ Rings. (the rings are barely hanging on
as it is) Needless to say, these would pummel objects throughout the Solar system, including
Earth. Millions of objects thrown in the same plane as us…

The good news, supposedly, is that they say Saturn’s orbit is stable and not degrading at all.

Saturn is also considered to be composed of Hydrogen and Helium.

A hexagon, or dual equilateral triangle, is the exact shape/pattern that is described by an

atomic nucleus.

A planet made of Hydrogen and Helium that has a precession that causes cloud formations
shaped just like the nucleus of those (and other) atoms. Shocking.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Jupiter North Pole Hexagon and South Pole Storm

The latest images from Juno show the North Pole of Jupiter clearly. This first image is the
unaltered photo from NASA:

173

Credit: NASA

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The same image modified with the Adobe Photoshop Posterize filter:

174

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

So, planets show the hexagon, but the latest research shows the hexagon found even in
the smallest of things…

This image shows the “first X-ray holographic images of viruses.” (68)

175
The color area shows the spectroscopy involved, and the greyscale image at the bottom right is
a 2D (obviously) representation of the 3D object, which in this case is a virus.

Credit: Anatoli Ulmer and Tais Gorkhover

The Technical University of Berlin and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (68)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Centers
This graphic is empty so you can create your own drawing of whatever you like – a universe,
galaxy, solar system, atom, sub-atomic, sub-sub-atomic, or other body for a physics question; or
a family system or chemical or society or business or anything…

176

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 177

Everything the Same

Various experiments that have been carried out on weak, strong, and other forces have all been
done on the Earth – in its Atomagnetic field, so results are just for those effects in the field of
what we refer to as an M-class, or Earth-type planet.

Nothing in this book or theory argues with any scientific data/results ever obtained.
Arguing about the conclusions reached about said data or results, however, is a different story.
Consider the obviousness of Gravity. It’s so obvious it hurts. But it doesn’t exist in any way.
Perhaps it’s time to re-think obvious things.

For example, there aren’t multiple forces, like Gravity, weak, and strong – they are all just
scaled manifestations of the same force. Our measurement abilities and therefore research into
the topics have been affected by our lack of knowledge of Atomagnetism, and reliance on
effects and side-effects that can be observed using ferro-magnetism.

Electromagnetism isn’t a different force, just typically perceived as an Amped up (literally)

version of regular, everyday Atomagnetism.

Observation is the tool of science, and has been used for thousands of years.

If you observe and document every car to ever go down a ¼ mile racetrack, you will have an
incredible knowledge about the cars, weather, track conditions, tire sizes, engine noise, number
of exhaust tubes visible, whether the car has belts and pulleys protruding through the hood
(what those are for is still under scientific research), colors of the fastest cars – and colors of the
slowest, in short… tons and tons of observational data.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

You still will have no idea of what powers the cars, but there are theories…
(some people think it’s more of those tubes that stick out or noise or something)

On the other hand, if you do like we do at HEW – you take the car apart until there isn’t a single
nut or bolt you haven’t disassembled and examined thoroughly. You then construct HOW it
178
could have been possible for that arrangement to do what it did?

Every part.

Every piece.

Every thing.

Until there is nothing left.

No “creation” allowed, only examination as to how.

Again, one thing I often say when describing various scientific studies or research or whatever,
is: “It’s all right (correct), but it’s all wrong!”

Everything is the same.

Just like it ought to be.

No fantasies about relativistic planes and warping time and bending space and wormholes and
multiple dimensions and all the other things that should have remained as science fiction – not
somehow twisted into science “fact.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Here’s a picture to give perspective:

179

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 180

Closing Thoughts

In 2012, I was just like most people and believed in Gravity. As I mentioned, I had spent most
of my adult life thinking in my spare time about how to make power from the force of Gravity. If
you had said to me back then that Gravity wasn’t real, I would have laughed in your face. “That
is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard a person say out loud!” would probably have
been my response.

However, along the way of looking for power from Gravity, I learned it was really about making
power from force, which could be Gravity or buoyancy or acceleration or deceleration or even
magnetic forces, which of course can “attract” or “repel.”

That led to an investigation, which led to research, which led to some understanding.

We think of Gravity as being a force that keeps us together, keeping us on the planet, and
holding the very planet (and stars) together.

The reality is that the concept of “Gravity” has kept us apart, making us think we are somehow
separate and not connected to each other and to the Earth.

Think of Gravity – a cold, impersonal, unchanging force that “holds us down.”

- or -
Think of the reality – we’re all connected to each other, and to everything.

Beyond that simple idea – everything is connected to everything… from universes to our current
level of study – quarks and neutrinos.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

They are powered the same way.

They operate the same way.

They are exactly like they’re supposed to be in a system that could be constructed from almost
181
nothing into something. Simple. Elegant.

Powered, or caused, by some(one’s?) Unresolved Torque in Free Space…

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 182
Predictions

People don’t classify a theory as anything unless it includes predictions.

I hadn’t really bothered with any, because a Theory of Everything relates to EVERYTHING so I
suppose one could predict and predict and predict until the end of time and would not have
covered everything.

Regardless, I decided to go ahead and start putting some down some thoughts and in some
cases, predictions, in no particular order of import. In some cases, experiments are discussed.

► Anyone can break the “laws of physics” inexpensively and at will.

Experiment: Any College, University, Scientific Research Organization, or individual can easily
construct their own “John Device” simply by watching the videos available on youtube and
including the following information for analysis:

The lumber used is: standard U.S. plywood sheet in 4 foot x 6 foot sheets, with corner
supports made out of standard 2x4’s nailed together and cut to approximately 5 feet in length. I
don’t have the device available as it is in a barn, but the hole on top is approximately 12 inches
in diameter.

The support arms, etc. are made out of regular plumbing pipe in various lengths, and
there are no bearings. The system simply grinds down on the “ground” or base support.

The wheel at the top of the rotating arm (plane) rotates in a circle in a simple design.
In actual systems, the wheel at the top of the rotating arm follows a hypocycloidal path, not
describing a circle, but rather a geometric shape.

I am 6 feet 2 inches tall.

The Impossible Video to replicate (or exceed):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_saRaWSl_Cw

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

► The problem with “classical” physics and thermodynamics is that they think everything is a
closed system. It’s not, so technically no definitions of thermo apply, as they all begin with “In a
closed system…”
183
Remember that the field concept doesn’t necessarily “start” at the center of our universe. (even
if it does, the field still applies) As such, our universe would simply be one of billions of universes,
all rotating about an object, of which there may then be billions of, rotating around other objects,
of which there may be billions of, and on, and on.

Or not. The principles of HEW show that the Universe as we know it can be “spun” using only
the energy of the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and the resultant fields of
Black Holes, and therefore, beyond that small amount of energy, no additional Universes are
required to fit this model. But in that case, someone or something has their “hand on the wheel”
at the center of our Universe.

Or not. People DO love the universe is a hologram idea currently. I don’t, but of course the
ideas and constructs could be extended using the concepts of HEW and the advantages
provided by the CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology/principle.

Experiment: I suppose the Chinese using the “reactionless” thrusters on their new satellites, as
well as potential NASA testing, will be a harbinger of doom for “classic” physics and
thermodynamics, and could be considered a type of experiment for this point.
The John Device is another experiment that absolutely, physically, proves that you have not, in
fact, been taught everything. What it does is considered “impossible” which tells you that what
you know from books doesn’t match what you can do with your own two hands.

► The Allais Effect will be “stronger” if the Poles are aligned, than if the Moon is “sideways.”

This is also discussed further in the section on the Allais Effect in Appendix A of this
commentary.

Experiment: This has been tested and can be tested extensively and inexpensively in August of
2017, and an almost perfect eclipse will be crossing a major swath of the North American
continent, and particularly directly across vast areas of the United States. Any research
organization, College, University, or interested party can set up their own test equipment and do
their own measurements, independently verifying this prediction/fact.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

► Nothing can ever reach “absolute zero” in nature.

It requires an expenditure of energy, like laser cooling, to attempt to stop spin and will
continuously require input to maintain “absolute zero.” 184

For advanced thinkers, relating to laser cooling, when they “hit” the object they are “cooling” by
stopping its’ spin, they actually do achieve “absolute zero” during that moment when the forward
momentum and inertia has been halted by the strike from the electron (that they call a photon)
from the laser. It’s just an incredibly, incredibly small period of time until the atom or PHUN
begins its spin again – due to the CMBR if nothing else, and various black holes, suns, and
planets if those are also in the experiment.

Experiment: “Laser Cooling” has been tested and done at labs all over the World on many
occasions. They keep “getting closer” to absolute zero due to their increased accuracy and
proficiency with the mechanical aspects of aiming the laser and striking individual atoms. But,
again, they actually have gotten there with the latest most advanced setups, they just don’t
know it. (because it’s hard to figure out what goes on in like a trillionth of a billionth of a second, and
when you don’t know how it’s working in the first place… :^)

► As more wireless things enter into society, the higher frequencies that will be used for data
transmission will cause increases in the cancer rate, which is already higher in civilized
countries, where people are exposed to more electric and other items producing frequencies.

Note: atom frequencies tend to start in the terahertz range, and we are proudly now pushing
that barrier in labs and preparing for the upcoming, superfast phones and everything else.

Everything else also includes incredible cancer rates if people don’t begin to understand what’s
really going on with electricity and fields and life.

Experiment: The biological aspects of quarks/atoms extending all the way up to us, and the
work by many scientists, some discussed elsewhere in this commentary, will bring about a
clearer understanding of the causation of cancer. (Radiation – or high frequency electrons – striking
the atomic/sub-atomic structure and “damaging” it so that it runs, but at the wrong frequency.)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

► Tied in with frequencies and cancer is Autonomous vehicles.
Depending on their sensor arrangements, and the frequencies they are projecting, they have
the potential to cause quite noticeable increases of cancers in populations in large cities,
especially because of the reflections of the various frequencies off all the glass and concrete.

Of course the levels of cancer would be in direct relation to the level of exposure to the vehicles, 185
so it’s not just people who live in “big cities” that will be affected.

Experiment: Watch the cancer rates in the next 25 years. Sorry. :^(

► Surgery will be essentially scar free. Clean cuts, such as surgery and others, with proper
debridement of tissue at the micro level, will be able to be healed with almost no scar.

The field frequency of healthy skin for that individual will be generated by a patch or machine
that will assist in healthy re-growth at optimum speed. Sometimes people associate the idea of
re-growing tissue with the idea of speeding up that re-growth. While accelerated re-growing
may well be possible, the problem of stopping said accelerated growth is then seen as the
problem.

(for advanced thought – since the field would be generated by a bandage or covering on the
wound, if it did accelerate growth, it would, of course, be removed at some point, and so the
field that is perhaps aiding in that accelerated growth is also removed, and therefore the
problem of stopping the accelerated re-growth may be naturally solved)

Experiment: The work of Dr. Michael Levin at Tufts University and others show effects from
stimulating flatworms and frogs to grow additional limbs and eyes and re-grow parts.
Their research could surely be extended into finding the frequencies of human skin and making
devices to be placed on wounds of study participants and have re-growth times closely
monitored and measured.

► Replacement organs can be grown from your own stem cells and raised in the exact field
conditions necessary for that particular organ in your particular body, so they will literally match
your existing organs, because they are you, in every respect that can be measured.

Experiment: Start locating your stem cells.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

► People will have greatly extended life spans because of the ability to have replacement
organs grown. Combined with scar free surgeries, it will be possible, for example, for people to
routinely plan on having their “filters” (lungs, kidneys, liver) replaced, and other parts as
necessary, say at the age of 50 - and every 50 years or so thereafter.

186
Experiment: Start saving your stem cells in a bucket or something and wait for scientists to
begin to understand what’s going on around them.

► Immediate detection of viruses, bacteria, diseases, potential public health concerns, and
other things – like bombs, chemicals, etc.

Experiment: Many detectors already use variations and cousins of the concepts taught in this
commentary. Obviously, large research or health organizations could immediately begin looking
into this information and the effect it will have on their work.

► There is no such thing as a Monopole. It can’t exist, so of course it never will be found.
- Dipole, Baby.

Experiment: None required. But physicists are welcome to continue to look for them. Why not?
It gives them something to play with.

► No particle or mechanism will ever be found or provided for the concept of an

omni-directional force that exists for no reason which is currently called “Gravity.”

Experiment: CERN built the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) originally with one of the major goals
being to find the Graviton, the imaginary particle that would prove and enable Gravity in the
currently perceived quantum world…
They didn’t find it.
CERN then upgraded the LHC to higher frequency ranges, still hoping to find the Graviton…
They didn’t find it.
No experiment to date has ever found a particle or mechanism for Gravity, and none will be, so
there really is no “experiment” to perform. (remember, they’ve looked and tried for a 100+ years)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

► Because Gravity doesn’t exist as previously imagined, what is currently called “Anti-
Gravity” or “Anti-Gravitation” will become possible, since it’s actually Anti-Field.

In one example, an object has a field, with opposite polarity to the field of the Earth projected
around it, with varying strength for control, to allow levitation or flight or whatever. 187

In another example, an object has a field projected around it – but the field being projected is
not the frequency of the Earth or the object, but the field of perhaps an element. Imagine a
large object with the field of a hydrogen atom projected around it, so it “weighs” as much as a
single hydrogen atom, or virtually nothing.

Experiment: Many experiments can be done with these effects, and in fact, many people
attempt to levitate things and show this on videos on the Internet. Most of those people are
using variations of sound frequencies, etc. to get the objects to levitate. The correlation with the
ideas presented here are too obvious to discuss at length.

► Understanding fields will also have great impact on space exploration, not only in the
propulsion arena, but understanding that our very atoms change when we leave the field of the
Earth, so future astronauts will have to have capsules with a field projected around the living
areas of the ship resembling the field of the Earth.

Experiment: NASA is already seeing strange effects on astronauts and also strange effects of
viruses, bacteria, and even basic elements. More research is needed.

► Because of the long life ascribed to protons, and that they are composed of three quarks:
The quarks that make up the proton must NOT be exactly equal in size. In other words: the up
and down quarks cannot be the same “size.”
The word size is used loosely, because it relates to whatever measurement technique used.
We currently equate higher frequencies and higher energies to what we call “sizes.”

Experiment: Studies have been done and continue to be done on quark sizes. So far, no
experiments show that the up and down quarks are the same “size.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

► On the topic of protons – the proton and the “anti-proton” will have identical characteristics
– the same “mass”, again depending on measurements technique. They have the same
characteristics because they are the same thing, but with one inverted.

Experiment: Studies have shown that the proton and anti-proton have identical characteristics.
188

► The topic and concept of the “anti-proton” relates to all “anti” matter and particles:
“Anti” just means upside down and of course, spinning backwards. In other words for this
prediction, all “anti” particles will have the exact same characteristics as their regular particles.
(Our scientist’s current model requires them to be little different from each other to make the
“math” work. oops)

Experiment: Studies have shown that various “anti” particles have identical characteristics to
their “regular” counterparts.

► An “electron” that is accelerated to the same speed as a photon will have identical
properties. (they must, because they’re the same thing)
Remember, it’s just terminology, as we call an electron that orbits an atom an Electron.
We call an electron that has been thrown from an atom a Photon.

Experiment: No “experiment” is needed as it’s just terminology.

► More astronomical groups will be found like our Andromeda system with orbits and
connections that cannot be explained using current thoughts with Gravity and relativity, but can
be explained with knowledge of Fields.
These systems will always be connected by fields, and thus, their orientation, and the
orientations they are all moving towards, is that of a flat plane – which again, cannot be
explained currently.

Experiment: Studies have already confirmed that our Universe is in a flat plane and that objects
within it are moving towards that plane. Continued research and studies will continue to verify

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

this prediction, as most experiments have only become available in the last 20 years due to the
increased imaging capabilities of NASA, ESA, and others.

►
189
“Reproducibility”: Certain molecular reactions will occur at different “speeds” due to their
altitude on the Earth and also due to the local environment.

The altitude aspect is a molecular example of the same issue that affects atoms clocks when
people attempt to “verify” Einstein’s work by showing variations of clocks in orbit.
As you move away from the surface of the Earth, the field strength is changing that effects the
various atoms in whatever device is being used to measure whatever you’re measuring. Even
as we’ve moved to atomic clocks, you can see that even they are effected, because the
influence goes down to atoms and their constituent parts.

The local environment factors extend far beyond just the “petri dish” so to speak. Local
environment factors that are incredibly important (besides straight altitude) would be the local
gravimetric actual reading, and the area around the experiment.
For example, in one setting, a reaction might be studied in a dish in a room with plain walls and
no other equipment. The same reaction might be studied in another situation where there is a
large variety of high-powered laboratory equipment putting off all kinds of frequencies, as well
as different types of reflective surfaces to continue spreading electrons and frequency waves.
Even if the chemicals and a host of other basal factors (temperature, humidity, etc.) are
considered, without examining the overall local environment, the results may well differ.

Experiment: Reproducibility issues apparently plague scientists World-wide, and have for some
time. If they understood the field aspects instead of the simple gloss of Gravity, they would see
the effects that the TOTAL ENVIRONMENT has on any experiment. Not only do you need to
consider altitude, you need to consider every environmental issue – even extending to things
beyond the simple relatively closed space that one considers the “experiment.” Other things in
the vicinity have an effect too. Everything from the building construction to other devices, to the
area and community needs to be evaluated if you are truly considering “reproducibility.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 190
Gravity and Other Anomalies and Oddities

As I never had any inclination to write a “Theory of Everything”, I would have to say that the
various anomalies of science and observation were what interested me.
How can you have a theory about something that has been shown to be wrong, or violates the
other rules you adhere to, without blinking an eye? (and yet this is our World, today)

Technically, when a “system” is proposed, such as Einstein’s theories of relativity and others, if
a single basic part of the system is shown or proven to be wrong, then the entire system is
“wrong” in some respect. It may be foundationally wrong, affecting every part of the theory, or
just a “tactical” error, involving some end result and therefore not necessarily being fatal to the
entire cause.

Regardless, the number of “anomalies” regarding Gravity eventually gets to the point where you
realize either everything is an anomaly… (keep thinking, because that’s sortof impossible…) or the
idea of Gravity is the anomaly.

Something’s got to give.

Muon Magnetic Moment

In 2004, scientists studied the magnetic moment of the Muon with surprising results:

“The latest result from an international collaboration of scientists investigating how the
spin of a muon is affected as this type of subatomic particle moves through a magnetic
field deviates further than previous measurements from theoretical predictions. The

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 result strengthens the challenge this experiment, known as muon g-2, first posed
to the so-called Standard Model of particle physics in February 2001 (based on data
collected in 1999), and then backed with a more precise result in July 2002 (based on
data collected in 2000).” (69)

191
“Boston University physicist Lee Roberts, spokesperson for the muon g-2 experiment,
said, ‘The measurement of this property, the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,
is a very sensitive test of the validity of the Standard Model, and is also sensitive to new
physics beyond the Standard Model.’ The Standard Model seeks to describe the effects
of three of the four known forces on all subatomic particles. ‘The fact that our
measurement continues to deviate from what that theory predicts may be an
indication that we are seeing new physics beyond the Standard Model’” (69)

While this research was done in 2004, it was so stunning to physicists that they have now spent
more than a decade re-designing and re-building the experiment to higher levels and more
precise measurements, with results expected in late 2017 or 2018.

The new results will echo all of the previous studies, showing Physicists that there is
“something” out there “acting on” muons. They already suspect that with electrons, but decided
to use the Muons because they were bigger and closer to the central core of the atom.

Simply put: the Muon Magnetic Moment is yet another thing that helps bring the current models
of physics crashing down.

Planet 9

This is my favorite new “anomaly” because we’ve observed things that don’t “match the model!”
and so have had to think up what new thing we could imagine that would cost fantastic sums of
money and take years to prove or disprove… hopefully.

This “planet”, like dark energy, was “created” in a mathematical formula - and NOWHERE else.
It was “formed” from the minds of physicists who were unable to account for newly discovered

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

objects called Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNO), which orbit not on the normal plane we expect,
but somewhat more towards “vertical” alignment.

To those of us who think of real life instead of fantasy for solutions, the orbit of these Trans-
Neptunian Objects (TNOs) could be explained in several ways. Without further investigation
192
and data, these objects may in fact be inclined in relation to our nearest black hole, which may
be at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. I don’t have the information to accurately tell what
they are oriented to, or if this is a natural inclination possible with a dipole situation. Unlike the
“scientists” in their Government and University and Think Tank funded centers, I don’t have any
research abilities except in my mind and online.

Gravity in General

As discussed, Gravity fails in a number of known areas of science.

Ask a “scientist” to tell you the mechanism behind Gravity – you know, what makes it work?
(they won’t have any answer – remember, they never found the Graviton)

Then ask them what mechanism would provide for an omni-directional force?
(they won’t have any answer because there are none other than Gravity itself)

Then use an Internet search engine and type something like: Gravity anomalies, or Problems
with Gravity, and you will get many, many links. I recommend that you the reader, if not familiar
with this idea, perform such a search.

You will find thousands and thousands of articles, some written by highly knowledgeable and
educated people arguing against the tenets of Gravity, and also against Einstein’s work if you
look for that too.

Simply put: The scientific community is extremely familiar with the “problems” associated with
Gravity.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Lunar Eclipse Gravity Problem / Allais Effect

When a lunar eclipse occurs and the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun, a change in
Gravity occurs. This has been called the Allais Effect, and has subsequently been documented
193
by a number of different scientists and organizations using a variety of instruments.

This graph is from the 1997 Mohe total Solar eclipse:

“Gravitational Shielding” and other explanations all fail, in some methodology, to explain the
effect and stay within the realms of relativity. (of course having to stay “within the realms of
relativity” is its’ own problem:^)

In fact, according to Maurice Allais, in a memoir to NASA:

“…it is found that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than
those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the
theory of relativity.” (70)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

What Allais says, relating to this effect and also the anisotropy of space is important:

“The eclipse effect is only a very particular case of a much more general
phenomenon: the existence at each instant of a direction of anisotropy of space.”
(70)

194

“The variations over time of the anisotropy of space are determined by the movements
of celestial bodies, and in particular by the relative movements of the Sun and the Moon.
In particular, the tandem action of the Moon and the Sun on the direction of anisotropy of
space causes periodic variations in the azimuth of the plane of oscillation.” (70)

When you understand fields, you can visualize that the field strength will jump to the closer
object (the Moon) during the time that its field is “in the way”. The initial (1st contact) and ending
(4th contact) “flickering” appear as the fields “decide” whether or not to jump (although they won’t
have a choice as time goes on), before settling in the new combined field arrangement.
It is stronger at the end because the field has settled in and it takes more effort to fully pull away
because of the newly established link, more field area available to the Sun after the field was
established, and field theory.

Some observations suggest that the effect is greater if the Moon is “pole oriented.”
In other words, if the poles of the Moon and Earth are close in angle, the effect is greater.

If the Moon is tilted so the poles aren’t near alignment, the Gravity drops – but not as much.

Again, if you understand the field concept, this immediately becomes clear. The effects of
course, will be much greater if the poles of the Moon are aligned with our poles during an
eclipse. The poles are a gathering point for field forces, as those in a spherical magnet.

A related concept is when the Sun, Earth and Moon are in alignment, but not in a total eclipse.
Allais states:

“One may well ask oneself why, when it occurs, the near alignment of the Moon and the
Sun does not generate the same effects as a total eclipse.” (70)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Using fields in your thinking processes, it becomes obvious why the effect would be less when
the Moon is on the other side of the Earth from the parent Sun. Simply use the idea of regular
magnetism, and let your mind wander. (or buy some magnets and experiment)

However, as Allais takes effort to point out, repeatedly, the Allais Effect, as far as just relating to
195
the Sun, Moon, and Earth during eclipses, is just part of what’s going on.

“Although it may be very spectacular, the eclipse effect is much less significant than the
effects of the anisotropy of space.” (70)

“Indeed, the effects of the eclipse are spectacular and cannot be explained in the
framework of currently accepted theories, but they can give only a very partial amount of
information. By contrast, the continuous experiments with the anisotropic and isotropic
supports give anytime results which cannot be explained according to current theory.” (70)

In other words, for a layperson, scientists could easily replicate the experiments of Maurice
Allais, but are wont to do so, for it would surely spell the end of the omni-directional, physics-
defying concept of “Gravity.”

In fact, in August of 2017, a full eclipse will be crossing the United States in one of the most
perfect setups for observation and measurement that has ever happened. Again, any College,
University, or any of a thousand others COULD study this event, cheaply and finally.
But, those are two words that shoot shocks of fear and cause cold sweats to physicists.
Incredibly expensive with no real outcomes (other than the usual Einstein stroke) and no end-dates
are words more to their taste.

As Allais himself nicely sums up, regarding his research: (remember, this is a Nobel-prize winning
scientist)

“Due to the incredible dogmatism of scientific circles at the time, science has lost
at least forty years. Not only were my experiments not followed up, but they were
successfully hidden.” (70)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Pioneer Anomaly / The Flyby Anomaly

The Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft were launched by NASA to probe the outer reaches of our
Solar System and then designed to keep going.
196

“During the 1970s when the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes were launched, visiting Jupiter
and Saturn before heading off towards the edge of the Solar System, these probes both
experienced something strange as they passed between 20 to 70 AU (Uranus to the
Kuiper Belt) from the Sun. Basically, the probes were both 386,000 km (240,000 mi)
farther from where existing models predicted they would be. This came to be known as
the “Pioneer anomaly“, which became common lore within the space physics
(71)
community.”

“The “flyby anomaly” is a problem in astrodynamics discovered by a JPL’s team of

researchers lead by John Anderson in the early 90s. When they tried to fit the whole
trajectory of the Galileo spacecraft as it approached the Earth on December, 8th, 1990,
they found that this only can be done by considering that the ingoing and outgoing
pieces of the trajectory correspond to asymptotic velocities that differ in 3.92 mm/s from
what is expected in theory.” (71)

“The effect appears both in the Doppler data and in the ranging data, so it is not a
consequence of the measurement technique. Later on, it has also been found in several
flybys performed by Galileo again in 1992, the NEAR [Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous
mission] in 1998, Cassini in 1999 or Rosetta and Messenger in 2005. The largest
discrepancy was found for the NEAR (around 13 mm/s) and this is attributed to the very
close distance of 532 Km to the surface of the Earth at the perigee.” (71)

The anomaly has been going on for almost half a century now – and it is that the Pioneer
spacecraft are “not where they should be” according to the Standard Model. NASA has studied
this extensively and no one has found an answer.

There have been recent new speculations about “solar pressure” and other perceived errors as
potentially providing an answer, but these speculations are not generally accepted, as the

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

factors had already been examined in detail, by NASA and many, many others for more than 50
years. However, as of this writing, recent indications are that physicists have given up and
decided that solar pressure is the answer. (note: It’s not.)

In fact, the article quoted above is titled: “Juno Isn’t Exactly Where it’s Supposed To Be.
197
The Flyby Anomaly is Back, But Why Does it Happen?”

From Wikipedia: “The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-
flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-
Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted
velocity increase of up to 13 mm/s during flybys.” (2)

In the article, which is interesting to a HEW reader, but not surprising, they found that the Juno
probe also shows anomalies in orbits. The Juno probe had many pole-to-pole orbits and these
gave valuable information in relation to orbits closer to the center of Jupiter.

“In the end, they determined that an anomaly could also be present during the Juno
flybys of Jupiter. They also noted a significant radial component in this anomaly, one
which decayed the farther the probe got from the center of Jupiter.” (71)

The anomaly is that their location was calculated using the Standard Model and Gravity.
As with many “anomalies” discussed, it is not an anomaly, just more data to be catalogued and
examined regarding field strengths and interactions.

As explained, Gravity has been used in formulas to calculate these flybys and therefore they are
necessarily somewhat incorrect. Since the spacecraft is going through a field of varying
intensities, and has its own field, there will be “anomalies”, when compared to the standard
model of Gravity. The reality, however, is that any data obtained is not indicative of an anomaly
– it is just data to aid in future scientific endeavors. Needless to say, flyby anomalies
undoubtedly are much more intense depending on the orbit of the spacecraft.
For example, if it is in an orbit that goes over the poles it will automatically be in a high
probability of “not being compatible with Gravity models.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Galaxy Rotation Problem

From Wikipedia: “The galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between observed
galaxy rotation curves and the theoretical prediction, assuming a centrally dominated
mass associated with the observed luminous material. When mass profiles of galaxies
198
are calculated from the luminosity profiles and mass-to-light ratios in the stellar disks,
then they do not match with the masses derived from the observed rotation curves and
the law of Gravity.” (2)

This problem is really not a problem – just a problem if you think of Gravity.
The omnidirectional pull of Gravity is always a problem.

It’s certainly not a “law” because it doesn’t even exist.

The rotation of a galaxy is consequently similar to the rotation of an atom.

How do you think they (galaxies) get the force to “spin” in the first place?
Everything is the same.

As stated elsewhere, it is technically caused (driven) by the Combined Microwave Background

Radiation (CMBR) and fields from your nearest Black Hole and Solar mass, enabled through the
Higgs particle (the Torque Shaft or Torque Shaft Driving Mechanism) in the atomic world, and
collectively through Atomagnetism in everything, but for this discussion, in astrophysical objects
such as Universes, Galaxies, Solar Systems, Planets and Moons.

The galaxy rotation problem is also related to the question of the accelerating expansion of the
Universe.

The “Accelerating” Universe

This problem is closely related to the problem galaxy rotation and cosmological constant
problems, as an accelerating universe implies a non-zero cosmological constant.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Of course the cosmological constant is not zero – or you and I wouldn’t even exist because our
very atoms and their constituent parts would collapse into essentially nothing.

However, the Universe may well still be expanding, before the eventual crash back into the
central black hole. Some measurements about the “expansion” may just be related to spinning
199
arms and galaxies that are being misinterpreted.

Regardless of other expansion thoughts, the Universe should be growing, in the extent that the
field of the black hole at the center of our Universe is continually absorbing and eating matter
from objects (think of entire galaxies). These new, continual additions would make the field get
larger and larger with each object “swallowed.”

In fact, recent research has shown that not only is the Universe expanding, but that the
expansion is faster than thought causing the need for some type of new physics because it can
be explained using the old models. :^)

“Astronomers have used NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to make the most precise
measurements of the expansion rate of the universe since it was first calculated nearly a
century ago. Intriguingly, the results are forcing astronomers to consider that they
may be seeing evidence of something unexpected at work in the universe.“ (72)

“That's because the latest Hubble finding confirms a nagging discrepancy showing the
universe to be expanding faster now than was expected from its trajectory seen shortly
after the big bang. Researchers suggest that there may be new physics to explain
the inconsistency.” (72)

“‘The community is really grappling with understanding the meaning of this discrepancy,’
said lead researcher and Nobel Laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science
Institute (STScI) and Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, Maryland.” (72)

“Planck's result predicted that the Hubble constant value should now be 67 kilometers
per second per megaparsec (3.3 million light-years), and could be no higher than 69
kilometers per second per megaparsec. This means that for every 3.3 million light-years
farther away a galaxy is from us, it is moving 67 kilometers per second faster.” (72)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “But Riess's team measured a value of 73 kilometers per second per megaparsec,
indicating galaxies are moving at a faster rate than implied by observations of the early
universe.” (72)

The Hubble data are so precise that astronomers cannot dismiss the gap between the
200
two results as errors in any single measurement or method. ‘Both results have been
tested multiple ways, so barring a series of unrelated mistakes,’ Riess explained, ‘it is
increasingly likely that this is not a bug but a feature of the universe.’” (72)

In the article, they discuss a variety of potential solutions to the problem, to no avail.

“Any of these scenarios would change the contents of the early universe, leading to
inconsistencies in theoretical models. These inconsistencies would result in an incorrect
value for the Hubble constant, inferred from observations of the young cosmos. This
value would then be at odds with the number derived from the Hubble observations.” (72)

In other words – what they think doesn’t work and they don’t even have a direction to look
because of their insistence on continuing the thoughts of Einstein.

The Cosmological Constant Problem

According to wikipedia:

“A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value
for the quantum vacuum. A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is
equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no theory exists that supports this
assumption, arguments can be made in its favor.” (2)

“Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If
the Universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck

scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of . As noted

above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 This discrepancy has been called ‘the worst theoretical prediction in the history of
physics!’” (2)

“Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero,

which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst
201
problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny
cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.” (2)

This “problem” is not a problem at all when you understand the power of the tilted or canted
“torque shaft” as highlighted by CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) technology shown by
The John Device.

A very small amount of power can rotate a mass of virtually any size – it just has to have a slight
imbalance in the system. The more balanced (such as a Proton/Neutron set) the mass, the less
force needed to spin it and maintain the spin.

In other words, the Cosmological Constant IS equal to the quantum vacuum, as many scientists
believe it should be. It just takes an understanding of The John Device CVRP technology,
Atomagnetism, and the Higgs mechanism to make it work.

Flat Universe, Galaxy, and Solar System

Why are these things (and others) in a plane, or flat? (or anisotropic)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The concept of Gravity applies equally in all directions, so there is no reason for anything to
form in a flat or plane-type structure.

The Schrodinger cloud structure and the associated Heisenberg uncertainty principle relate to
202
things moving all around an atom – not in a plane, as they actually are. (the visual image of
electrons zooming in all directions around an atomic nucleus is a common one)

All types of “explanations” have been offered, none of which match any real physical model –
they simply “match” their own predictions, based on their own calculations, which, again, use
Gravity as a factor in their formula. These include Total Angular Momentum and accretion disks
and the like.

When considering the following graphic, remember that only along the plane, halfway, will the
forces of +/- (or positive/negative, North/South, or whatever you might call them), be equal.
Above or below the plane or ecliptic, an atom (or combinations thereof) will tend to be attracted or
repulsed, depending on their orientation and charge.

Therefore, it is at this charge balance point that an atom, constituent part, or combination of, will
naturally align with a center point along that line.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Maurice Allais said something regarding solar eclipses which has a direct relation to this
concept of a plane, flatness, or anisotropy:

“The eclipse effect is only a very particular case of a much more general phenomenon:
the existence at each instant of a direction of anisotropy of space, variable over time, to
203
which the plane of oscillation of the pendulum tends to approach during each elementary
experiment of 14 minutes. During a total solar eclipse, the direction of anisotropy of
space becomes coincident with the Earth – Moon – Sun line.” (70)

“The experimental procedure of mobile correlations made it possible to demonstrate an

average direction of anisotropy of space quite close to the East-West direction.” (70)

As discussed in the section on “Dark Matter,” recent observations have shown both objects
within the “local group” and also objects in other galaxies are orbiting in planes.
Again, this cannot be accounted for in a Gravitational-based model.

In an article titled: “Action Dynamics of the Local Supercluster” researchers modeled the
movement of various objects like Stars and noticed they are all moving into an alignment –
towards a plane.

Interestingly enough, besides noting everything moving into a plane, they note:

“The apex of the dipole in the cosmic microwave background temperature map
is in the same direction.” (73)

These same researchers also made a video, available on Youtube which shows the movement
of the various bodies. For a particularly good view of the plane, start watching at about 1:26 into
the video.

As far as other galaxies - to re-iterate a quote from the Dark Matter section of this document:

“The researchers were able to demonstrate that 14 of the 16 Centaurus A satellite

galaxies follow a common motion pattern and rotate along the plane around the

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 main galaxy – contradicting frequently used cosmological models and simulations
suggesting that only about 0.5 percent of satellite galaxy systems in the nearby universe
should exhibit this pattern.” (40)

204
The Kuiper “Cliff”

At the edge of our normally considered Solar System, there is a collection of objects, mostly
considered to be made out of light hydrogens, helium, and ices, known as the Kuiper Belt. Why
this region exists in the first place is a mystery, and why it “stops” is a greater one.

The question is why does the number of objects in the Solar System's Kuiper belt fall off rapidly
and unexpectedly beyond a radius of 50 astronomic units?

Credit: NASA

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

From Wikipedia:

“Based on estimations of the primordial mass required to form Uranus and Neptune, as
well as bodies as large as Pluto (see below), earlier models of the Kuiper belt had
205
suggested that the number of large objects would increase by a factor of two beyond 50
AU, so this sudden drastic falloff, known as the "Kuiper cliff", was completely
unexpected, and its cause, to date, is unknown. In 2003, Bernstein and Trilling et al.
found evidence that the rapid decline in objects of 100 km or more in radius beyond 50
AU is real, and not due to observational bias.” (2)

When you understand fields, it is apparent that the various planets are in their positions with
their compositions partly in relationship to their fields.

The inner planets are heavy metals, Earth and Mars – a mixture, and then the outer gas giants.

The closer in you are, the heavier the elements will be, eventually concluding far out with the
minimal atomic constructs like Hydrogen and some Helium. (remember, Hydrogen, and
unbalanced construct, is anxious to join up with a friend and become Helium, since Helium is a balanced
construct)

Fields are stronger the closer they are to their source, so we eventually reach a place (the
Kuiper cliff) at which the field is at the weakest point able to hold objects of a specific size. (The
faintest effects of this field have been theorized with the Oort cloud, discussed elsewhere in this
document.)

NASA MicroGravity Experiments

– Repeatable Clumping of Solid Particles in MicroGravity

In 2003, NASA performed experiments where different substances such as salt, sugar, and
coffee grounds were suspended in liquid, shaken up, and then observed.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

As the astronauts noted in a paper:

“The most important result of these experiments is that the mm-sized solid particles
coalesced into 1-5 cm fractal-like clumps within a few seconds.”10 (74)

206
These 1-5 cm sizes are considered the sizes needed for the beginning of astrophysical bodies,
so the fact that these particles not only clumped together, but so quickly, was particularly
astounding.

Other unusual and unpredictable things happened. Not only did the atoms clump together, but
sometimes they rotated their orientation to each other before clumping.

The very re-orientation of the atoms and molecules is impossible in a Gravity-based system, as
particles this size would not simply attract each other so quickly, and would have no reason or
ability to “flip” their orientation in the process.

They further noted:

“Although these experiments lacked formal controls to identify the precise clumping
mechanism, it is apparently electrostatic.” (74)

When you understand Atomagnetism and HEW, the observed effects are expected, not unusual
or unexpected. In fact, had they mixed the components before shaking them, they would have
noticed that particles with a similar molecular structure would be more likely to clump with others
sharing the same field/frequency, but would also have the ability to gather together with other
dissimilar molecules.

The tendency of atoms or molecules to clump together, and moreso with “compatible”
fields/frequencies, is also directly related to geology and the question of why various substances
run in “veins” and “layers” when there is no other known explanation.

“Odd” effects are seen in space in other ways. In an article titled: “Bacteria get dangerously
weird in space” Cheryl Nickerson, a microbiologist at Arizona State University, and her team,
worked with bacteria brought back from space and observed strange effects:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “It has been known for decades that something happens to microbes that leave planet
Earth. Sometimes they grow faster and get better at causing disease. Just as often
they do the opposite; slowing down and becoming less harmful. The biggest risk,
experts say, is that the behavior is unpredictable. And when you send people to space –
207
people who are teeming with microbes – there’s little room for surprise.” (75)

Hierarchy Problem

From Wikipedia:

“In theoretical physics, one hierarchy problem is the large discrepancy between
aspects of the weak force and Gravity. There is no scientific consensus on, for example,
why the weak force is 1032 times stronger than Gravity.” (2)

This problem obviously stems from the belief in Gravity. The weak force, as it is referred to in
this quote, is just part of The force. Whatever measurements and tests they have conducted to
come to this conclusion is fundamentally flawed, but of course interesting.

Further investigation as to how these numbers were derived is needed. No fine-tuning is

required. Just more data acquisition.

The Strong CP Problem

The entire strong CP problem relates to how much influence (surprisingly to researchers) the
“weak force” has. It is a breakdown on understanding the topics of the different forces vs. fields.
Scientists are going to be examining “neutrino oscillations” further to find more CP-Violations.
Remember, CP-Violations relate to expected results vs. actual observations.
Neutrinos undoubtedly do “oscillate”, but in the standard Atomagnetic field way… not in some
silly multi-dimensional vibrating oscillating realm.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Horizon Problem

The horizon problem is also called the homogeneity problem. Simply put: using the
conventional Standard Model, different regions of the Universe could not have the same
208
temperature and other properties. This is because of the large distances between them and the
supposed limit of the speed of light regarding exchange of anything – information, energy, heat,
or any other terms.

Since the “speed of light” is E=mc2, or an atomic level formula (because it’s squared instead of a
higher value), it really isn’t a problem for sub-atomic particles to exceed this speed and exchange
said items.

Hot Corona

From Wikipedia:

“The coronal heating problem in solar physics relates to the question of why the
temperature of the Sun's corona is millions of kelvin higher than that of the surface. The
high temperatures require energy to be carried from the solar interior to the corona by
non-thermal processes, because the second law of thermodynamics prevents heat from
flowing directly from the solar photosphere, or surface, at about 5800 K, to the much
hotter corona at about 1 to 3 MK (parts of the corona can even reach 10 MK).

The thin region of temperature increase from the chromosphere to the corona is known
as the transition region and can range from tens to hundreds of kilometers thick. An
analogy of this would be a light bulb heating the air surrounding it hotter than its glass
surface. The second law of thermodynamics would be broken.

Many coronal heating theories have been proposed, but two theories have remained as
the most likely candidates: wave heating and magnetic reconnection (or nanoflares).
Through most of the past 50 years, neither theory has been able to account for the
extreme coronal temperatures.” (2)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Sound waves and solar tornadoes have been proposed recently as the cause, but are
considered unlikely by this author.

The potential causes proposed consist of several thoughts.

209
1) The Sun is a massive object with an enormous Atomagnetic field, which is obvious since it
includes our entire Solar system. This field draws everything towards it (the field shape, etc. is
not relevant for this discussion) and this includes vast amounts of “raw fuel” to be striking the
corona. This is somewhat analogous to a planet that has an atmosphere – except in this case
the object (Sun) is actively destroying the atmosphere through its own processes.
This thin “atmosphere” would allow for the corona to be much like the flame of a candle, where
it’s hotter at the end of the flames than the inside. This candle and atmosphere idea is related
and expressed in the next section.

2) When compared to other, inner areas of the Sun, the area of the Corona could also be
thought of as an area that interfaces high electron areas with low electron areas. In the Corona,
the individual atoms have room to “wobble”, whereas inside the Sun, they are compacted tightly
by the overall Atomagnetic field. Therefore, when they exchange electrons and wobble, they
don’t have “room” or space to wobble, and for their frequencies to propagate around them. This
is shown below (poorly)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Higher and more frequencies are what we call heat and energy. Therefore, it is possible that
the simple fact that the outer atoms have the ability to “express” their frequency, combined with
the incredibly high frequencies that would occur around an object with, at the least, an atomic
210
fusion center, would allow for greater “heat” or “temperature” at the edge than that found in the
inner (compressed) areas.

An interesting side note to this phenomenon may relate to the concept of Surface Tension. In
describing causes of surface tension, Wikipedia points out:
“Another way to view surface tension is in terms of energy. A molecule in contact with a
neighbor is in a lower state of energy than if it were alone (not in contact with a neighbor). The
interior molecules have as many neighbors as they can possibly have, but the boundary
molecules are missing neighbors (compared to interior molecules) and therefore have a higher
energy.” (2)

Why is the D/H Ratio Interesting?

This is actually not a baseball statistic, but the Deuterium/Hydrogen Ratio. In short – water can
have different “flavors,” depending on what astrophysical-type body it is from. Water from
another astrophysical body is slightly “different” than ours, for example.

We have been studying asteroids hoping to find the source of water on the Earth. Did it all
come from elsewhere? The recent news is that in comparing the flavor of the water on a comet,
they determined it was different than the flavor of the water on Earth.

The simple fact of the different “flavors” of water from different planets is almost comically
amusing to someone who understands HEW. (and, like everything turns out to be – just more
proof of HEW) To those physicists in the old world of Gravity and relativity… well – it must be
quite confusing to them. But what isn’t? OF COURSE the atoms and hence the molecules can
have slightly different arrangements, depending on the atom/combination and the field of the
object they were formed and exist in.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Why does water have a “structure” and how does it form?

Why do water molecules form transient networks with a structure in bulk water?

211
All atoms and combinations thereof have a field and a frequency. This Atomagnetic field
frequency will have a greater effect on like elements that share the frequency.

The fields are what naturally cause the water molecules (H2O) to combine and align with each
other. The fields are dipole, so are therefore directional to aid in construction.

This formation is not unusual – rather it is to be expected. It is similar in concept and practice to
the NASA clumping experiment, which is similar to planet formation (or the formation of anything -
such as “veins” in geologic formations).

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Relativity
The accepted tests of the theory of relativity are interesting, not so much because of what
they’ve shown, but because of the automatic conclusions drawn from their results.

It is very important to note, however, that because our current models of physics are based on
212
at least many years – if not hundreds or thousands of years – of observations, and many of
these observations have been conducted with the highest level of scientific precision, the results
are essentially irrefutable and correct.

Again, observing something doesn’t explain how it actually happens.

Here are some of the currently accepted “tests” of relativity, which in all cases can be explained
using the principles of How Everything Works – Occam’s Shaving Kit.

Perihelion precession of Mercury

Gravity doesn’t exist, so this test of relativity is simply data regarding field strengths,
frequencies, and compositions of the Sun and Mercury. It is considered a test because the
actual observations don’t match the expected results using classic Newtonian physics, which
also include Gravity. Also, increasingly precise measurements have shown a shift greater than
predicted by Relativity, far beyond the margin of error.

Deflection of light by the Sun,

Gravitational redshift of light, and
Gravitational lensing
These visual effects, while interesting, simply show the apparently correct measurements for the
field strength and frequency relating to our Sun, and also to the particular celestial objects,
ranging from atomic particles to larger bodies, “in the way”, and thus causing the bending of
frequencies, including those of visible light, using known field theories, such as Interference
(relating to wave propagation).

Interference is described as: “…a phenomenon in which two waves superpose to form a
resultant wave of greater, lower, or the same amplitude.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

…and: “Interference effects can be observed with all types of waves, for example, light, radio,
acoustic, surface water waves or matter waves.” (2)

Which is entirely understandable, given that the examples in the quote above, are, like
everything, all related to each other – just passing electrons.
213

Light travel time delay

This test of relativity has been supposedly verified by different experiments.
One that was met with great interest was the Cassini mission.

In brief, the spacecraft beamed a radio signal to Earth, and the

signal “bent” around the Sun on the way.

Again, the bending of the signal simply provides more data

about the field strength, etc. of the Sun and the interaction with
the frequency used for the radio signal.

This deflection and bending is related to “Bremsstrahlung,” or

braking radiation, but using a different range of frequencies
than visible light – radio.

The Equivalence Principle and other tests

The concept that a falling body will follow a certain trajectory if it is small enough to not disturb
the environment or is affected by tidal forces is most certainly true. Measurements have been
conducted to prove the equivalence and other principles.

One important concept when considering various tests and experiments that confirm various
theories is that, in most cases, they were carried out on the Earth - inside of the Earth’s
Atomagnetic field.

In other words, a test that has been done to prove “Gravity” often really provides nothing more
than local or regional data for the particular materials (fields/frequencies) involved. A classic

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

example is the Cavendish experiment. If only Cavendish had told us specifically what the
metals were in the orbs – then we’d have some valuable data. Just telling us they were globs of
some type of metal is technically not very valuable.

214
Gravitational redshift / GPS
Gravitational redshift should simply be re-named Visual Doppler, or keeping with the theme of
this commentary - Atomagnetic redshift.

Some scientists claim that the 39,000 nanosecond correction made to GPS satellites prove
relativity, and others claim that since the correction only needs to be made once per day, with
no other relativistic corrections, it is proof that relativity is wrong.
I leave it up to the reader to investigate further.

Regardless, with fields and frequencies and no Gravity, this becomes clear, especially
depending on the specific orbit of the satellite, its composition and altitude, etc.

Direct detection of Gravity waves

No “Gravity” waves have ever been detected, regardless of the recent announcement. (they
won’t be because they don’t exist) Now more detectors are being put into place to detect them,
at a cost of Billions of dollars.

For more information, see the section “Gravitational Waves” in this commentary.

Note on Gravity and Atomagnetism: While there is no such thing as Gravity, the Atomagnetic
field effect is, obviously, quite similar – since we have exhaustive physical/empirical evidence as
to the effects – and the results comparing the two would be somewhat analogous to conducting
a modern day full site Gravity test - taking into account specific densities and mass/volume
calculations for effective or apparent Gravity instead of the generic “g” for Gravity. (FYI - this is
the first thing done when architects and engineers are designing a very large building such as a
skyscraper – they have to do a detailed “actual” Gravity study for their specific location, because
they know it varies everywhere on the Earth.)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Since field studies will be in their infancy for some time, the observed values and variations for
what we currently call Gravity will necessarily be continued in use, and in most cases, more
than acceptable – as they have been for our history.

215
The Information Paradox
“The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and
general relativity. It suggests that physical information could permanently disappear in a black
hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial
because it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete
information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other
time.” (2)

This is not a test of relativity, but a major problem. According to some scientists, information
cannot simply vanish. With the old viewpoint of a black hole being some type of hole in space,
you can’t get around it. When you understand a black hole is not a hole at all, the “Information
Paradox” becomes nothing but an old concept.

Quantum Entanglement with Black holes

What happens to a particle that is in a state of quantum entanglement with another particle that
has “fallen” into a black hole, from which nothing can escape?

This “problem” is again, no problem, as nothing has fallen into any “hole”, in the classic sense of
the term. See the section on black holes for more information.

Bell’s Theorem / Bell Inequality

Physicists will use the Bell Inequalities as a simple “out” when even considering what they refer
to as a classical mechanical system. In its simplest form, it states:

“No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of
quantum mechanics.” (76)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Simply put, they postulate that no mechanical system could ever account for “quantum
entanglement.” Oops.

Some of the key words are “physical” and “local.”

216
Physical, in the meaning of a physicist, refer to traditional Gravity-based objects that are
ordinarily not thought of as being things that interact, or communicate with each other. Two
rocks are an example.

Magnets would throw a slight scare into some, but they would quickly work out the math for
them and so they would be forgotten. Remember folks, only atoms that are next to other atoms
other get “entangled” with each other, which is, like, every atom. (but scientists don’t want you to
think about that at certain times :^)

Local, in the meaning of a physicist, refers to the Principle of Locality, which states: “…that an
object is only directly influenced by its immediate surroundings.” (2)
This description of locality ties in many things covered in this commentary:

“The concept of locality is that, for an action at one point to have an influence at another point,
something in the space between the points, such as a field, must mediate the action. To exert
an influence, something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the
two points, to carry the influence.” (2)

As with things that some would think might disprove a theory such as this, the concepts of the
Bell theorems, and also the Leggett-Garg Inequalities, simply re-enforce the ideas presented
herein. Everything spins and everything therefore has a frequency and an associated field.
This includes the sub-atomic, and so includes things “faster than the speed of light” or what
people now colloquialize as Quantum Tunneling or Quantum Entanglement. See all chapters
herein for reference.

On a fun sidenote, Lawrence Berkeley particle physicist Henry Stapp declared:

“Bell’s theorem is the most profound discovery of science.” (77)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

It is rather amazing that a theorem that has: saved no lives, led to no more energy production,
not helped with food production or the water supply problems, and hasn’t led to any new
scientific discoveries of any kind in any way is considered by a physicist to be the most
profound discovery of science. It IS Absolutely AMAzing.
217

So how could it be such a great “discovery?” Oh… that’s right. It’s a quick “panacea” to anyone
proposing anything other than their nonsense in any area of study.

That’s why they think it’s great – it theoretically supports their religious, err… scientific belief
system.

In fact, in a recent study which included researchers from the University of Vienna and the
Austrian Academy of Sciences, scientists addressed a loophole in tests of Bell’s inequality using
light from stars. They said this in conclusion:

“We find answers consistent with quantum mechanics to an enormously strong

degree, and enormously out of whack with an Einstein-like prediction.” (78)

In other words, a MECHANICAL solution works, but Einstein’s fantasy world falls apart.

:^)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 218

“Gravitational Waves”

This section has been added due to the announcement indicating that our scientific community
has conclusively found and proven that Gravity exists by finding the ripples or waves caused by
two black holes merging.

When discussing if the waves detected by LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave

Observatory) were those of “Gravity,” the lead researcher states: “…and we’ve convinced
ourselves that is the case.”

The youtube link to the announcement is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEPIwEJmZyE

For the layperson reading this commentary, finding some type of proof of the existence of what
we call Gravity is extremely important because scientists have been searching for it and have
never found it. (they can’t because it doesn’t exist, but that’s covered elsewhere)

Without going into more lengthy boring details, if the scientific community didn’t “find” Gravity,
then it ultimately means that they have wasted their entire computational and creative lives
essentially for nothing – chasing a rabbit down a rabbit-hole. That’s why I always think of Alice
in Wonderland when I think of the theoretical physics community.

When watching the announcement, remember that the scientist speaking as well as all his
colleagues have a direct and vested interest in the outcome. They have jobs that pay them for
their current belief system and their ability to navigate the nuances of the formulae and
constants and fine-tuning of said system – which constantly conflicts with observations.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

They have degrees, often Doctorates, that they received from others similarly schooled in the
system, and are often beholden to them for their advancement, professionally or personally.

As a Tolstoy quote on one of my websites discusses, these very scientists who have looked
down on others for not understanding how space and time “bend” and all the other fantastical
219
creations designed to bend a broken concept to fit what we can now see. They have written
papers and given lectures, spent hours belittling students, and preparing their speeches for
cameras and the media, as well as having Champagne readily available for their discoveries.
- By the way, people who truly discover new things NEVER, EVER even vaguely think in any
way about having Champagne available for when they find/learn something… but physicists
always seem have it on hand to toast their “discoveries.”

So, if they said they didn’t find Gravity waves, then they would lose their jobs, their professional
respect, perhaps family and other personal relationships, and the intelligent ones would lose
their self-worth for never having questioned anything in their education.

Or, they could: “convince themselves that is the case” and go on with their lives, enjoy the
media blitz and semi-fame, and get even more continued funding.

It does not take a “genius” or a “rocket-scientist” to tell you what they would find, when you
really know what was on the line, at least as far as they were concerned.

However, those scientists forgot that our continued observations negate their statement, and as
we continue with more observations, they will be completely forgotten as a false claim,
somewhat like other gravitational wave or Gravity announcements in the past like BICEP2.

The first problems popped up almost immediately as Gamma Ray Bursts were detected coming
from the same location as where the two colliding black holes caused the “Gravity waves.”
Gamma Ray Bursts can’t be caused by two holes in space colliding, as we know that it takes a
huge amount of matter to create them. Articles about these Gamma Ray Bursts can be found
here:

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=12216

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/197364/20160419/gamma-ray-bursts-gravitational-waves-newly-
detected-x-rays-ligo-black-hole-merger.htm

Additional research is needed, because this was only the first observation of the two events
220
together. Additional research is also needed, because under the current model, a great amount
of what they would call physical mass has to interact to create a Gamma Ray Burst, and since
they think that a black hole is a hole… it just doesn’t work. In short, conclusions will have to be
made that the data is false or their model is.

I just read an article about the sigma rating and that this research has only a 0.22% chance of
NOT being accurate – or 1 out of 454. The author said that means scientifically that it is
essentially false. I wonder what his degree is in? Oh, that’s right, it must be physics, because it
couldn’t be math, or statistics, or accounting, or engineering, or any other discipline. THEY
would advise you that if the odds that something is right are 99.78%, then you should probably
go with that. Sounds pretty good. Especially when the other guy is telling you that since he has
a Zero Point two two (0.22%) chance of being right, you should listen to him because he MUST
be right. It’s rather comical, in a way... then, rather sad.

Here’s the article link where he says that NASA’s Fermi group is probably wrong because the
data only says they only have a 99.78% of being right. To say “It’s Rich” would be a wonderful
understatement. Get ready to smile:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/19/99-8-wrong-how-nasas-fermi-
scientists-are-fooling-themselves-about-gamma-rays-from-black-holes/#78d22a6c428e

Amusingly enough, as mentioned in this commentary, NASA believes the Universe is flat, with
only a 0.4% chance of being wrong, and every single scientist - and I do mean every single one,
jumped on the boat so fast it hurt. But – if something comes along with a higher probability that
conflicts with their thoughts – well, it must be garbage and fantasy and data error.
Funny stuff, except when you remember they get paid actual money.

Additionally, visible light has been detected coming out of black holes. In the traditional model,
this is impossible. See the article here:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/06/visible-light-black-holes-detected-for-first-
time-v404-cygni

Again, each new observation will simply show that they observed a wave – not a “gravitational”
wave, and that such a wave would be completely expected in the model discussed in this
221
commentary. Since a black hole is simply a sub-atomic mass (similar to a neutron star) it of
course does have great mass and is easily able to create the Gamma Rays discovered, as well
as the other ones throughout the Universes.

In fact, a binary black hole system is just about as good as it gets for making Gamma Ray
Bursts. Actually, binary neutron stars or various collapsed dwarfs would have similar effects as
far as “Gravity wave” researchers are concerned. Since many know the metaphor that if you
are a hammer, the World looks like a nail – these researchers will be thrilled sometimes, and
disconcerted at others, when they find “Gravity” waves and emanations all the time. They’ll be
happy when these observations confirm their “hammer,” and unhappy when either they don’t, or
other simultaneous observations negate them completely.

Regardless, researchers and scientists who were so gleeful to announce they had found Gravity
waves would still have to tell you (if they thought about it) that by “discovering” “proof” of
“Gravity” they are exactly where they were before.

Remember, they already believed in Gravity. This would simply prove beyond a shadow of a
doubt that they are lost, as any physicist can elaborate on the problems that Gravity causes in
virtually everything they do.

They offer no new science – no new math or formulae. All that has technically changed is their
own personal belief system. (unfortunately now, because of their fervor for self-gratification and the
media blitz, they have polluted additional millions of minds)

Simply put: All the problems and anomalies in science caused by Gravity are unchanged
by their “revelations” and still exist to their full and irritating effect(s).

I laugh, because it is analogous to having someone wandering around lost in the woods and
dropping down to them from a helicopter with an official license that says “Lost” and handing it

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

to them before being pulled up and away by the ‘copter. Thank you for the official card. Now
that lost person KNOWS they’re lost. Before that moment, they just suspected it strongly.
Thank goodness for the scientific community pitching in to get that card to them. (quick – turn it
over… maybe there’s a map on the back…no? Oh. Still lost.)

222
In fact, here’s a recent update:

“It was hailed as an elegant confirmation of Einstein’s general theory of relativity – but
ironically the discovery of gravitational waves earlier this year could herald the first
evidence that the theory breaks down at the edge of black holes.
Physicists have analyzed the publicly released data from the Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), and claim to have found ‘echoes’ of the waves
that seem to contradict general relativity’s predictions.” (79)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 223
Gravity - Emergent Phenomenon

After the “Gravitational Waves” fake out, (coinciding with nothing new found at CERN) physicists
have continued to search for some explanation for the effect referred to as “Gravity.”

In his theory, discussed in “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”, Erik Verlinde
states that:

“Gravity has given many hints of being an emergent phenomenon, yet up to this day it is
still seen as a fundamental force. The similarities with other known emergent
phenomena, such as thermodynamics and hydrodynamics, have been mostly regarded
as just suggestive analogies. It is time we not only notice the analogy, and talk
(80)
about the similarity, but finally do away with gravity as a fundamental force.”

Verlinde’s work is excellent, but the underlying assumptions have no supporting mechanism or
reason for their behavior. He uses the holographic universe idea as a framework to explain the
emergence of gravity, but just indicates this is because of “an entropic force caused by changes
in the information associated with the positions of material bodies.” (80)

In many regards, his ideas are accurate, when consideration of topology in atoms and
molecules are kept in mind – as they could be considered relatives. Speaking of that word,
that’s where Verlinde tends to fail, because of the traditional need to placate Relativity.

Hence, Verlinde’s theory becomes fully compatible, as he says, with String theory.
The problem is that String theory is also fundamentally incorrect – so being compatible or
working with it is irrelevant.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

However, the idea of Gravity being an “emergent phenomenon” which is considered
something that is a result of micro level interactions working together to “create” macro
224
level interactions is of great value – since that’s exactly what is taught here.

Simply put: Gravity is just the combination of charge effects of individual quarks, atoms,
molecules, and systems.

The formula for Gravity and that of Electromagnetism is the same.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 225

“Reactionless” Drive

There has been great excitement and argument about what is referred to (incorrectly) as a
reactionless drive. The basic idea is that you use electricity to create thrust in outer space.

Credit: Ray Shawyer

However, since our current ideas of physics expect a certain amount of mass or matter to be
“burnt up” or used in a chemical-type reaction, the thought of simple electrons going out the
back of something seems counterintuitive.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

When you actually understand what’s going on, you see that the current methodology of
“burning” or chemical reaction is exactly the same thing, just on a much grander scale. (with lots
and lots of liberated electrons available)

Of course shooting electrons out the back of something “propels” it,

226
with the electrons pushing against whatever the medium(s) may be.

Exactly the same thing happens with the reactionless drive – it shoots electrons and causes a
very, very small amount of propulsion.

Less electrons shooting out the back equals less propulsion, for the engineers out there.

It’s rather simple, and surprising that the “scientific” community shows any disbelief and
amazement at all, let alone their fear of the total collapse of their old ideas. (Which is coming one
way or the other:^)

Again, ACTUAL scientists, not having a primary goal of placating their predecessors, and
instead having the goal of learning, would instead be fascinated by it and pursue research… just
like the Chinese did. I understand the Chinese currently have a fleet of satellites using the
technology for position keeping and other low thrust needs, not to mention the quantum
communications. (in general, you’ll find Eastern minds clearer than Western minds, especially relating
to anything Einsteinian)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 227

“Perpetual” Motion

Sometimes, when many people look at and consider the ideas and concepts represented by
The John Device, they say: “So, you’re saying this can make more power than it uses? That’s
impossible – that’s perpetual motion, and we know you can’t do that.”

I also find it interesting that major scientific organizations are currently spending Billions and
Billions of Dollars PER YEAR working on Fusion powered systems. You know – systems that
will make more power than they use.

That’s good to know.

I used to think that a Windmill, for example, actually produced power, and didn’t consume a
huge amount of power in the process.

Oh, that’s right, it does.

It’s powered by the Wind – a force.

But you can’t even see the Wind – so how could it power something?

So you mean to tell me that something I can’t see put pressure on the blades somehow and
makes them turn, which can then be connected to a generator to make power?

The real problem isn’t using force to make something turn or rotate.

The problem is related to CVRP, or Continuously Variable Rotating Plane, technology.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

As discussed in this document and also on websites, the CVRP tech allows one to rotate
whatever amount of “mass” for almost no power. If you attempt to do that with a straight shaft,
like a flywheel, you will need the standard, easily calculable amount of power to do so.
Beyond that, the various definitions of “Perpetual Motion” are examined below:
228

From Merriam-Webster:

“: a device inherently impossible under the law of conservation of energy that can
continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from external sources. This kind
of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.”

From thefreedictionary.com:

“n. The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other

closed system without a sustaining energy source.”

From Wikipedia:

“Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely.

A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely
without an energy source.”

- The John Device requires two sustaining energy sources.

A) It is driven by a motor (or it will come to a stop), and

B) Only works in a Gravity well, which is one part of the potential energy available.
(the other part is the amount of mass rotating)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Classification

One classification of perpetual motion machines refers to the particular law of thermodynamics
the machines purport to violate:

• “A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of
229
energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of
energy.” (2)

- Discussed above.

• “A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously

converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to
the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it does
violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature
of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir
involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a
cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is
impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.” (2)

• “A perpetual motion machine of the third kind is usually (but not always) defined as
one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion
forever (due to its mass inertia). (Third in this case refers solely to the position in the
above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics.) It is impossible to
make such a machine, as dissipation can never be completely eliminated in a
mechanical system, no matter how close a system gets to this ideal (see examples in
the Low Friction section).” (2)

- Neither of these laws apply.

In the case of the second law – people often use the 2nd law as an overriding statement
regarding “perpetual motion” machines, which technically – as it says – only relates to machines
converting thermal energy. (or excess electrons)

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

In the case of the third law – no attempts have been made to reduce any friction in the Proof Of
Concept model of The John Device. The system has no bearings or any sophisticated (or even
simple) methodology to reduce friction. In fact, if it was run for an extended period of time, the
metal of the torque shaft would eventually grind its’ way through the metal base it’s grinding on.

230
Even so, as shown on The Impossible Video (and others), the system is able to rotate mass with
far less Wattage than can be ordinarily calculated.

If it was finely built with a magnetic floating base and magnetic “gears” it would be able to rotate
the masses shown for a fraction of the already incredibly low amount of Watts required.

The CVRP (Continuously Variable Rotating Plane) and the frame architecture allows for this
ability, which is remarkably similar to the operation of atomic, astrophysical, and other objects.

Finally, more from Wikipedia:

The laws of thermodynamics apply to closed linear systems.
In 2017 new states of matter, time crystals, were discovered which may allow for perpetual
motion by bypassing the laws of thermodynamics.

Time crystals seem to break time-translation symmetry, and have repeated patterns in time.
Fields or particles inside a time crystal may appear to violate the conservation of energy,
analogous to the apparent violation of the conservation of momentum in spatial crystals.

Entropy

The Merriam Webster 2a definition is a simple one without the physics terms:

“The degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of
inert uniformity.”

That won’t be happening. Sorry.

The Universe is a DRIVEN system.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Just like The John Device and its’ children.

Entropy is also funny, because if you look around, you might see things that grow.

Oops.
231

Things would never “grow” if Entropy was in play.

It’s really become a term people use to try and dissuade others from actual research.

The Universe is expanding – is just one example of the failure of “Entropy.”

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Laws of Thermodynamics

First Law

From Wikipedia: 232

“The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy,

adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the
total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form
to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. The first law is often formulated by
stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount
of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its
surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.”
(2)

This “law” has the same flaw as many of the topics regarding perpetual motion in that it
assumes that the Universe is a closed system.

By the principles of HEW, the Black Hole at the center of the known universe must be “powered”
by what is the universal equivalent of what we call the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation), but at the increasingly higher frequencies associated with sub-atomic and sub-sub-
atomic (and beyond) particles.

The Universe, and also our galaxy, solar system, and planet, are not part of a “closed system”
and are not slowing down to a uniform state.

Therefore, this law, and also the law regarding the conservation of energy are irrelevant.

However, to discuss the Law of conservation of energy:

The law of conservation of energy is one of the basic laws of physics and therefore governs the
microscopic motion of individual atoms in a chemical reaction.
The law of conservation energy states:

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

 “In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total
energy of the system is conserved.“ (81)

The John Device is not in a “closed” system, isolated from its surroundings.
233
Quite the opposite, in fact, as it specifically does interact with its “surroundings,” with the
examples shown using what is traditionally referred to as the force of Gravity providing the force
for the interaction.

Second Law

From Wikipedia:

“The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system
can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in
a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy
accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future
and past.” (2)

This “law” has the same flaws stated above regarding a closed system. Also, if the reader uses
an Internet search engine and looks up “Physics 2nd law violations” and other terms like that,
they will find numerous articles and research indicating that the Second Law can in fact be
“broken.”

This “law” also relates to proof of the arrow of time. As stated in HEW, time flows and is
immutable. It doesn’t “change” or “bend” in the “presence of mass.” It is. Period.

Since all particles in the universes are going ‘round and ‘round, there’s no way to “go back” to
an earlier state. If you time-traveled back, all the miscellaneous things that construct “you”
wouldn’t even be in you. Food you ate, things you drank, life experiences, all changing your
field – and all coming from disparate sources located all over the World, and you receive
electrons and neutrinos by the billions every second from the Sun and who knows what else…

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

There’s no going back.

234
Third Law

From Wikipedia:

“The third law of thermodynamics is sometimes stated as follows, regarding the

properties of systems in equilibrium at absolute zero temperature:
The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly equal to zero.” (2)

And also from Wikipedia:

“In simple terms, the third law states that the entropy of a perfect crystal of a pure
substance approaches zero as the temperature approaches zero. The alignment of a
perfect crystal leaves no ambiguity as to the location and orientation of each part of the
crystal. As the energy of the crystal is reduced, the vibrations of the individual atoms are
reduced to nothing, and the crystal becomes the same everywhere.” (2)

This “law” is full of confusion.

Nothing can ever naturally reach absolute zero.

It requires an expenditure of energy, like laser cooling, to attempt to stop spin by continually
“hitting” an electron as it goes around with a carefully pulsed light (or electron).

Just think of The John Device going around and you keep hitting one of the weights to stop it.
It will stop if you hit it right. But, since it is a DRIVEN system, it will shortly begin rotating again.
This happens to be EXACTLY what is going on when scientists laser-cool atoms.

They have to continuously hit the electrons, because they just start spinning again. Again,
that’s why in various scientific articles, you’ll see different groups of scientists getting closer to
“absolute zero” but just not quite getting there for an appreciable amount of time.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Actually, they are “getting there” for however many trillionths of a second that the weight, or
electron is fully “stopped” before starting its’ journey “downhill” again – they just don’t know it.

Technically, this relates to Everything, but there is other research that also directly relates to
these various laws. An article discussing this research is entitled: “Test of zero-point energy
235
emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities”(86) and the abstract from the article is
quite interesting:

“A recently issued patent describes a method by which vacuum energy is extracted from
gas flowing through a Casimir cavity. According to stochastic electrodynamics, the
electronic orbitals in atoms are supported by the ambient zero-point (ZP) field.
When the gas atoms are pumped into a Casimir cavity, where long-wavelength ZP field
modes are excluded, the electrons spin down into lower energy orbitals and release
energy in the process. This energy is collected in a local absorber. When the electrons
exit the Casimir cavity they are re-energized to their original orbitals by the
ambient ZP fields. The process is repeated to produce continuous power.
In this way, the device functions like a heat pump for ZP energy, extracting it globally
from the electromagnetic quantum vacuum and collecting it in a local absorber.
This energy can be used for heating, or converted to electric power.“ (82)

To summarize the research:

- They have a tube full of gas.

- They circulate the gas around the tube.
- At one point in the tube, they have a device that “extracts” electrons from the gas.
- The gas exits the “electron absorber” and travels around the remaining diameter of the tube,
which has no such absorber.
- When the gas atoms have circulated around and re-enter the electron absorber, they, for
some reason :^), are “re-charged” and now have electrons available for the absorber.

The reason is directly related to Zero Point Energy, the CMBR, The John Device, CVRP, and
How Everything Works, in case you don’t know it by now.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

Angular Momentum – Conservation of Angular Momentum

Conservation follows mathematically from isotropy, or continuous directional symmetry of

space, that is, no direction in space is any different from any other direction.

Conservation is on a closed system concept, which requires that no external influence, in the 236

form of a torque, acts upon it.

The Universe, as discussed is Anisotropic and also shows Isotropy in some respects.

The Universe is not, as discussed, a closed system.

The exact same concepts that spin Galaxies and Planets spin The John Device.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX A
(this is from a book I wrote including patent information)

Shoulders
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” 237
- Sir Isaac Newton

It has turned out somewhat amusing that this quote in the modern day is attributed to Newton.

I never thought of it that way, growing up.

I understood the general idea of the quote, with civilization and progress and learning and all of
those things. But, that quote had a very personal meaning to me.

I rather thought (as children do in their little world) that everyone thought the way I did.

To me, those “shoulders” were those of my Mother and Father. And not in some idealistic way
that a child should just have towards their parents. My Mother, Dr. Martha A. John, and my
Father, Dr. Floyd I. John, were literally the ‘giants’ whose shoulders that I stood upon.

To even begin to number and count that which I have learned from them is beyond ridiculous.

I dedicate The John Device to them.

“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”

My parents gave me everything.

And not in material junk.

They gave me the gift of Loving to Learn.

Which IS Everything.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Beginning

238

A
L
W
A
Y
S
F
A
L
L
I
N
G

The origins of The John Device began approximately 40 years ago, with this particular
vision originating about 15 years ago.

The decision to finally construct a Proof Of Concept or POC model of the technology of
The John Device was reached after an extensive period of unemployment, and when I
realized I was approximately half done with my life.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Work

The John Device was constructed out of plywood sheets (6 ft. x 4 ft.) and 2x4s and
plumbing pipes and handmade sprockets and roller chains. The “masses” used are
239
regular weights from weightlifting sets, and in later iterations, have included concrete
stepping-stones that had holes chiseled in the centers to emulate regular weights.

Biscuit John supervising construction.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The Patent

The following pages are the actual patent as filed with the U.S. Patent office and the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on March 14, 2014. 240

That day (3/14) is labeled “International Pi Day”.

Pi is a concept that relates to a circle and goes on forever.

Just like The John Device.
Just like the marketing department that keeps saying “The John Device” :^)

On and on and on and on and on and on and….

This will save you the effort of going to look it up and also provides additional
information regarding design and concepts to consider.

The patent text and documentation, and all graphics therein, were entirely created,
published, and filed with the U.S. and International patent authorities by the inventor,
David Woodrow John.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
DESCRIPTION

TITLE OF INVENTION
The John Device
241

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

[0001] This non-provisional patent application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional
Application 61/801,442, filed on March 15, 2013, titled: DEVICE AND METHOD FOR
USING FORCE TO PRODUCE TORQUE AND REDIRECTING RESULTANT TORQUE TO
PRODUCE ELECTRICITY OR OTHER FORM OF USEABLE FORCE OR POWER.

TECHNICAL FIELD
[0002] The technical field of this discovery and invention relates to the ability to utilize
relatively non-oscillating and linear forces, such as the forces of gravity and its’ associated force
of buoyancy, permanent and/or electro-magnetism and their forces of attraction and repulsion,
and acceleration and its’ associated force of deceleration, alone or in combinations, as a motive
force to produce useful torque which may then be used for any work requiring torque, and
therefore may also be used to generate electricity for any device or machine or system which
requires electrical power.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0003] For purposes of understanding and to correlate with the drawings, terminology will be
used which is not to be considered limiting. The phrase “torque shaft” refers to and represents a
central axis of rotation to which the mass or masses are generally centered around. The torque
shaft may be a physical shaft, or a portion of a physical shaft, and may be comprised of any
element, material or combinations thereof and may be a component in other systems and devices.
The torque shaft may not be a physical shaft, as the connection to the mass or masses may be
accomplished through a wide variety of design and manufacturing methods. The terms: “mass”,
“masses”, or “mass or masses” refer to the object or objects, fixed or otherwise, which react to
the primary motive force, and may be comprised in whole or in part by any elements or materials

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

or combinations of elements or materials, including magnetic and/or electro-magnetic elements
and materials, and may also be comprised of all of, or portions of, other devices or machines.
[0004] This discovery and invention, hereinafter referred to as: “The John Device”, can utilize
forces, such as the forces of gravity and buoyancy, permanent and electro-magnetism, and
acceleration and deceleration, alone or in combinations, as a primary motive force to cause a 242

mass or
The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
masses to rotate about a central torque shaft to produce useful torque for any device, machine, or
system that requires it, and may also be used to generate electricity to power any device,
machine, or system that requires it.
[0005] The torque shaft is caused to rotate by a secondary motive force, referred to as an:
“input drive”, which may be mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, magnetic, or any other force,
device, or system. The torque shaft, not being at exactly zero or ninety degrees in relation to the
forces imposed, creates a continuously variable plane of rotation being presented to the mass or
masses. As the plane rotates, the mass or masses react due to the forces involved. For example,
in a gravity-only based system, the mass or masses are pulled downward by the Earth’s gravity,
and being connected to the torque shaft are unable to fall directly, causing the torque shaft to
rotate. As the mass or masses fall, the torque shaft, or the plane, has moved again, and the mass
or masses will again attempt to fall towards the Earth, with this cycle continuing endlessly as
long as an input drive presents a continuously variable rotating plane to the torque shaft.
[0006] The torque shaft may then be directly connected to any other device or mechanism
which uses torque, or converts torque to other types of force or power, one example being the
torque shaft on an electrical generator to provide electrical power.
[0007] The John Device is infinitely adaptable and scalable, with examples of similar devices
on a macro scale being planets and their precession, and on a micro scale, atomic elements and
their structure and spin. Research and testing on working examples of The John Device have
shown remarkably similar characteristics to these phenomena, ranging from, but not limited to,
the angles of the torque shaft in relation to the overall structure of the system, pivot point
connection angles to the torque shaft, locations of mass, and the effects of various speeds and
mass structures on the system.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
SUMMARY
TECHNICAL PROBLEM
[0008] The ability to use a relatively non-oscillating and linear or one-directional force or
forces as a primary motive force to produce rotational torque or electricity has long been an area
243
of research and invention. The force of gravity, its’ associated force of buoyancy, and the force
of magnetism or electromagnetism are relatively radial or circular in nature, but often present as
relatively linear or flat. For example, because of the size of the Earth, when an object is on the
surface of the planet, the force of gravity appears linear and one-directional, causing an ‘up’ and
‘down’ relationship. Magnets, in many situations and uses, also may exhibit linear forces of
attraction and repulsion. The force of acceleration and its’ associated force of deceleration can
also be considered as relatively linear.
[0009] Previous systems have been specifically designed so that when they are considered
perpendicular to a force, their torque shaft or center of rotation is oriented or aligned at exactly
zero or ninety degrees from the orientation of the force, depending on interpretation. In addition,
numerous systems take specific steps to ensure this exact zero or ninety degree, or perpendicular
alignment of the shaft in relation to forces.
[0010] Some previous systems have been designed to allow an offset from zero or ninety
degrees, and have attempted to devise methods to utilize inertia and plane manipulation for force,
but then ensure the re-alignment of their torque shaft to zero or ninety degrees at some point
within the construct of their machine, thus defeating the potential gained.
[0011] It is generally known that misalignment of the torque shaft can have a negative impact
for a variety of well known mechanical and engineering reasons, and engineers and inventors
have devised numerous methods to ensure what is considered a proper zero or ninety degree
alignment in relation to force imposed.
[0012] Some other previous systems have used a torque shaft that is not at zero or ninety
degrees and may have an unbalanced mass or variation thereof with a proposed method to rotate
said mass, but have failed to place a connection to the torque shaft in direct alignment and
connection with the electrical generating system or other system requiring torque, and therefore
are unable to overcome problems of friction at mounting points as mass increases and other
design problems negating any potential gains necessary to produce useful torque.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

[0013] A common problem associated with previous systems that rely on forces, such as the
force of gravity, as a primary motive force is that they typically lack adaptability of design and
structure

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701 244

and cannot manage or accept changes in mass, structure, speed, and other factors, and thus are
unable to produce the torque required to produce useful output.
[0014] Although many systems have attempted to produce useful torque, using one or more of
the forces of gravity, magnetism, and acceleration, a common problem is that the systems do not
connect directly or indirectly to the torque shaft for output to a device that requires torque as
input.
[0015] Also, a common problem for previous systems that attempt to use a relatively linear
and non-oscillating force such as gravity and others discussed here is that the systems will slow
down over a period of time, usually due to mechanical losses such as friction, because they are
not specifically driven systems. Not being controlled and driven, other systems also lack the
ability to operate over a wide variety of speeds.

SOLUTION TO PROBLEM
[0016] In one embodiment presented, The John Device can use the force of gravity as the
primary motive power, and an input drive to drive a torque shaft to which an unbalanced mass is
connected, which may then be connected to an electrical generator to create useful electrical
output. Due to the continuously variable rotating plane presented to the torque shaft, the system
functions on the principle of energy gain caused by mass or masses falling under the influence of
gravity in a closed system that is permanently maintained in a state of dynamic imbalance with
an input, continuous or not, of external energy. Gravity is only one force The John Device can
utilize, and the same principle of dynamic imbalance or equilibrium applies to all the forces and
combinations thereof.
[0017] In empirical testing of a working example of a gravity-only based system, The John
Device has been documented and observed to consume not more than 5 Watts of power on the
input drive motor, while producing in excess of 2000 Watts of shaft torque. Current limitations

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

of the materials, construction, and mass available to the inventor restrict results. For example,
this particular embodiment is constructed out of plywood, 2x4s, plumbing pipe, and handmade
wooden toothed pulleys. The technology inherent in The John Device no limitations on designs,
structures, actual sizes or uses, and can be implemented as either a very small, micro solution or
a very large, macro solution and may encompass any size and scale in between. 245

ADVANTAGEOUS EFFECTS OF INVENTION

[0018] The John Device overcomes the problems with previous systems in that it can accept a
wide range of torque shaft angles relative to forces and can utilize any size and type of mass or
The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
masses, as in various embodiments, the mass may be distributed in any structure or design across
the entire horizontal plane to produce the desired imbalance, and will then produce the related
torque said mass or masses being driven at a speed desired to produce useful output, is scalable
to any size, micro-scale to macro-scale, and is only limited by present day manufacturing and
construction constraints.
[0019] The torque shaft may connect directly or indirectly to a device that utilizes torque, and
this allows The John Device to overcome problems with previous systems, allowing a wide
range of devices to be directly or indirectly connected.
[0020] The John Device is a controlled and driven system, and therefore does not slow down
or change speed over time due to losses in friction, gravitational pull, or other forces, unless
mandated to do so by the system operator.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0021] In order to have a better understanding of The John Device, reference is to be made to
the accompanying drawings. It is to be understood that The John Device is not limited to the
precise arrangements shown in the drawings. For example, a specific separate motor for starting
the system is not shown due to the relatively small mass used for this embodiment, but may be
used in other implementations of The John Device, as the input drive used to maintain the
appropriate speed does not necessarily require the full torque capability required to overcome
forces and start a large mass from a stop and accelerate it to operational speed. Although the
direction of force is not specifically indicated in the drawings, its’ understanding is anticipated.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device is specifically responsive to force, so it also must be aligned to that force.
Because The John Device can be designed and implemented in limitless ways, there will be
limitless methods to align the subsequent systems designed by future inventors. Also, specific
implementations regarding torque or electrical connection to a particular device or system are not
displayed as there are limitless devices and systems that can utilize this technology. Input power 246

for the input drive is not specifically displayed, as it may be derived from any source, external or
internal to the system in which it is installed, and may include its’ own storage capabilities to
allow self-starting of the system, as it may or may not be independent of other system storage
and/or power generation capabilities.
[0022] FIG. 1 is an isometric view of a working example of The John Device depicting the
production of useful torque using two opposed masses at varying pivot point angles and at
varying distances from a central primary torque shaft, being driven through continuously rotating
planes by

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701

an input drive motor located on the top of the device and a gear multiplier and generator located
below the device;
[0023] FIG. 2 is a side view of a working example of The John Device shown in FIG. 1;
[0024] FIG. 3 is a side view of a working example of The John Device with a gear multiplier
and generator located on the top of the device and the input drive located below the device;
[0025] FIG. 4 is an elevated side view of a prophetic example of The John Device;
[0026] FIG. 5 is an elevated side view of a prophetic example of The John Device displaying
different pivot point sin(θ) angles of attachment to the torque shaft;
[0027] FIG. 6 is a elevated side view of a prophetic example of The John Device displaying
magnetic enhancement;
[0028] FIG. 7 is a side view of a prophetic example of various elements of The John Device
and also displays a mass structure without a complete central shaft, yet still displaying the
element of a torque shaft or center of rotation;
[0029] FIG. 8 is a side view of a prophetic example displaying variations in overall mass and
system structure and design;

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

[0030] FIG. 9 is a side view of a working example of The John Device displaying an opposing
pair of masses, located on opposite sides of the primary torque shaft;
[0031] FIG. 10 is a side view of a working example of The John Device displaying a device
that utilizes torque connected to the primary torque shaft by an offset multiplier device, such as a
pulley and belt arrangement or chain and sprocket or gears; 247

[0032] FIG. 11 is a side view of a working example of The John Device displaying an
alternate view of the torque shaft in FIG. 10, showing the approximate travel of the torque shaft
in this embodiment, which also displays connection to an offset multiplier device;
[0033] FIG. 12 is side view of a working example of The John Device, displaying multiple
opposing pairs of masses, located on opposite sides of the torque shaft;
[0034] FIG. 13 is a side view of a working example of The John Device displaying a single
mass, located on one side of the primary torque shaft;
[0035] FIG. 14 is a side view of a working example of The John Device displaying a single or
multiple masses, which may move inwards towards the torque shaft, or outwards away from the
torque shaft, to cause an appropriate decrease or increase in resultant torque;
[0036] FIG. 15 is a side view of a working example of The John Device displaying a single or
multiple masses, which may or may not be mounted on variable angle arms, which may move in
an upward direction, and consequently inwards towards the torque shaft, or may move in a
downward
The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
direction, and subsequently outwards away from the torque shaft, to cause an appropriate
decrease or increase in resultant torque;
[0037] FIG. 16 is a side view of a working example of The John Device displaying a mass
completely enclosing the torque shaft;
[0038] FIG. 17 is a side view of a prophetic example of The John Device displaying the input
drive motor or mechanism being moved to a location underneath the mass and removing the
upper restraining portion of the mounting frame or chassis;
[0039] FIG. 18 is a side view of a prophetic example of The John Device displaying the use of
the force of magnetism by the use of magnets at different locations to replace, enhance, or
diminish the force of gravity or the force of acceleration and their associated forces;

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

[0040] FIG. 19 is a view of a prophetic example of The John Device displaying the use of the
force of acceleration or the force of gravity by placing The John Device in an apparatus such as a
Gimbal, allowing it to be continually oriented in relation to the forces of said acceleration and/or
gravity.
[0041] FIG. 20 is a close-up partial view of a working example of The John Device input drive 248

motor assembly.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS
[0042] As required, detailed embodiments of the present invention are disclosed herein:
however, it is to be understood that the disclosed embodiments are merely exemplary of the
invention, which may be embodied in various forms. Various embodiments shown may share
249
the characteristics, abilities, and benefits of other embodiments in any combination. Therefore,
specific structural and functional details disclosed herein are not to be interpreted as limiting, but
merely as a basis for the future claims and as a representative basis for teaching one skilled in the
art to variously employ the present invention in virtually any appropriately detailed structure.
The John Device is infinitely scalable and adaptable to various materials and methods of
manufacture and design, with limitless applications, and will therefore take shape in limitless
implementations.
[0043] Each embodiment will teach the principle of having a torque shaft or center of rotation
that is not exactly zero or ninety degrees in relation to the forces and is misaligned intentionally
so that the forces involved can act on the mass, while the input drive creates a continually
variable rotating plane, thus causing the mass to be attracted or repulsed from the force,
endlessly turning a torque shaft in response to said force while attempting to achieve a state of
equilibrium.
[0044] Terminology will be used in the following description for convenience in reference
only and will not be limiting. For example, the words “top” and “bottom” refer to the upper and
lower portions of The John Device, respectively, but the forces involved are of a locally linear
nature, and therefore many structures, characteristics, and methods related to this discovery and
invention have the ability to be reversed in their orientation to said force with anticipated design
changes. The “frame” is a mechanism that supports the system and ultimately assists in
constraining the torque shaft and allow for a continuously variable rotating plane, but the torque
shaft may be constrained by another method utilizing external frames or supports or portions
thereof suitable to achieve the same result.
[0045] The John Device will be described with references to the drawings forming a part of
the present application. Throughout the various figures, similar elements are numbered
accordingly. In each case, the descriptions of the elements and objects used are not to be

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

limiting, but simply to aid in teaching one skilled in the art to variously employ the present
invention in virtually any appropriately detailed structure.
[0046] In order to gain a better understanding of the embodiments of The John Device shown
in FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and FIG. 3, the overall dimensions are approximately 6 feet in length by 4 feet
in width by 4 feet in height. The size was selected because it is a standard size of pre-cut 250

plywood which was estimated to be strong and large enough to form the base and top for a model
to
The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
empirically test, evaluate, and demonstrate The John Device. The primary torque shaft is
approximately 3 feet in length, and the arms connecting the masses to the primary torque shaft
create a circle with a diameter that is approximately 4 feet. The top of the frame has an opening
that allows for the primary torque shaft to be caused to rotate by the input drive which produces a
continuously variable rotating plane to be presented to the mass or masses. The method used
allows the torque shaft or plane to be rotated without using a direct twisting motion to cause the
rotation, but instead, guiding the torque shaft around the circumference of the top frame opening
in a circular or hypocycloid motion. This allows for the torque shaft to be on a continuously
variable rotating plane. This rotating plane can follow the pattern of a circle, in which the mass
falls through a large number of small events, or in hypocycloidal patterns, which reduce the
number of events. For example, a working example of The John Device has an input drive and
mechanism which creates an approximate deltoid (triangular) pattern for the torque shaft to
follow, directing the masses through three events in a single rotation instead of as many as the
thousands that can be found in a circular pattern. To describe the effect, the masses fall a greater
distance attempting to achieve equilibrium when following a hypocycloidal pattern, and the
pattern must be optimized for the masses and forces concerned. Empirical testing has shown that
a deltoid or triangular pattern may be the optimum pattern for the rotation of the plane of the
torque shaft.
[0047] FIG. 2 displays an embodiment in which a gear multiplier is connected to an electrical
generator mounted below The John Device, and FIG. 3 displays an embodiment in which a gear
multiplier and electrical generator is mounted above The John Device. These embodiments
display the ability to directly connect to an electrical generator to produce electricity in any
amount required for any situation. A gear reducer or multiplier and an electrical generator,

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

shown as separate units may well be combined into a single unit, or a generator may be
optimized to run at the particular frequency that a particular system requires.
[0048] FIG. 4 displays an embodiment with a modified frame to fit the circular nature of The
John Device. This embodiment also displays rotation of over 16,000 (sixteen thousand) pounds
of mass. 251

[0049] FIG. 5 displays an embodiment showing enhanced pivot point connection angles and
mass distribution in relation to the torque shaft. This embodiment visually displays the similarity
to the natural phenomena of atomic spin and planetary precession.
[0050] FIG. 6 displays an embodiment in which a large ring magnet has been added below the
masses. This highlights the ability of The John Device to use more than one force concurrently,
as the magnetic attractive force will add to the force of gravity, creating additional force.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701

[0051] FIG. 7 displays an elements of embodiment in which the physical central torque shaft
has been virtually eliminated, but still displays the concept of a central axis of revolution. This
figure displays several important aspects relating to this embodiment of The John Device, those
being a direct connection to an electrical generator, the ability for the mass to rotate at an angle
other than zero or ninety degrees depending on orientation, the ability to rotate in a circular or
other fashion similar to hypocycloidal motion creating unique planes during rotation, and having
an input drive.
[0052] In order to highlight understanding that The John Device technology can tolerate a
wide variety of configurations, FIG. 8 displays an embodiment with the curving masses
encompassing virtually the entire internal mechanism.
[0053] In the embodiment of The John Device shown in FIG. 9, the frame 1 of the system
gives support to the base structure and the top of the frame 1 has an opening 1a for the top of the
torque shaft 2. The masses 5 are connected to the torque shaft 2 at the pivot points 6. The torque
shaft 2 is connected 3 to the secondary torque shaft 4 that will be connected to a multiplier
device 8 if required, and to an electrical generator or other device requiring rotary torque 9. The
top of the torque shaft is a freely rotating mechanism 2a that is driven by the top input motor
assembly 7 which is held in place by the top input motor carrier 7a, through the area of the top
opening 1a, following a circular or hypocycloid pattern, which causes the plane supporting the

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

unbalanced mass to be continually variable and rotate, allowing the mass to ‘fall’ in relation to a
force, such as gravity, seeking equilibrium. As the mass attempts to achieve equilibrium, the
plane of the torque shaft moves to the next plane through an almost infinite number of planes
throughout the three hundred sixty degree rotation of a circle, being driven or controlled to drive
to the desired speed by the input drive motor assembly 7. As the masses 5 are ultimately being 252

driven to rotate by the input drive motor assembly 7, the resultant torque produced on the torque
shaft 2 and subsequently available to the secondary torque shaft 4 can drive a multiplier device 8
if required, and an electrical generator or other device requiring rotary torque 9. The amount of
useful torque produced can be scientifically calculated using the accepted formulas for torque
and Watts, and is related to the amount of mass used, the distance from the primary torque shaft
2 of the mass used, the angle on the pivot point connecting the mass, and the rotational speed at
which the mass is driven.
[0054] FIG. 10 and FIG. 11 show an embodiment of The John Device in which the electrical
generator or device requiring rotary torque 9 has been moved to a secondary location not directly
connected to the primary or secondary torque shaft, but connected to a multiplier device 8. In
this embodiment, an electrical generator is connected via a pulley to a pulley mounted on the
secondary torque shaft 3 and directly connected to the torque shaft 2. FIG. 11 is shown to
provide a visual
The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
example of the approximate ‘left’ travel of the torque shaft 2 during rotation. The torque shaft 2
rotates through a circle, proscribed by the diameter of the top opening 1a and the top torque shaft
connection 2a, so in actuality there is no ‘left’ or ‘right’ side of the device, per se, in relation to
the rotation of the torque shaft 2.
[0055] FIG. 12 shows an embodiment of The John Device in which multiple masses 5 have
been added to the system and connected to the torque shaft 2. The John Device is tolerant of an
endless amount of mass 5 while still being driven by a small amount of power from the input
drive motor assembly 7, because the mass 5 that is rotating on the torque shaft 2 is largely
balanced. In actual practice, The John Device is highly tolerant of a wide variety of mass or
masses 5 and configurations, and can accept changes in mass 5 and variations in angle and
distance while powered off or while still in operation.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

[0056] The initial testing of The John Device was performed using the one-armed embodiment
shown in FIG. 13 in which a single mass 5 is shown. This embodiment displays the ability to
tolerate a variety of mass 5 and the structure of such mass 5 in relation to the torque shaft 2.
[0057] Moving the mass 5 closer to the torque shaft 2 diminishes the amount of resulting
torque if all other factors are equal. The embodiment in FIG. 14 shows mass 5 moving along the 253

connections to the torque shaft 2. The John Device may have mass 5 that move independently
of the speed of the system when in operation. The ability to have adjustable mass 5 allows The
John Device to produce additional torque as required, and may assist in startup, within the design
limits of the physical structure relating to mass, distance, angle, and speed. The configuration of
the adjustable mass 5 is not to be limiting and may be in any configuration and be comprised of
any element, material, or combinations.
[0058] The adaptability and flexibility of The John Device is shown on the embodiment in
FIG. 15 in which the mass or masses 5 are located at different pivot point 6 angles in relation to
the torque shaft 2. The ability to have adjustable pivot point 6 angles allows The John Device to
produce additional torque as required, and may assist in startup, within the design limits of the
physical structure relating to mass, distance, angle, and speed. The configuration of the
adjustable pivot point 6 angles is not to be limiting but simply illustrative.
[0059] FIG. 16 shows an embodiment of The John Device in which a single mass 5 may
encompass the torque shaft 2. The pivot points 6 are along the entire length of the mass 5 where
it connects to the torque shaft 2, and the embodiment would produce as much torque as required
within the design limits of the physical structure relating to mass, distance, angle, and speed.
This further

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701

highlights the ability of The John Device to adapt to a virtually limitless variety of mass or
masses 5, with limitless atomic and molecular structures, compositions, features, abilities, and
benefits thereto.
[0060] By replicating the angle produced on the torque shaft 2 and locating it under the mass 5
with a retaining method 10; and re-locating the input drive assembly 7 to a location under the
mass 5 or retaining method 10, The John Device may be structured and operated using a smaller
frame 1 that does not enclose the mass 5, and is shown in an embodiment in FIG. 17. It is to be

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

understood that all the variations relating to different embodiments of The John Device can also
be implemented using this embodiment with a lower input motor assembly 7, and with all the
advantages thereto.
[0061] Utilizing magnetic elements 11 and/or 12 and/or 13 in conjunction with an
embodiment of The John Device shown in FIG. 18 gives the ability to enhance and/or replace the 254

force of gravity and/or the force of acceleration. The elements defined as mass 5 and the
magnetic elements 11 and/or 12 and/or 13 may be constructed of ferromagnetic materials,
magnets, permanent magnets, or electromagnetic elements and/or electromagnetic devices. In
various embodiments, the magnetic elements 11 and/or 12 and/or 13 may exhibit attracting or
repelling forces in relation to mass 5; or mass 5 may exhibit attracting or repelling forces in
relation to magnetic elements 11 and/or 12 and/or 13. In this embodiment of The John Device,
the frame 1 is comprised of non-magnetic materials, but may comprise any type of material
suitable for a particular design or application.
[0062] In any embodiment of The John Device, it may be desirable to allow the system to alter
its’ orientation in response to forces, typically those caused by gravity or acceleration, in order to
maintain the orientation of the device in relation to the force or forces. The John Device is
shown in FIG. 19 mounted in a Gimbal-type device that allows for rotation in any direction. The
apparatus shown is not to be limiting, and is only shown as a prophetic example to present that
The John Device has the ability to be designed and constructed to be mounted in any position,
and can be continually re-oriented to the forces involved in order to produce useful torque. This
ability would include any stationary or mobile object, device, or system, including, but not
limited to, stationary devices, portable or mobile devices, and land, water, air, or space based
objects and vehicles or locations requiring either electrical power or useable torque. The multi-
dimensional rotational ability of such a Gimbal apparatus, in part or in whole, or other such
apparatus can be used to locate any embodiment of The John Device in relation to the force of
gravity and/or magnetism and/or the force of acceleration to adjust for design and installation
requirements, issues or other constraints or concerns. It is anticipated that a wide variety of
mounting platforms and other structures that may include forms of leveling or self-leveling will
be integrated with future inventions that utilize the technology of The John Device, both for
stationary and mobile implementations.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
[0063] In order to assist in understanding the input drive system on a working example of The
John Device, FIG. 20 is a close-up partial view is shown with a crossbar that would be nearest to
the viewer removed for clarity. The torque shaft is shown with a bearing arrangement to
facilitate ease of movement around the circular cut out. The drive motor, which on one working
255
example of The John Device is a 12VDC, 0.35 Amp - 4.2 Watt electrical motor, rotates a
connected bar which subsequently exerts force against the torque shaft, causing a continuously
variable rotating plane to be presented to the mass or masses.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
CITATION LIST

PATENT LITERATURE

U.S. Provisional application: 61/801,442, filed March 15, 2013.

256

<< page break >>

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701

CITATION LIST

NON PATENT LITERATURE

There are extensive videos showing several embodiments in operation available on the Internet
which were entirely created and published to the Internet by the Inventor, David Woodrow John.
These videos show some of the working examples, setups and variations described and allowed
for in these patent documents.

www.youtube.com/user/davidwjohn

www.facebook.com/thejohndevice

www.thejohndevice.com

<< page break >>

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701

ABSTRACT

The John Device has the ability to use relatively non-oscillating and linear forces, such as the
forces of gravity and its’ associated force of buoyancy, permanent and/or electro-magnetism and
their forces of attraction and repulsion, and acceleration and its’ associated force of deceleration,
alone or in combinations, as a motive force to produce useful torque which may then be used for
any work requiring torque, and therefore may also be used to generate electricity for any device
or machine or system which requires electrical power.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
DRAWINGS

FIG. 1

257

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 2

258

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 3

259

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 4

260

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 5

261

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 6

262

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 7

263

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 8

264

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 9

265

FIG. 10

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 11

266

FIG. 12

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 13

267

FIG. 14

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 15

268

FIG. 16

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 17

269

FIG. 18

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 19

270

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

The John Device David Woodrow John Docket #: NCC-1701
FIG. 20

271

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

References
1. David W. John, The Impossible Video, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_saRaWSl_Cw

Above video and Other youtube videos about The John Device, as of this writing, this information may be 272

found at: https://www.youtube.com/user/davidwjohn/videos

The John Device website, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
http://www.TheJohnDevice.com

Torque-Incorporated website, as of this writing, this information may be found at:

http://www.Torque-Incorporated.com

2. Various Wikipedia resources available on the Internet at www.wikipedia.com.

("Earth precession" by NASA, Mysid - Vectorized by Mysid in Inkscape after a NASA Earth Observatory
image in Milutin Milankovitch Precession.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - as of
this writing, this information may be found at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_precession.svg#/media/File:Earth_precession.svg)

("Präzession2" by Yamavu (talk) - Own work. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons -
as of this writing, this information may be found at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pr%C3%A4zession2.png#/media/File:Pr%C3%A4zession2.png)

"Paperclip floating on water (with 'contour lines')" by © Robert D. Anderson - Own work. Licensed under
CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - as of this writing, this information may be found at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paperclip_floating_on_water_(with_%27contour_lines%27).jpg#/
media/File:Paperclip_floating_on_water_(with_%27contour_lines%27).jpg

3. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Feynman, Leighton, Sands, as of this writing, this information can
be found at: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/, presented by Caltech's Division of Physics,
Mathematics and Astronomy and The Feynman Lectures Website

4. “Cargo Cult Science”, Feynman, R.P., Caltech Commencement Address, 1974, as of this writing, this
information can be found at: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

5. “New Map Shows the Motion of all the Galaxies in Our Supercluster”, 2017, UniverseToday online,
Williams, M., as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.universetoday.com/138055/new-map-shows-motion-galaxies-supercluster/amp/

And also at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster.html 273

6. “On a Dynamical Top, for exhibiting the phenomena of the motion of a system of invariable form about
a fixed point, with some suggestions as to the Earth’s motion”, read April 20, 1857, Maxwell, J. C., From
the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. XXI. Part IV, as of this writing, this information
can be found at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5192/5192-
pdf.pdf?session_id=05633359591b6353978ef2f714abe37ad85004ca

7. “’It’s back to the drawing board…’ Innocent axions found not guilty of dark matter crimes”, November
16, 2017, Quach, K., The Register UK, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/16/dark_matter_axions/

8. CERN Home Website: https://home.cern/

9. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I, Ch. 7: The Theory of Gravitation, as of this writing, this
information can be found in numerous locations, but also is available at:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_07.html

10. “Precision Measurement of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant Using Cold Atoms”, December 26,
2014, Rosi, G., Sorrentino, F., Cacciapuoti, L., Prevedelli, M., Tino, G.M., as of this writing, this
information can be found at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7954

11. “Lawbreaking Particles May Point to a Previously Unknown Force in the Universe”, July 17, 2017,
Dunietz, J., Scientific American, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lawbreaking-particles-may-point-to-a-previously-unknown-
force-in-the-universe/

12. HYPERPHYSICS, Hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University,
as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/waal.html

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

13. UC Davis Chemwiki, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Intermolecular_Forces/Lo
ndon_Dispersion_Interactions

14. “Molecular Structure Description – The Electrotopological State”, Kier, L., Hall, L., 1999, Academic
Press, London, UK. 274

15. The 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2016/

16. “Van der Waals force re-measured: Physicists verify nonlinear increase with growing molecular size”,
November 26, 2014, Juelich, F., as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-van-der-waals-re-measured-physicists.html

17. “SOLAR ECLIPSE ANOMALIES AND WAVE REFRACTION”, MacLeod, A., University of the
Highlands and Islands, Lewis Castle College, UK, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
[email protected].

18. “In the quantum world, identity is a hazy concept”, February 27, 2017, O’Connell, C., as of this
writing, this information can be found at: https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/in-the-quantum-world-
identity-is-a-hazy-concept

19. “There are many ways to spin a photon: Half-quantization of total optical angular momentum",
Ballantine, K.E., Donegan, J.F., Eastham, P.R., ScienceAdvances, (April, 2016), 2,
doi:10.1126/scieadv.1501748

20. “QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter”, Feynman, R., 1988, Princeton University Press.

21. “Light drives single-molecule 3-wheelers”, November 4, 2016, Rice University, as of this writing, this
information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-single-molecule-wheelers.html

22. “Topologically enabled optical nanomotors”, June 30, 2017, Science Advances, Ilic, O., Kaminer, I.,
Zhen, B., Miller, O., Buljan, H., Solja, M., as of this writing, this information can be found at:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1602738

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

23. “What exactly is the ‘spin’ of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons? Does it have any
physical significance, analogous to the spin of a planet?”, Scientific American, as of this writing, this
information can be found at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/

24. “Spinning electrons open the door to future hybrid electronics”, June 20, 2017, Phys.org, as or this
writing, this information can be found at:: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-electrons-door-future-hybrid- 275

electronics.html

25. “A sea of spinning electrons: Discovery could spawn a wave of new electronic devices”, October 2,
2017, Phys.org, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-sea-
electrons-discovery-spawn-electronic.html

26. “Spin current detection in quantum materials unlocks potential for alternative electronics”, October
13, 2017, Phys.org, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-
current-quantum-materials-potential-alternative.html

27. “Direct Experimental Evidence of the Subtle Changes in Electron Orbitals”, February 14, 2014, as of
this writing, this information may be found at: http://scitechdaily.com/direct-experimental-evidence-suble-
changes-electron-orbitals/

28. “Scientists Ponder Universe’s Missing Antimatter”, Roach, J., National Geographic News, July 6,
2005, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0706_050706_antimatter.html

29. “CERN experiment takes us one step closer to discovering where all the antimatter went”, CERN,
Geneva, Switzerland, June 6, 2014, 2016, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/06/cern-experiment-takes-us-one-step-closer-to-discovering-
where-all-the-antimatter-went

30. “CERN Observes The First Ever Detailed Light Spectrum Of Anti-Hydrogen, CERN, Geneva,
Switzerland, June 6, 2014, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/12/alpha-observes-light-spectrum-antimatter-first-time

31. “A Universe Of Antimatter”, Koberlein, B., November 24, 2017, as of this writing, this information can
be found at: https://briankoberlein.com/2017/11/24/a-universe-of-antimatter/

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

32. “Antimatter Angst: The Universe Shouldn’t Exist”, AstroEngine, O’neill, I., October 24, 2017, as of this
writing, this information can be found at: https://astroengine.com/2017/10/24/antimatter-angst-the-
universe-shouldnt-exist/

33. “BURNING RINGS OF FIRE”, Polchinski, J., Scientific American, April, 2015, p. 37-41.
276

34. “First Evidence Black Holes Regulate Star Formation in Massive Galaxies”, SciTechDaily, January
31, 2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://scitechdaily.com/first-evidence-black-
holes-regulate-star-formation-in-massive-galaxies/

35. Science Daily, January, 2013, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130103113846.htm

36. “Dark Matter and Dark Energy Might Not Exist – Potentially Forcing a Rethink of Our Understanding
of the Entire Universe.”, December 1, 2017, Yahoo News, originally published on The Conversation,
Pimbblet, K., as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/dark-
matter-dark-energy-might-131803089.html

37. “MYSTERY OF THE HIDDEN COSMOS”, Dobrescu, B.A., Lincoln, D., Scientific American, July,
2015, p. 34

38. “Rotating Galaxies Could Prove Dark Matter Wrong”, Forbes, Forbes.com, Koberlein, B., September
23, 2016, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/09/23/rotating-galaxies-could-prove-dark-matter-
wrong/#1b612b212037

39. “Satellite galaxies of Centaurus A defy dark-matter model”, Physicsworld, Wogan, T., February 1,
2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2018/feb/01/satellite-galaxies-of-centaurus-a-defy-dark-matter-
model

40. “Distant galaxy group contradicts common cosmological models, simulations”, Phys.org, February 1,
2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-distant-galaxy-
group-contradicts-common.html

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

41. “How crashing neutron stars killed off some of our best ideas about what ‘dark energy’ is”, Phys.org,
December 13, 2017, Kitching, T., as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://phys.org/news/2017-12-neutron-stars-ideas-dark-energy.html

42. “Do dark matter and dark energy exist?”, November 23, 2017, Phys.org, as of this writing, this
information can be found at: https://www.phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-energy.html 277

43. “Dancing Dwarf Galaxies Deepen Dark Matter Mystery”, Stirione, J., Scientific American, February 1,
2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dancing-dwarf-galaxies-deepen-dark-matter-mystery/

44. “The neutrino turns 60”, Symmetry magazine, June, 2016, as of this writing, this information may be
found at:http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-neutrino-turns-60

45. The Nobel Prize in Physics, 2015, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/press.html

46. “Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges”, Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P., Loeb, A., February 1, 2017, as
of this writing, this information can be found at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-
inflation-theory-faces-challenges/

47. “Pop Goes The Universe Discussion”, Princeton, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
http://physics.princeton.edu/~cosmo/sciam/index.html#faq

48. NASA, as of this writing, this information may be found at:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-s-hubble-finds-giant-halo-around-the-andromeda-galaxy

49. “Clock Time Is Absolute and Universal”, August, 2015, Shen, X., NAC Geographic Products, as of
this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297528348_Clock_Time_Is_Absolute_and_Universal

50. “This Discovery Could Help Us Regenerate Body Parts One Day”, September 9, 2016, as of this
writing, this information may be found at: http://www.gereports.com/this-discovery-could-help-us-
regenerate-body-parts-one-day/

51. “ENERGETICS AND FORCES IN LIVING CELLS”, Dunn, A.R., Price, A., Physics Today 68, 2, 27
(2015), as of this writing, this information may be found at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2686

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

52. “Highly charged molecules behave paradoxically”, Lund University, November 23, 2017, as of this
writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171123095322.htm

53. “Geometry plays an important role in how cells behave, researchers report”, Sundermier, A., Lerner, 278

E., Phys.org, October 25, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-geometry-important-role-cells.html

54. “Curved substrates restrict spreading and induce differentiation of stem cells”, Lowenstein, A., Florida
Institute of Technology, September 6, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-substrates-restrict-differentiation-stem-cells.html#nRlv

55. “The Body Electrician”, Piore, A., Popular Science, Jan/Feb, 2017, p.64-68, 92.

56. “Researchers reveal bioelectric patterns guiding worms’ regenerative body plan after injury”, Tufts
University, May 23, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/tu-rrb051717.php

57. “Scientists develop ‘lab on a chip’ that costs one cent to make”, February 6, 2017, Phys.org, as of
this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-scientists-lab-chip-cent.html
It is also referenced as being found at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1621318114

58. “Researchers develop technique that could detect explosives, dangerous gases rapidly and
remotely”, September 29, 2017, Sherburne, M., University of Michigan, as of this writing, this information
can be found at: https://phys.org/print425887032.html

59. “Targeting cancer cells by measuring electric currents”, December 8, 2017, Phys.org, as of this
writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/print431943411.html

60. Wired Magazine, May, 2015, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/simple-yes-simpe-guide-quantum-entanglement

61. “A single photon reveals quantum entanglement of 16 million atoms”, University of Geneva, October
13, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-photon-
reveals-quantum-entanglement-million.html

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

62. “Experiment demonstrates quantum mechanical effects from biological system”, December 5, 2017,
Northwestern University, as of this writing this information can be found at:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171205130106.htm

63. HUMAN PERCEPTION OF GRAVITY. April, 2011, PLoS ONE.

279

64. The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2014/

65. “A watershed moment in understanding how H2O conducts electricity, December 1, 2016, Shelton,
J., Yale News, as of this writing this information can be found at:
http://news.yale.edu/2016/12/01/watershed-moment-understanding-how-h2o-conducts-electricity

66. “Researchers develop magnetic switch to turn on and off a strange quantum property”, May 25, 2017,
Phys.org/NIST, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/print414929010.html
This article can be found on the NIST website:https://www.nist.gov/news-
events/news/2017/05/researchers-develop-magnetic-switch-turn-and-strange-quantum-property

67. “The Glue That Binds Us”, Ent, R., Ulrich, T., Venugopalan, R., Scientific American, May, 2015, as of
this writing, this information can be found on the Brookhaven National Laboratory website at:
https://www.bnl.gov/physics/NTG/linkable_files/pdf/SciAm-Glue-Final.pdf

68. “With laser light, scientists create first X-ray holographic images of viruses”, Solliday, A., Phys.org,
March 8, 2018, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-laser-
scientists-x-ray-holographic-images.html

69. “New g-2 Measurement Deviates Further From Standard Model”, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
January 8, 2004, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2004/bnlpr010804.htm

70. “THE ‘ALLAIS EFFECT’ AND MY EXPERIMENTS WITH THE PARACONICAL PENDULUM”, Allais,
M., 1954-1960, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

71. “Juno Isn’t Exactly Where it’s Supposed To Be. The Flyby Anomaly is Back, But Why Does it
Happen?”, Williams, M., Universe Today, December 1, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be
found at: https://www.universetoday.com/137984/juno-isnt-exactly-supposed-flyby-anomaly-back-happen/

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

72. “Improved Hubble yardstick gives fresh evidence for new physics in the universe”, Weaver, D.,
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Phys.org, February 22, 2018, as of this writing, this information
can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-hubble-yardstick-fresh-evidence-physics.html

73. “ACTION DYNAMICS OF THE LOCAL SUPERCLUSTER”, Shaya, E.J., Tully, R.B., Hoffman, Y., 280

Pomarede, D., Phys.org, October 27, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08935

74. FAST, REPEATABLE CLUMPING OF SOLID PARTICLES IN MICROGRAVITY. S. G. Love and D.

R. Pettit, Mail Code CB, NASA – Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Road 1, Houston, TX 77058,
[email protected], [email protected].

75. “Bacteria get dangerously weird in space”, Love, S., The Washington Post, October 25, 2016, as of
this writing, this information may be found at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-
health/wp/2016/10/25/bacteria-get-dangerously-weird-in-space/?utm_term=.b7cfbc234028

76. C.B. Parker (1994) McGraw-Hill Enclyclopedia of Physics (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, P. 542, ISBN 0-07-
051400-3.

77. “Bells Theorem and World Process”, Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 29B, No. 2, P. 270 (1975).

78. “Physicists address loophole in tests of Bell’s inequality using 600-year-old starlight”, Chu, J.,
February 7, 2017, as of this writing, this information can be found at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-
physicists-loophole-bell-inequality-year-old.html

79. “LIGO black hole echoes hint at general-relativity breakdown”, Merali, Z., Nature News, December 9,
2016, as of this writing, this information can be found at: http://www.nature.com/news/ligo-black-hole-
echoes-hint-at-general-relativity-breakdown-1.21135

80. “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”, Verlinde, E., arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan
2010, as of this writing, this information may be found at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785.pdf

81. “Mark Tuckerman Physics Lectures”, Tuckerman, M., Drakos, N., Moore, R., as of this writing, this
information can be found at:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node4.html

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

82. “Test of zero-point energy emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities”, Dmitriyeva, O.,
Moddel, G., Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 8 – 17, as of this writing, this information can be found at:
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf

281

Other References

(Previously 4) UC Davis Chemwiki, as of this writing, this information may be found at:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/01._Waves_and_Particles/Case_S
tudy%3A_Photoelectric_Effect

(Previously 8) “TELEPATHY IN CONNECTION WITH TELEPHONE CALLS, TEXT MESSAGES AND

EMAILS”, Sheldrake, Rupert, Journal of International Society of Life Information Science (ISLIS), Vol. 32,
No. 1, March, 2014.

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

CVRP – Continuously Variable Rotating Plane

282

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.

“ umm… uh… mmh. ??”
- David Woodrow John

283

Credit: Internet/Unknown

Once upon a time, they had two paths. The first was with Maxwell and field concepts, but that
led to math that was impossible to do at the time, and is still an incredible challenge today.
The second was when Einstein and his team took the known answers, made a math story to fit,
and then came up with the radical concept (at the time) of visual Doppler, or what is called red-
shift. Throw in an observation that “verified” the ideas, and the “scientific community” was off to
the races. Since then, because belief in Einstein’s Universe is essentially faith-based, in that
one must “believe” that space and time “bend”, and that endless problems with the ideas must
simply be “patched” and “fine-tuned” - what were once referred to as scientists have become
mere “Keepers of the Faith.” Of course that type of person doesn’t seek any truth that conflicts
with their faith, just re-affirmation of their technically insane concepts.

SEEK THE TRUTH – CHANGE WHEN YOU’RE WRONG – NEVER STOP LEARNING

Rev. 3.19.2018 Copyright © David Woodrow John. All rights reserved.