Although most modern physicists will agree that the presently accepted theories of atomic structure and behavior derived by quantum mechanics and relativity contain many unexplainable paradoxes, they still continue to insist that quantum mechanics is "the only game in town". The same scientists freely admit, however, that "something" is missing; yet, they also believe that, within the very near future, someone will find a simple solution to the paradoxes, and all will fall-into-place as predicted. What they will not say is that the simple solution, in order to be acceptable, must be derived by the highly recondite rules of quantum mechanics, preferably unified with Einstein's theories of relativity. Apparently (as I have been informed), there is another important unwritten condition requiring that, in order to be acceptable, the simple solution must be presented by a fellow Ph.D. physicist.

I am an engineer. Like all engineers, I approach the solutions to problems with simple, straightforward, open-minded logic; therefore, I began my study with a fresh, open-minded attitude about light and its means of propagation throughout our universe. At first, I had no intentions of doubting the presently-accepted theories (I only wanted to understand them), but it soon became very clear to me, while experimenting with the behavior of light refracted by a simple 90° roof prism, that light could not possibly behave as presently described by the quantum theory. Such a conclusion led to doubts of the presently-accepted theories of the structure and behavior of matter (atoms), and further doubts regarding distance, time, and the composition of space and matter within and beyond our universe.

As it turned out, my theories are, in general, directly opposite to presently accepted modern theories. Had they not been so opposite, I would not be so confident of my own conclusions. On the other hand, my theories are not actually new; they result mostly from theories previously proposed by pre-modern scientists, and from a difference of interpretation of presently published scientific data.

A full explanation of my theory, including graphic mechanisms, simple experiments, and very simple mathematical support, is contained within about 215 pages of text. However, as briefly as I could condense them, the most significant concepts are contained within summaries of each chapter, as follows:

(1) If any single reason is responsible for the many diverse theories of physical science, it must be a misinterpretation of the behavior of light.

(2) Theoretically, a source of light may be viewed from any position within its viewing angle; even positions separated only by the distance of one atom. But the view from any position is different from the view from any other position.

(3) The image of any light source must somehow travel through space, but, in order to view such an image, the equivalent mechanism of a pinhole must be located at every position in space; even positions separated only by the distance of one atom.

(4) Waves of light only appear to be in motion. The apparent motion of light is the result of an influence conducted from one atom to another. This proposition requires that the "space" between stars is not void of matter; it consists of a medium of matter, which Aristotle called ether.

(5) According to the modern interpretation of Snell's law, the velocity of light changes as it enters or leaves different kinds of transparent media. Likewise, the direction of light is altered by its angles of incidence and refraction within the different media. According to my theory, I have proposed that such changes of velocity occur as a result of changes in relative mass density. The greater the mass density, the greater the index of refraction (n), and the slower the velocity of light.

(6) Atoms behave as if they are spherically shaped. If a single layer of atoms may be considered as the interface between two media of different refractive indices, each interface atom must possess the properties of both media on either side of the interface. If an interface atom contains only one center of mass, all light conducted within the atom must be conducted through the atom's single center of mass.

(7) A maximum angle of incidence and a maximum angle of refraction exists within all interface atoms capable of conducting light from one medium to another, such that an angular window of conductance restricts the quantity of light conducted from one medium to the other. Within such window, Snell's law requires that the angles of incidence and refraction are reversible, regardless of the direction of light's apparent motion.

(8) Logically, an interface atom's center of mass cannot coincide with its geometric center because the values of (n) within such atoms must be proportional to corresponding values of (n) on both sides of the interface.

(9) In order that an interface atom may conduct light at different angles of refraction, the atom's center of mass must change its positions.

(10) After interpreting my own observation of the behavior of light reflected and refracted by a glass prism, I have concluded that the quantum mechanics theory of light cannot be correct because light rays (or waves) do not, and cannot, interfere with each other's behavior or direction of motion.

(11) I have also concluded that, although the directions of light conducted by interface atoms are reversible, the behavior of light conducted in opposite directions is not reversible.

Incidentally, when a total solar eclipse was observed from Hawaii on July 11, 1991, I observed an approximate 70% partial-eclipse from my position in central Texas. Using the same apparatus I used to study the refraction of direct sunlight, I noticed no apparent change in the spectrum of dispersed colors, other than a slight decrease of intensity. However, by inserting a simple converging lens between the sun and the prism, I was able to obtain a projected image of the eclipse, as depicted in FIG. 1.26. It was very evident that the bands of refracted color remained aligned, and in the same position as observed in my previous experiments during the entire period of the eclipse.

(1) Mass is the only kind of substance to be found in nature, and it only occurs within the volumes of atoms. But the total volume of an atom also consists of empty space, or volume not occupied by mass.

(2) The structure and behavior of atoms, as presently accepted, were partially derived from the gas laws and the kinetic theory of gases. However, I have challenged the gas laws; particularly, the concept that pressure results from collisions of atoms, and the concept that empty space exists between atoms.

(3) I have also challenged the notion that the acceleration of gravity is constant, regardless of an object's weight. I have proposed, instead, that the force of weight is a result of the behavior of mass within the object, itself. Furthermore, I have proposed that relative measurements of weight are actually true measurements of numbers of atoms.

(4) The significance of Archimedes' discovery of relative mass density is that objects weighing less than an equivalent volume of their displaced medium will tend to move opposite to the direction of gravity, which led to my conclusion that an object's weight is not determined by the direction of gravity, but by its mass density relative to the mass density of its environment.

(5) All atoms contain the same weight of mass, but not, necessarily, the same volume of space. Furthermore, the total weight of mass within every atom is equally distributed within a constant number of sub-particles in every atom; thus, each sub-particle contains the same weight of mass, but not, necessarily, the same volume of space. The only empty space in existence is contained within the total volume of every atom in existence.

(6) Because most modern measurements were derived from, or were used to support quantum mechanics, there are few reliable measurements that can be used to determine the volumes and mass weights of ether atoms. In order to calculate the particle volume of any spherically constricted medium, I have determined that the formula of V = 4/3r3 cannot apply to a constricted volume, and that the volume of a constricted medium of mass and space can be determined by the formula of V = 4r3.

(7) I have proposed that the radiation wave frequency of any atom can be estimated relative to the cesium constant of 1.7218x1010gm waves/sec/cm3, which is derived from the product of cesium's mass density and radiation frequency. Furthermore the radiation wave frequency of any atom can be determined if its relative mass density is known, or its relative mass density can be determined if its radiation wave frequency is known. But wave amplitude, which I have defined as specific radiation frequency, is not the same for all atoms, because different atoms contain different densities of mass. I have also concluded that all atoms radiate energy at the same relative wave frequency of 1.7218x1010 waves/sec, which is my estimate of the wave frequency of standard water.

(8) Avogadro's hypothesis defines a constant number of molecules within a constant volume, but it does not define the volumes of individual atoms; therefore, it also cannot define the number of atoms in a molecule. On the basis of gram-atomic weight, however, I have concluded that all atoms contain a constant mass weight of 1.6734x10-24 grams/atom. As a basis of comparison, I have estimated the volume of a hydrogen atom (at standard atmospheric conditions) to be 1.8593x10-20 cm3/atom.

(9) Having no measurements or reliable evidence to support my theory of ether, I have logically estimated, from the quantities of a hypothetical column of earth's atmosphere, that the relative mass density of ether atoms at the elevation of 160 km above sea level is 1.6356x10-5gm/cm3 (61,139.0 cm3/gm), and that the volume of a single ether atom is 1.0231x10-19 cm3/atom. Relative to water, the specific radiation frequency of ether is 1.0527x1015 cm3 waves/sec/gm. I cannot yet conclude, however, that the density of ether at 160 km elevation is the same as the density of ether beyond the outer boundary of our universe.

(1) As presently accepted, there are three broad categories of energy: (1) kinetic energy, which is the energy of matter in motion,(2) potential energy, which is the relative energy of motionless matter, and (3) rest energy, which is the inherent energy of mass in motion, or at rest.

(2) Einstein suggested that, according to the Law of Conservation of Energy and Mass, energy and mass are always equivalent. It is now accepted that mass can be created or destroyed, but only if an equivalent amount of energy simultaneously vanishes, or comes into being, and vice-versa.

(3) Contrary to present thinking, I have challenged that the earth's atmosphere should not be considered as an unideal hindrance, and that its presence cannot be excluded from scientific measurements; therefore, Newton's law of gravitation, as presently accepted, does not apply within earth's constricted medium (including its total atmosphere). Consequently I further challenged that our presently-accepted concepts of gravity cannot be correct.

(4) As a result of my own logical analysis of falling heavier-than-air objects, I have concluded that the energy of such objects is internal and constant; therefore, the linear motions of such objects should not be considered as a factor of energy. I further suggested that, if Einstein's theories of energy are incorrect, his great mistake began by thinking of light as if it behaved as falling "objects".

(5) Motionless atoms possess the phenomenon of motion, but their internal motions are directed toward or away from their geometric centers of most-dense mass. The atom's relative weight of mass is thus additive (+) in the direction of its geometric center, and subtractive(-) in the direction of its outer boundary. The oscillating motion of relative weight results as apparent waves of periodic motion in opposite directions, which I have considered as true spherical wave energy.

(6) The inductive reason that wave energy must decrease in the direction of increased mass density, because of decreased velocity, seems to conflict with logical reasoning that mass energy should increase in that direction. The apparent paradox is resolved by concluding that there are two different kinds of reciprocal wave energy. The reciprocal of increasing mass energy is increasing "space" energy, which I have defined as anti mass energy. The behavior of anti mass is the opposite of mass behavior.

(7) Accepting that anti mass is an absolute, inseparable quantity in all atoms, I have described constricting wave energy as positive gravitational waves, whose quantities increase in the (+) direction of increased mass density. The opposite of "cold" positive energy is "hot" negative energy.

(8) Constricted atoms and constricted atomic media are charged electrically positive at their centers of gravity, and electrically negative at their outer boundaries. But electric charge is a relative condition, depending upon a relative difference of mass density.

(9) I have defined potential weight as the mass weight (determined in air at STP) of any substance minus the mass weight of an equal volume of its actual environment. In other words, potential weight is a true measure of force exerted upon any object of mass that is within the influence of earth's spherically constricted environment.

(10) The behavior allowing atoms to change their positions relative to their environment (Brownian motion) is the result of changing directions of force at the atom's center of gravity. A displacement of density away from an atom's geometric center results as a displacement of mass weight (force). The direction of displacement is the resultant direction of the atom's motion.

(11) Contrary to the presently accepted theory of electric current as a "movement of electrons", I have proposed that electric current is the conductance of an influence that results as reciprocal wave energy (apparent motion). The greater the mass density, the greater the resistance to negative energy conductance. The less the mass density, the greater the resistance to positive energy conductance.

(12) At the temperature of positive electric super conductance, a conductor loses all negative resistance to current flow, thereby allowing a positive electric influence to flow indefinitely within a closed loop. The reciprocal of positive current is negative current; implying that, at some undefined high temperature, the opposite condition exists, which I have previously described as perfect transparence (the superconduction of an image of light, for instance).

(13) I have defined the absolute mass density of any atomic element as that element's absolute quantity of volume constriction, which is a ratio of the element's relative mass density and the absolute mass density of ether. For example, the specific volume of an ether atom is 1/(1.6356x10-5 gm/cm3) = 61,139.0 cm3/gm; therefore, the ether atom's true relative mass density is 1 gm/61,139.0 cm3, which is proportional to an absolute mass density of 1.6356x10-5 gm/cm3 at the elevation of 160 km above sea level. The specific volume of an atomic elements also now defined as that element's absolute negative electric charge (-Q), which I have also defined as heat factor. The absolute positive electric charge (+Q) of any atomic element is now defined as a ratio of that element's relative mass density at STP, and the absolute mass density of ether at 160 km elevation. The absolute positive electric charge (+Q) of ether is 1.0.

(14) My equation for absolute negative wave energy (compared to Max Planck's equation for quantum energy) is -E = (-Q)2, where (-Q) is my symbol for both specific volume and heat factor, and () is the symbol I have chosen for the standard frequency of expanding waves (1.7218x1010cm3 waves/sec/gm). The resultant units of the equation signify that the expanding waves are a property of anti mass (heat).

(15) I have concluded that constricting and expanding energy waves, like images of light conducted in opposite directions, do not behave in the same manner. I have further concluded that all atoms and all constricted atomic media radiate wave energy at the same relative radiation frequency of mass, which is my estimate of the radiation frequency of standard water at 1.7218x1010 waves/sec.

(16) Absolute positive wave energy (+E) is equivalent to the product of the standard positive wave frequency () of mass (1.7218x1010gm waves/sec/cm3) and the square of absolute positive electric charge (+Q); thus, +E = (+Q)2. Furthermore, the influence of wave energy (positive or negative) must originate from the center of a constricted atom, or constricted atomic medium. In the direction of constriction, mass-to-mass attractive force (as implied by Newton) increases proportionally as the square of absolute mass density (+Q). In the opposite direction, the heat energy of anti mass expansion increases proportionally as the square of specific volume, and its influence is repulsive.

(17) I have concluded that ether atoms cannot be considered as sources of wave energy; they can only conduct an influence of wave energy, which appears to radiate from true sources of energy.

(1) My own theory of light propagation in "space" is in general agreement with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic wave propagation, but I do not agree with modern theorists that such "space" is void of atoms, or that electric currents cannot flow in "space" because electrons are required to produce a flow of electric current.

(2) Since there are apparently two different kinds of wave energy, there must also be two different kinds of electric force. In my opinion, Einstein failed to resolve his unified field theory because he failed to recognize the two different kinds of wave influence.

(3) The two different kinds of wave motion are radial motion, and circular motion, or motion-about-a-point. Both directions of motion result from a difference of positive electric charge existing within the radial-component of spherical wave energy. An interchange of electric influence is defined as an electric potential difference. I have defined the presently-described "magnetic force" as circular electric force.

(4) Serious scientific study of the simple permanent bar magnet has, in my opinion, led physicists to misunderstand one of the most important phenomena of nature: the theoretical mechanism of electromagnetic interaction. One reason that led to misinterpretation is the evident fact that magnetic fields, as observed in the well-known "iron filings" experiment, are motionless. Nevertheless, magnetic fields are capable of exerting a force on distant objects, which means that their influence of force is conducted by radial wave energy.

(5) While observing my own experiments with simple bar magnets, it occurred to me that the north and south poles of a permanent magnet are only extensions of a singular magnetic influence that originates in the bar's unipolar center of gravity. In other words, the magnet's force-field (external lines of flux) is not directed from north-to-south, as presently believed; but rather, the external circular lines of force (actually, static-electric lines of force) are directed equally toward both ends, then inward to the unipolar center of electric attraction. The magnet appears to be oppositely polarized because the influence of magnetic force is circulating clockwise, as viewed from the conventional south-to-north direction, which means that circular magnetic forces are attractive only when they are circulating in the same direction. Circular magnetic forces are repulsive to each other if their directions of circular motion are opposite (a clockwise force is repulsive to a counter-clockwise force, as viewed from the same direction).

(6) If two bar magnets are brought side-to-side, they behave as if they are forced to follow each other's external lines of flux, which gives the appearance of north-to-south and south-to-north attraction. Since their circular forces are effectively neutralized, the two magnets will be attracted to each other in the side-to-side direction; thereby, to behave effectively as a single bar magnet.

(7) We may imagine that any isolated spherically constricted atomic medium is constructed of many individual rays of atoms, each ray consisting of atoms joined end-to-end to appear as the individual filaments of mass depicted in FIG. 2.1. Each ray is held together by an electric binding force acting in the linear direction of gravity, and the total "bundle" of rays is held together in the side-to-side direction of surface area by circular electric forces. Both binding forces are always attractive, even while wave energy is expanding, because a positive electric potential difference exists between atoms defining the ray. The difference of electric potential is always increasingly positive in the direction of constriction, even though a "flow" of electric charges does not exist.

(8) In order to explain why atoms spin, and to help visualize a singular direction of spherical surface forces, I have devised a hypothetical mechanism that describes an isolated spherically constricted medium as being constructed of a great number of opposing cones-within-cones. The net result of interacting oppositely-directed linear forces turns-out as a singular vector force spinning about its straight-line axis of rotational a constant angular velocity, which is the observed, actual behavior of a spinning solid sphere.

(9) As an answer to the question, "How is it possible for mass energy to increase in the direction of increasing gravity, if potential weight and specific radiation frequency both decrease in the same direction?", I have concluded that positive wave energy originates only from the most-dense center of a constricted medium; therefore, positive wave energy is the influence of gravity, and an increase of relative mass weight (a relative increase of inertia) is the effective result of gravity. Furthermore, gravitational attraction occurs, not only in the "downward" direction, but also in the "eastward" direction.

(1) What are the actual facts? How much of our knowledge of the solar system, using earth as a basis of comparison, can we consider as absolute truth?

(2) The science of meteorology is probably the best understood of all earth sciences because it is easily observed. It is generally agreed, however, that our knowledge of the earth's structure and behavior below the depth of a very few miles is mostly an educated guess.

(3) Much or our knowledge of earth's interior structure results from the study of earthquake waves. The study of such waves, along with studies of the magnetic field, have led to the presently-accepted conclusion that earth's interior structure consists of a hot liquid iron core surrounded by a solid mantle and outer crust of rock. Some geophysicists now believe that earth's center consists of a very dense radioactive core of solid mass that is hotter than the surface of the sun.

(4) I suggest that earth, or any other spherically constricted atomic medium, does not possess a polarized (north-south) "magnetic" field, as it is presently described by geophysicists. Rather, such constricted media possess a unipolar positive electric center of mass attraction that appears to behave like a simple bar magnet, or electric solenoid. Earth's "magnetic north pole", for example, obviously attracts the "south-end" of a magnetized compass needle, which may be interpreted to mean that earth contains a magnetized core, either ferromagnetic or electromagnetic. But earth's "polar regions" only influence the behaviors of magnets; they do not ordinarily influence the directions of ferromagnetic metals, such as soft iron, that are capable of being magnetized. My interpretation of gravitational attraction has nothing to do with "magnet-like" behavior.

(5) Contrary to the quantum mechanics hypothesis that heavier atomic elements can be synthesized by increasing an already-heavy atom's quantity of nuclear mass, I have proposed that a transmutation of atomic form is a natural process, and that a change-of-form (presently described as a "change-of-state") occurs when an atom's volume is constricted or expanded beyond its value of critical mass density, or critical specific volume. Rapid decay occurs naturally, as evidenced by expanding waves of heat energy emitted from slow burning materials, or rapidly burning explosions of materials. But we also observe evidence of rapid transmutation in the opposite direction when water vapor suddenly turns to ice, and when saturated air condenses to become fog. In the latter example, particles of ice and fog are easily transmuted back to their previous forms by simply increasing their temperatures (specific volume), or by decreasing the mass density of their environment.

(6) Contrary to the presently-accepted model of earth's structure and behavior, I propose that earth's interior becomes more-solid and colder in the direction of its center of gravity, which allows an ideal condition for the super conductance of positive electric currents. The one concept suggested as logical proof of this interpretation is the concept that an object's potential weight decreases if the mass density of its environment increases. In the present sense, I am proposing that spontaneous radioactivity cannot occur at great depths within the earth, because the earth's environment of increased mass density moderates, or decreases the potential weight of any super-dense atom, particularly if the environment consists of cold, solid mass.

(7) Earth's real structure and behavior is a great deal more complicated by the evident fact (interpreted from seismographic data) that its mass density does not actually increase uniformly in the direction of constriction. Just as its atmospheric density and temperature decrease sand increases as an irregular cycle in the upward direction, the earth's density and temperature are, apparently, often reversed in the downward direction. The obvious implication is that the earth's interior structure consists of layers of increasing and decreasing mass density, otherwise described as alternating "layers" of relatively-positive and relatively-negative electric charge. One logical reason for this phenomenon is the possibility that earth's constricting volume of mass occasionally "drops", or "settles" because of increasing gravitational attraction at its most-dense center of mass. If so, the results of "settling" would probably be most apparent (to an observer on the surface) in relatively thin layers near the earth's surface of least-dense mass.

(8) A motion of material occurs, not only in the direction of constriction (settling), but also between layers, as a result of earth's reactive circular gravitational forces. A settling of layers would certainly result as enough compression to transmute atoms to more dense forms of mass, and if circular forces are capable of causing the earth to revolve about its north-south axis, they are certainly capable of creating a great amount of electric potential difference between the shifting layers of different mass density. Occasionally, the different interface layers may separate, leaving pockets of gaseous space where great differences of electric potential result as electric "discharges", or underground flashes of lightning. Such underground lightning may be far more intense than lightning flashes in air, which means that it is quite capable of creating enough heat to melt solid masses of material. In other words, atoms at that depth are forced to rapidly expand beyond their upper limits of critical specific volume to become lighter forms of solids, liquids, and gasses. Just as hydrogen is forced to rise within our atmosphere, hot magma and gases are also forced to rise, and to erupt from earth's surface. In some cases, expanded hot gases are trapped underground by thick layers of cold, solid rock, where they eventually condense to form "pockets" of highly-pressurized petroleum oil and gas.

(9) I have proposed that earth's rotation, including its atmosphere, is caused by eastward-circulating waves of gravitational influence. But circular gravitational waves no not behave in the same manner as radially propagated waves. Whereas, gravitational attractive influence in the radial direction results from a difference of electric potential, there is no difference of electric potential in the circular direction; therefore, gravitational influence in the circular (eastward) direction is constant and simultaneous. And if the influence inconstant and simultaneous, the circular force and resultant motion (within the same layers) of earth's atmosphere are also constant and simultaneous.

(10) I have further proposed that relative wavelength is the effective radius of specific volume, and that the relative wavelength of ether at 160 km is 16.9448 cm/wave. Assuming that circular velocities directly proportional to wavelength velocity (frequency of motion), the circular velocity of ether at 160 km is 785,069.5 cm/sec, which is 4,930.5cm/sec (about 177 km/hr, or 110 miles/hr) slower than the presently accepted minimum orbital velocity of 790,000 cm/sec.

(11) In my opinion, the greatest error in the presently accepted theory of our solar system's origin lies in the belief that angular momentum, as it is presently defined, is somehow related to the distribution of planets within the system.

(12) I have proposed an alternate hypothesis of the origin of our solar system, suggesting that the solar system evolved sequentially from the infinite supply of matter (ether) that has always existed in infinite "space".

(13) The sun, according to my hypothesis, initially evolved from ether; very quickly, at first, as a spherically constricted medium of ice at its most-dense center of gravity, decreasing to the mass density of ether at the medium's outer boundary. The first moments of constriction may be imagined as an implosion of gaseous matter (the same phenomenon that occurs when a vapor condenses to become a liquid), which probably occupied a vast volume of "space". Our sun, like a countless number of other "glittering objects" in our night sky, was once a comet-like spherical medium of highly-reflective ice crystals. In other words, all things that "glitter" in our night sky are not, necessarily, stars.

(14) An "implosion" of gaseous matter means, according to my interpretation, that the resultant constricted volume of the implosion is smaller than its original volume of ether. But, as the volume of ether constricts in order to become more-dense, a new supply of ether moves-in (implodes) to replace the loss of its original volume. Perhaps this is what Einstein had in mind (in his general theory of relativity) when he described gravity as "curves", or "hollows" in the geometry of space-time; the greater the gravity, the deeper the hollows.

(15) Our sun evolved from a sequence of implosions, or collapses of structure, that began at its center of gravity, or its center of most-dense mass constriction. An implosion of mass occurs when the most-dense atoms constrict beyond their maximum limits of critical mass density, which is defined as a transmutation to more-dense forms of mass. Such collapses of structure were very cataclysmic events, which created great differences of positive electric potential that resulted in violent, catastrophic settlings of the protozoans surface structure. And each implosion of solid structure resulted as an equally violent explosion of mass in the sun's lower atmosphere.

(16) I have estimated that ether atoms, like all other atoms, cannot expand to more than three times their mean proportional specific volumes of 59,049.0 cm3/gm, meaning that the maximum limit of specific volume cannot exceed 177,147.0 cm3/gm (5.6450x10-6 gm/cm3). According to my theory, such fully-expanded ether atoms must be conducting negative wave energy at the specific radiation frequency of 3.0501x1015 waves/sec, which is well beyond the visible spectrum of "electromagnetic" waves. Furthermore, In order to achieve this limit of expansion at a star's outer surface of atmosphere, the star's central structure of mass must implode to a maximum limit of constricted mass density at 177,147.0 gm/cm3 (also the maximum limit of coldness at 5.6450x10-6 cm3/gm).

(17) We must logically assume that the radiation frequency of our sun's visible surface is less than the above estimate; therefore, the specific volume and radiation conductance frequency of ether must decrease between the sun and earth. This is a logical assumption because we know, in fact, that the heat factor of radiant energy must decrease with increasing distance, according to the inverse square law. However, if such is actually the case, the logical implication is that frequency and wavelength both decrease, which means that the velocity of the sun's image-conductance must also decrease. In other words, the speed of light conductance in the vast medium of ether cannot be constant.

(18) I have concluded that our sun is merely an average-sized star, and that the heat factor (specific volume) of its visible surface has now evolved to about 102,275.8681 cm3/gm, or about 9.7775x10-6 gm/cm3. Such atoms would be radiating negative wave energy at the specific radiation frequency of about 1.7610x1015 waves/sec, which, according to my interpretation, occurs between the nineteenth and twentieth events of constricted core-implosions. In my opinion, no star, or any other medium of constricted atoms, can ever evolve beyond the "twentieth event".

(19) Following the twelfth event of constriction, the sun's original atmosphere flattened and separated into ten distinct, condensed rings of accretive matter that were later drawn into hoop-like rings, which further condensed into separate, twisting, rope-like strands. The strands later became separated to form partial-rings, called arcs. We may imagine that circular attraction caused the individual arcs to shorten, or condense; finally, into separate spherically-shaped clouds of primordial planet-satellite systems. Since the rope-like strands were twisted, we may assume that a revolving motion existed, and that the revolving motion continued after the arcs evolved into planet-satellite systems. Meanwhile, motion within the rings, as well as exposure to the highly-reducing difference of electric potential between ether and the cloudy rings of condensing matter, caused a great number of icy "clumps", or meteoroids to collect throughout the circulating rings, in addition to the evolving planets and satellites.

Much later, the spherically-shaped clouds further condensed, or constricted, and evolved in the same manner as the imploding sun to become the planets, satellites, and asteroids of our present solar system. As each of the planet's and satellite's weight of accreting mass had continued to increase, its orbital velocity around the sun had continued to decrease. But, the velocities of the icy meteoroids that still remained in the circulating system's path had not decreased. While slowing down, the individual planet-satellite systems were being bombarded (tailgated) by the meteoroids that had condensed from the primordial cloudy rings. Many of the resulting "meteor craters" are, in fact, still remaining.

(20) Regarding the evolution of the earth-moon system, I have suggested that the earth and moon evolved simultaneously, and in a manner similar to the constriction-events of the sun; the great exception being that the earth and moon, as well as all of the other planet-satellite systems, skipped the comet-like implosions of ether because they evolved from previously-constricted mass.

(21) According to my "constriction" hypothesis, earth's constricted atomic volume is three times greater than the presently-accepted unconstricted volume, and the maximum density of mass at its center of gravity is now 27.81 gm/cm3. Earth's constricted solid mass is now 1.7137x1028gm (2.87 times more than the presently-accepted estimate). Likewise, themes of earth's constricted atmosphere is now 4.7593x1025 gm, or about 9,267.0 times more than the presently-accepted estimate of 5.136x1021 gm. However, the presently-accepted estimate does not include earth's water and water vapor, which, in my opinion, is actually a part of the atmosphere; nor does it account for the constriction-property of specific volume. My estimate of earth's total constricted mass, including its atmosphere, is 1.7185x1028gm, compared to the presently-accepted estimate of 5.979x1027 gm (again, about 2.87 times greater than the presently-accepted quantity, even though my estimate of the atmosphere's mass is much greater).

(22) It is well known by astronomers that the earth and moon, considered as a singular system, both revolve around a common" effective center of mass", called a barycenter, and that the position of the earth-moon barycenter is about 4.7x108 cm (earth's barycenter radius) from earth's center of mass. The average distance from earth's center to the moon's center is estimated to be 3.8240x1010 cm; therefore the moon's effective barycenter radius is 3.7770x1010 cm. It is also well known that the product of earth's mass and barycenter radius is equivalent to the product of the moon's mass and barycenter radius. I have thus determined that the moon's mass is now 2.1385x1026 gm, which is about 2.91 times greater than the presently-accepted estimate of 7.354x1025 gm. The combined masses of the earth-moon system are 1.7399x1028 gm, which is, again, about 2.87 times more than the presently-accepted quantity of 6.0525x1027 gm.

(23) I have concluded that the masses of the sun and its entire system of planets, satellites, and asteroids are incorrect, as they are presently reported. The reason that they are incorrect, in my opinion, is because the solar system's mass cannot be estimated according to Newton's law of universal gravitation. Newton interpreted the inverse square law to mean that, if the surface area of a sphere represents a fixed-amount of gravity, that amount of gravity must be reduced to one-fourth the original amount if the sphere's radius is doubled, or increased to four times the original amount if the sphere's radius is halved. On the contrary, I suggest that the influence of circular gravity is directly proportional to a sphere's circumference, rather than its surface area; therefore, circular gravitational force, or torque, is proportional to radius, not to the "square" of radius. Unlike spherically-propagated wave energy, which does conform to the inverse square law, the planet-satellite masses of the solar system are distributed within a plane of circular gravitational influence that extends outward from the sun's equator, and perpendicular to the sun's axis of rotation. This same distribution of mass occurs within each of the planet-satellite systems, and there does not appear to be a single exception, within a reasonable tolerance, to this observation.

(24) Computed by my "barycenter torque" method, I have estimated the sun's constricted mass, including its atmosphere, to be about 5.3757x1033 gm, which is 2.87 times greater than the presently-accepted estimate of 1.991x1033 gm, and about 308,966.0 times more than my estimate of the total mass of the earth-moon system. As presently accepted, the sun's mass is about 328,953.0 times more than that of the earth-moon system.

(25) Mercury's mass is 4.4903x1028 gm, which is 141.1584 times more than the presently accepted estimate of 3.1810x1026 gm. However, the reason for Mercury's greater mass is because its mean proportional solid mass density is about 248.1103 gm/cm3, which implies that Mercury's solid outer structure consists of at least one layer of moderating, unconstricted, very dense mass, in addition to an insulating outer layer of atomic carbon. Furthermore, I have estimated that Mercury's surface temperature, according to the inverse square law, is about 3,797° K (3,524° C), which is hot enough to boil away most of the known atomic elements (even plutonium). Only a few elements (tungsten, platinum, uranium, molybdenum, and a feathers) have sufficiently high boiling-point temperatures that can withstand such heat. The highest boiling-point temperature of all known elements is that of atomic carbon, which has a boiling-point temperature of 4,827° C. As presently accepted, the temperature of Mercury's surface is estimated to vary from about 13° K on the night side to about 683° K (only 113° K hotter than earth's upper atmosphere) on the day side.

The solid surface of Venus, on the other hand, is insulated by a very dense atmosphere, which, according to my estimate, is subjected to a temperature of about 1,091.0° K (818.0° C, or 1,504.4° F) at its outer limits. [Sodium boils at 882.9° C.] As presently accepted, the average temperature of Venus' solid surface is estimated to be about 190° C (374° F). The Soviet Venera space probes actually measured temperatures up to 900° F on the Venusian surface. Evidently, the dense Venusian atmosphere is a very poor conductor of heat.

(1) I cannot define it; yet, I am led to think that light is nothing more than a visible influence that helps us to "feel" something without touching it. Einstein once said that he had spent his whole lifetime trying to understand the nature of light.

(2) Is the conductance velocity of light's image constant within a vacuum? In this case, our decision is dependent upon the answer to another question: How much vacuum? As I have previously concluded, ether atoms are the least-dense atoms in existence, but, like all other atoms, they are capable of expanding. If my theory is correct, we must conclude that a "perfect vacuum" is obtained within a medium of fully-expanded ether. But, if negative wave energy can only be radiated while an atom is expanding, we must further conclude that an image of light cannot be radiated within a "perfect vacuum". In other words, an image of light emitted by a distant star can only be conducted throughout the medium of ether by atoms that are more dense than fully-expanded ether atoms. Therefore, as the "vacuum" of ether constricts, it becomes more dense; albeit, more dense by a very small quantity. Nevertheless, an increase of relative mass density in ether is the same as an increase of relative mass density in air, and we know from actual experimental evidence that the speed of light is decreased within earth's relatively dense atmosphere of air.

(3) As an example of the above analysis, I have estimated (from an increase of specific volume, or heat factor) that the relative wavelengths of ether atoms at the sun's visible surface are 20.1150 cm/wavelength. Likewise, the relative wavelengths of ether atoms at earth's outer atmosphere are 16.7495 cm/wavelength. I have also concluded that the standard wave frequency of mass is 1.7218x1010 waves/sec, which is constant for all forms of mass, regardless of volume; therefore, the conductance velocity of wave energy at the sun's visible surface is 3.4634x1011 cm/sec, and the conductance velocity of wave energy at the outer boundary of earth's atmosphere is 2.8839x1011cm/sec, which is a 17% reduction in the velocity of our sun's influence of wave energy.

(4) According to Snell's law, the velocity of light in air near earth's surface is reduced to a velocity of about 2.9970x1010cm/sec, as a result of the air's optical density. Assuming, as presently accepted, that light is a form of electromagnetic wave energy, the relative wavelength of atmosphere conducting light at that velocity must be (according to my method) about 1.7406 cm/wave. The specific volume (V = 4r3) of such atmosphere is about 66.2684 cm3/gm, or a relative mass density of about.0151 gm/cm3. Allowing for the mass density of water vapor in earth's lower atmosphere, then, a wave velocity of 2.9970x1010 cm/sec is logically reasonable.

(5) The great differences between presently-accepted theory and my own interpretations are: (1) I have proposed that the absolute frequency of wave conductance is constant, but that relative, or specific radiation frequency increases with an increase of specific volume (present theory suggests that wave frequency increases with an increase of electromagnetic wave intensity). (2) I have proposed that relative wavelength increases as a result of increasing specific volume, or decreasing relative mass density (present theory states that wavelength decreases with an increase of intensity). (3) I have concluded that, since absolute frequency is constant within any medium, wave velocity (including "light") is directly proportional to relative wavelength (present theory suggests that the speed of light is constant, but only within a vacuum).

(6) Einstein concluded that time, like motion, is relative. At the speed of light, he suggested, length shrinks to zero, and time standstill. Contrary to Einstein's proposition, I have concluded that time Is an artificial, constantly increasing mathematical quantity. An increase of time, in my opinion, is always constant, because motion, which is an absolute function of wave frequency, is forever constant, even if it only occurs within individual, apparently motionless atoms.

(7) An effective increase of mass weight (inertia), or an effective increase of radial gravity, occurs as an absolute decrease of specific volume. But relative wavelength decreases in the direction of increasing radial gravity, which implies that the velocity of gravity decreases in that direction; therefore, the motions of spherically propagated gravitational waves, like spherically propagated waves of energy, must be an apparent phenomenon.

(8) The absolute spherical volume of a star is a great deal less than the absolute volume of its original medium of ether, which implies that the star's present spherical gravitational influence must extend, at least, to the extent of its original volume of ether. But this implication is misleading because it only accounts for the displacement of ether atoms that transmute to more-dense forms of mass. What about the ether atoms in the far reaches of "space" that are displaced, even by the wavelength of a single atom, in order to replace those lost within the star's original volume, otherwise described as the "hollows" of Einstein's curving space? In this case, their motions, described as Brownian motion, are relatively insignificant, but absolute, at the far reaches of space. On the contrary, the Brownian motions of ether atoms must increase, at a rate directly proportional to the square of distance, in the radial direction of increasing gravity. Evidently, it is in this manner that "matter" is accreted by planets and stars. I am thus led to agree with Newton's conclusions of gravity as they apply to "objects of mass". But I am further led to conclude that apparent waves of gravity and apparent waves of "light" occur as equal but opposite motions within the same pulse of energy. Yet, the influence of gravity and the influence of light (as an image) are absolute. In other words, the effective attractive force of spherical gravity extends as far as the influence of radiant heat energy, whether it is visible (light), or not. Theoretically, then, radial gravitational wave energy is the equivalent quantity, but opposite electric motion of negative anti mass (heat) energy.

(9) Thinking in the sense of logical implications, rather than mathematical probabilities, I am led to ask: How can we measure distance beyond earth's atmosphere if we cannot rely on the supposed "constant velocity of light" beyond our atmosphere?

According to my theory, a distant star's color cannot be used as a reliable description of its energy because "reflected light" displays the same spectroscopic characteristics as "original light". However, since relative wavelength is (according to my interpretation) proportional to specific volume, or heat factor, might we not assume that an accurate measurement of a star's temperature is truly a relative measure of the star's wave energy, which is directly proportional to the star's atomic volume? If so, we could also equate luminosity to brightness, because brightness is a measure of light emission per unit of surface area, which is directly proportional to volume. Astronomers believe that the masses of about 90% of the stars (the main sequence) increase with increasing stellar volume; therefore, a star's rate of energy radiation (luminosity) is proportional to its mass.

(10) According to Wien's law, the temperature of a radiation source (a distant star) is inversely proportional to the electromagnetic wavelength at which maximum radiation is emitted; the hotter the star, the bluer its color, and the cooler the star, the redder its color. This relationship of star temperature and wavelength (determined by interpretations of spectral line characteristics) is incorrect, in my opinion; although, it is quite evident that, within real-world conditions, the radiant energy of a white-hot object is greater than that of a red-hot object. According to my theory, relative wavelength is directly proportional to specific volume, or heat factor; therefore, the greater a star's volume, the greater its relative wavelength, and the greater its visible surface temperature.

Nowadays, astronomers possess the technology, if it's interpreted correctly, to accurately measure a distant star's temperature. And, if my theory is correct, there is no need for a round-about method of estimating stellar distances. We must, however, compensate for a reduction of wave velocity, which implies that stars are less distant than we now think they are. For example, if apparent brightness is proportional to apparent volume, Alpha Centauri (our nearest star) is only about (89) 2 times more distant than our sun, or about 1.1850x1012 km, which is about 3%% of its presently-accepted distance.

(11) There are even more-astounding implications. For one, the universe could not possibly have originated as proposed by the big-bang theory. If, indeed, our solar system evolved from atoms of ether, as proposed according to my sequential formation hypothesis, the universe, itself, had to evolve sequentially. And, at some time after the central mass of the universe became dense enough to cause rotation about its axis, it must have begun to flatten, as did our solar system. When I often look in wonder at the concentration of stars within the "band" of our so-called Milky Way galaxy, I cannot imagine such a vast extent of distance and matter, relative to the apparent separation of closer stars, as being a mere galaxy. I can only imagine that I am looking into the heart of our flattened universe.

(12) I believe that the single, most important quantity that physicists and astronomers have not been able to prove, beyond any doubt, is the speed of light beyond our atmosphere, or the speeds of radar waves over great distances, which have been assumed to be the universal standard for long-distance measurements.

As an alternate hypothesis, I agree with Laplace that, in accordance with my concept of much-shortened distances, spiral galaxies are actually evolving "solar systems", appearing as our own maturing solar system must have appeared long ago. Depending on their actual distances from us, with respect to constantly increasing time, we may assume that other such "solar systems" have also further matured; therefore, our universe also continues to evolve. But is it continually "expanding", as suggested by Hubble, or is it continually constricting, as suggested by my "reciprocal" theory?

(13) If we accept that radial image velocity must decrease with increasing distance, regardless of the original emission velocity, we must then conclude that our universe is a great deal smaller than it's presently believed to be. Hubble, in 1929, announced his famous law of red shifts, which states that "the more distant a galaxy, the greater, in direct proportion, is its velocity of recession (determined by the shift of its spectral lines to longer, or redder, wavelengths)". According to my theory, the "redder" (shortened) wavelength indicates that the velocity of conducted light from such a distant object is decreased because of its great distance. In other words, the light from the galaxy requires a greater amount of time to reach us because of decreased conductance velocity; not because of the galaxy's velocity of recession. Our universe, therefore, may not be expanding because of outward motion, but, rather, because of growing numbers of stars at the universe's outer boundary. Logically, the stars of our flattened universe behave like the planets of our solar system; that is, they circulate (orbit) at fixed distances from the universe's central axis of rotation. Since new stars are always cooler than old stars, and since the outer periphery of the universe is the youngest, it is to be expected that new stars would always be formed at the outer periphery. This is opposite to the expanding universe (big-bang) hypothesis, which requires that peripheral stars must have formed first; therefore, they must be the oldest.

Furthermore, I have concluded that electrically neutral ether does not exist anywhere within this universe. This does not mean, however, that unpolarized atoms of electrically neutral ether cannot exist beyond any influence of gravity and heat. On the contrary, there is no logical reason to think that a medium of electrically neutral ether cannot exist in total darkness beyond this universe; therefore, we cannot conclude that other universes do not exist, or that infinite ether is not a logical possibility.

(14) Only after examining the consistencies of behavior between a single sub-particle, a single atom, and a single universe of atoms, could I understand the significance of specific volume, and the logical mechanisms of electric charge. If mass weight per unit volume is a true measure of numbers of atoms, it is also a true measure of actual positive electric charge per unit volume; thus, an isolated constricted medium's total atomic volume, whether a single atom, a single planet, or a single star, is a measure of its positive electric charge, or its positive charge intensity.

(15) In my opinion, our past mistakes began by accepting the theory that "unlike" charges are attractive, and that "like" charges are repulsive. But such a conclusion is not inductively unreasonable, considering the belief that a difference of electric charge is an inherent characteristic of different kinds of particles, and that such particles (like free-falling objects) possess energy as a result of their motions.