Thursday, January 15, 2015

What is the Origin of Earth's Water Supply?

Because of the recent measurements done by Rosetta Mission on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, and a paper released a month ago; it is in vogue to debate the origin of Earth's water supply. Here is the new article:…/early/2014/12/09/science.1261952

Abstract: The provenance of water and organic compounds on the Earth and other terrestrial planets has been discussed for a long time without reaching a consensus. One of the best means to distinguish between different scenarios is by determining the D/H ratios in the reservoirs for comets and the Earth’s oceans. Here we report the direct in situ measurement of the D/H ratio in the Jupiter family comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the ROSINA mass spectrometer aboard ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, which is found to be (5.3 ± 0.7) × 10−4, that is, ~3 times the terrestrial value. Previous cometary measurements and our new finding suggest a wide range of D/H ratios in the water within Jupiter family objects and preclude the idea that this reservoir is solely composed of Earth ocean-like water.

The pop views seem to be that the water supply came via comets and asteroids, or the Sun.  The measurements done on the comets seem to challenge these ideas.

Personally, I hold to assumption that Earth and perhaps most planets and moons are old dark stars, older than the currently accepted age of the Universe. They evolve from an active fusing phase of development. Over time the star sheds atoms, stops fusing and changes. This is not a popular assumption to hold to and I've already been ridiculed by a friend for holding to this. However a few thinkers have come to this idea and although I don't necessarily agree with all of their ideas, I have a listed references and quotes here in the past.

The Earth's water supply could have been homegrown, that is chemically synthesized at a certain phase of Earth's stellar evolution. Or perhaps the water supply could have been supplemented to the Earth prior to the succession of locations it assumed close to the Sun; prior to when it got locked into a gravitational relationship with the Sun (in an inverse square regime). In other words the Earth could have marched around the galaxy as a rogue star/planet, and perhaps taken in water from interstellar clouds. Or perhaps Earth could have crossed close to other stars such as TW Hydrae (a young star erupting H2O) prior to coming close to the Sun. Prior to coming close to the Sun, I think the Earth was froze over; a hodgepodge of chemicals such as water, methane, ammonia, CO2 (dry ice), carbon monoxide and other volatiles. Underneath the ice was probably a liquid water supply with more chemicals and rock. Earth would have appeared as an astonishing desert. An ice world, like Hoth from Star Wars. And the moon? Well Earth and Moon could be a binary star system. The Moon looks older than the Earth to me. Heck some Moon rocks were radiometrically dated around 12 billion years. They took a mean date. Jupiter and her moons were once a star system that crossed paths with the Sun and so on.

Now this view is not the popular or accepted view. People accustomed to nebular hypothesis and Big-Bang Universe would heavily criticize these ideas. But you know I would just shrug my shoulders. If you invoke Big-Bang I would laugh because its assumptions are ridiculous. If you invoke radiometric dating, I would say time is subjective, observer dependent. Atoms do not remember when to decay in accord with your predefined contexts. Besides how would one date lava? And decay seems random. Who is to say that decay rates would not vary pending an astronomical object's location or an atom's location? We all agree the Sun has some pretty profound effects on the Earth and her atoms. And make manifest to me the decay process. Is it billiard balls moving in and out of the atom? Are you going to invoke the mystical binding energy, again? Radiometric dating is sophisticated guesswork. If you invoke supernova theory, I will say if every star goes supernova why are there not more observed? And nebular hypothesis well I have a collection of criticisms of that bloated assumption filled with ad hoc.

And as far as current astrophysical evidence suggests we have just discovered thousands of so called exoplanets. Some of these planets are in star systems that defy nebular hypothesis. In addition there are rogue planets and moons not in inverse square gravitational relationships with younger stars. So I hold to the idea that a star is a young planet, and a planet is an old star. I think this is the future. And it is fascinating because there could be so many variables. But think of it. We could be living on something that was once a star.

Inertial Mass and Res Omnes

Modern inertial mass is a seminal concept in Newton's work. Inertial mass refers to a static concept. A picture. Inertial mass refers to an object's resistance to being pushed and pulled by other objects in the vicinity. In this context we could replace the word 'object' with 'atom' or 'proton'. Then we have to ask ourselves how is it that this object, this atom, resists being pushed or pulled by other objects in the vicinity? The reasonable explanation seems that an atom's resistance originates in all the atoms of the Universe gently nudging that atom from all directions . . . toward them. AS WELL that sample atom gently nudging on all atoms of the Universe toward it. All the atoms of the Universe are in a constant tension with one another. When an atom assumes a succession of locations all atoms of the Universe gently nudge on it and it gently nudges on all atoms.

When a proton (or H atom) moves in a given direction by the proton's in the vicinity, for example in what we call gravity, the same is tugged in the opposite direction by all other atoms of the Universe. Inertial mass is always in the direction(s) opposite the net effect of gravity. It seems very reasonable to assume that all the atoms of the Universe are physically connected by some sort of fundamental object that is inherent to the atoms, to the very protons themselves . . . ALL OF THEM.

Newton came very close to this conclusion when since he thought that the resistive forces were innate to the object. He uses the expression "innate force possessed by an object" or "innate resistive forces". What he failed to do is explain HOW or WHY these resistive forces are innate to all objects, and in our modern context all atoms. He did not understand the Form of an atom. An atom derives, or assumes it's Form from the same object that performs the work of light, gravity and inertia to and from all atoms. We could call this a double helix EM Thread, and there is a grand scope of implications that such an assumption entails. The object that performs the work of light to and from all atoms has wholly unique properties (such as the ability to superpose, overlap, or intersect without disturbance up to some critical anomaly or density). These properties are assumed by the atom itself for the atom seems to assume its Form from the same object. This is one of the reason's why we have seemingly inexplicable anomalies at the quantum scale.

When two objects, say stars, like the Sun and the Earth come close, the number of these double helix thread connections INCREASES, exponentially in effectiveness. A decrease in distance, between the two sample objects in Newton's equation, say Earth and Sun, spontaneously generates a geometric increase in the number of effective thread like EM helices connecting all the atoms of these two objects. The M1 and M2 in Newton's equation represent the number of potential connections. When Earth and Sun are theoretically separated at great distances, beyond the inverse square regime, the nudging between the two is unidirectional and this would perhaps almost be the same between Earth and a star in Andromeda. Ineffective in terms of the concept of gravity, but effective in terms of inertia. When the two stars come close enough, many pairs of atoms are in a sideways tension with one another at various angles. The tension is multi-directional, a sideways tension from multiple locations. Effective. The 'innate resistive forces' are happening at various angles between the two objects considered in the equation and used for explanation.  The net effect of local tension (gravity) is as if objects are being pulled straight down toward one another, but in statement in fact in assumption, an astronomical object like Earth or Sun would have effective EM ropes from multiple locations opposite the target object considered. Many pair of atoms between these two objects are in tension with one another at various angles.  The closer they are the steeper the angles of many atoms nudging on one another.

We can use this assumption that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by an double helix EM thread to make manifest and define inertial mass so that this concept is crisp, clear and used consistently in all physical contexts. For example we could use this definition in context to Einstein's equation. That equation seems to tell us that inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light because we have c squared on the right side of the equation with m. Atoms constantly flickering light signals to and from all atoms via the fundamental physical mediator of light (which connects all atoms) maintains this bi-directional tension necessary to explain inertia. This bi-directional tension maintained by the atom's constant work of light (or radiation) obeys Newton's action-reaction principle. For every radiation the atom performs there is an equal and opposite reaction. From here we could get into Mach's principle.

E on the left side of Einstein's equation refers to an atom's capacity to do the work of light. All E does is calculate an object's capacity to do the work of light, specifically receive and send off light signals. What is interesting is that the more resistance an object has to being pushed or pulled is proportional to that object's capacity to do the work of light. An exponential increase in an object's 'Energy' or capacity to do the work of light seems to imply that that object has more fundamental and permanent connections to all the atoms of the Universe. So a Caesium atom has more fundamental and permanent connections to all the atoms of the Universe than a Hydrogen atom.

Matter is an ill-defined concept come out of Greece.

We could define it as the set of objects, or the set of existing objects.

The fundamental unit of matter is the atom, but there also seems to be an object that is more fundamental connecting all atoms and from which all atoms are derived.  This is an EM Rope or double helix thread.  This object is inseparable to all the base hydrogen atoms (or protons), or in other words the proton assumes its Form or derives its From from this fundamental object.

Object refers to that which has Form

Exist refers to that which has Form and location OR simply that which stands out.  Atoms and the fundamental object connecting all atoms exists in spite of the fact that the features of the atom (e.g. proton, electron, neutron) as well as the fundamental object has unique properties, such as the ability to superpose, overlap or intersect to a critical density or critical anomaly which initiates fundamental interactions (such as light, push, pull, etc.).

Mass (Inertial) refers to an an object's resistance to being pushed or pulled by objects in its close vicinity.

Energy refers to an object's capacity to do work (in Einstein's equation the work referred to is distinctly the work of light or radiation)

Monday, January 12, 2015

Trees, Trees, Trees . . .

Permaculture Logo found in Bill Mollison's Introduction to Permaculture

A tree is like a two way fountain.

A tree has a capability to pump clean and fresh water downward, deeper into the soil so as to wash away salts, thus helping maintain the health of the soil. Her roots help maintain the health and integrity of the soil, and regulate subterranean water systems.

A tree can also pump clean and fresh water into the atmosphere, helping to form clouds so as to spread water near and far. They do this in a process they call transpiration. Trees are an essential mediator of the Earth's water cycle. Why is there no rain in the desert? Lack of trees, lack of plants. Cut down trees you lose fresh surface water to the ocean.

A tree can perform many other tasks. It has a great capacity to do work. They have the ability to stimulate objects of their surrounding and help maintain living objects. Trees are the machines God gave us. We don't need an overabundance of technology because the greatest objects of invention are already given to us. All we need to do is understand how to use them and where to place them. Observing nature helps us to learn.  See that tree on top of a hill or up in the mountains?  Do you think God or Mother Nature placed it there by mistake?  A tree is connected to all the atoms of the Universe, not to mention all the objects of this Earth.  We have to conceive how they work in connection to all things of this Earth and then imitate.  

Trees play a profound role in Earth's ecosystem.

A tree can

* Provide harvest to man and animal (fruits, nuts, etc.)

* Provide mulch to cover the soil so that a farmer or gardener doesn't have to til. He can just throw a clay seed ball underneath the mulch and let it spring up.

* Work as a canopy to protect species of plants and animals and Man from overexposure to the Sun. Grass used to feed cattle grows better with some tree cover.

* Provide oxygen to the atmosphere (as the ocean steels from the atmosphere because we've dumped so many metals into the oceans).

* Work as a windbreak. If you cut down whole forests guess what happens? Air rushes across the Earth's surface further than it would have had the forests not been cut down. This may induce more extreme temperature shifts. Trees can also work as a windbreak to funnel high velocity air to windmills.

* Improve the soil. Trees can draw up nutrients, help maintain soil intregrity, help keep bacteria in soils, help pump fresh water downgrade, pushing salts deeper.

* Habitat: serve as the home of many species from birds to monkeys. This is good because the presence of these animals helps to fertilize the soil.

* Rain Dispersal: hinted at above. Some natural farmers never irrigated because they thought their trees would provide enough rain. They surround and bedeck their crops with trees. Think of a Rain Forest!

* Guilds: they help a diversity plants underneath, as well as other trees and vice versa. All living things are interrelated. Certain living forms help each other. Some diversity is good. Planting an orchard of a single species is bad.  Monoculture is human ignorance and arrogance. Planting a diversity of fruit trees makes it more difficult for harmful insects to take out a whole orchid because they have to run an obstacle course of diverse species.

* Pollen: Provide pollen to bees which are slowly disappearing from the Earth.

* Tiller:  Trees till soil.

* Wipe one's ass.  One can use the leafs of a tree to wipe one's ass or blow one's nose instead of cutting down the tree to provide the paper so as to wipe one's ass or blow one's nose.  

Thank God for trees! One would think that understanding this one would only cut down a tree if absolutely necessary. Understanding this would prevent us from doing stupid things like cutting down whole forests for sordid newspapers, pornographic magazines, and endless New York bestseller novels. One would think that natives and governments would never allow trees to be senselessly cut down, especially since we now have other ways of communication.

Anyway why bother complaining? Just enjoy the trees until they become extinct and we along with them. Enjoy the poetry of a tree:

I THINK that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the sweet earth's flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

Trees, by Joyce Kilmer

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Masanobu Fukuoka (Farmer Philosopher)

For this entire year, I am going to introduce themes of agriculture, ecology, horticulture, ecosystem, environment, etc.  Why?  Because I believe that today many admirable people are genuinely working for a better future for Earth and mankind, for example, the permafarmers (those who hold to the ideas of Permaculture and practice the discipline of Permaculture Design).  It is LIKE they are baptized into this mission of rebuilding the Earth and humanity from all the harm it has suffered over the past one hundred to two hundred years.  Perhaps the Spirit has inspired some of those of this new wave.  And I think God will eventually bless and reward all their efforts, for a better Earth, a happier human family, healthier children, and so on.  In addition Pope Francis is working on an encyclical about the environment or climate change. I'm not sure if he is familiar with the grassroots movements happening around the world.  So I want to disseminate ideas about these admirable and smart people, especially to some Catholic who might happen upon this blog.  Some of these ideas may seem radical, and they are, but I always make sure that I never associate myself with fanatics, or extremists.  These are peaceful people who have a good attitude for change, and they work toward it in spite of immense obstacles.  I think some of these ideas are the future.  

Masanobu Fukuoka was a farmer/philosopher from Japan, who lived for most of last century.  Fukuoka rose up as a microbiologist and agricultural scientist.  But after contracting a sickness, he took a sabbatical from his work.  During this sabbatical he had this profound inspiration, that Mother Nature functioned optimally without the control of humans, specifically modern industrialized control.  He began to see how plants and animals function to mutually benefit one another on a grand scale.  From there he sort of invested himself in a mission or a journey for a renewed agriculture.  He is probably one of the greatest farmers ever. He came to some of the same insights and methods as the originators of permaculture, all on his own, in isolation. Few if no one of his country supported him.

His farming technique required no machines, no chemicals and very little weeding. He did not plow the soil or use prepared compost and yet the condition of the soil in his orchards and fields improved each year. His method created no pollution and does not require fossil fuels. His method required less energy than any other, yet the yields in his orchard and fields compare favorably with the most productive Japanese farms which use all the technical know-how of modern science.

To cut this article short here is a quote from Mollison's Permaculture 2:

Perhaps Fukuoka, in his book The One Straw Revolution, has best stated the basic philosophy of permaculture. In brief, it is philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system.

Friday, January 9, 2015

Mollison on Soil, Evidence, Extinction, Tidiness vs. Creativity, & Education

Taken from Bill Mollison's Introduction to Permaculture (1981). Superlative thinking coming from a lofty brain.  These are just introductory brainstorms.  In fact he has helped brainstorm and teach some brilliant agricultural principles and designs, not touched upon here.


Here is something that should be of interest to each of us.  For every head of population - whether you are an American or an East Indian - if you are a grain eater, it now costs about 12 tons of soil per person per year for us to eat grain. All this loss is a result of tillage. As long as you are tilling, you are losing. At the rate at which we are losing soils, we don’t see that we will have agricultural soils within a decade.
. . .

Now the main reason for disappearance of soils is the cutting of forest. And almost always the cutting of the forest is remote from where the soil is lost. That is, you can do nothing if your soil starts to turn salty here, because the reason lies way up the watershed, maybe a thousand miles away. We are now starting to get soil salting in humid climates in Australia. It is becoming a "factor out of place." It is no longer only occurring in deserts. It occurs in quite humid, winter-wet climates. How did this happen?

It is not a simple process, but it is easily understood. The rain, as it falls on hills and penetrates forests, has a net downward transfer. If we remove forests, we now have a net evaporation loss. Forests transmit clean water downward, and they release clean water into the atmosphere. This net downward transfer carries with it the salts which are an inevitable part of that additional four tons of soil per acre which is produced from breakdown of rocks. These salts normally travel on out in deep leads. They are not surface systems. Fresh water runs from the surface and soaks down. Even in humid climates, we have much saltier water at depth than we have on the surface.

This is because the trees act as pumps to keep the leads low.  If we cut the trees down, the deep leads rise at a measurable rate, and they are rising measurably across enormous areas in America, Africa and Australia. When they are up to about three feet below the surface, the trees start to die of "phasmids."

And when they are up to about 18 inches below the surface, other crops start to die. When they reach the surface, they evaporate and the soil visibly goes to salt. Then the Australian government starts providing free pumps to farmers and they start pumping out the salt water. Where can they discard the water they pump out? Big problem!

The largest single factor in Britain causing loss of soils is the construction of highways. It is also a major factor in America. In Britain, I think that there is a mile of highway for every square mile of surface. And highways are being rapidly extended on the supposition that you will never need the soil and that highways will enable you to increase energy use. Highways account for the permanent loss of soils, as do cities.

Cities are located on the 11% of very good soils of the Earth. Canada is an interesting example, where cities are liable to obliterate the top quality soils, without any other factor, and in this decade, leaving agriculturalists to move on to less sustainable situations.

Now all of this, including the energy problem, is what we have to tackle at once. It can be done. It is possible. It is possible to make restitution. We might as well be trying to do something about it as not. We will never get anywhere if we don’t do anything. The great temptation, and one in which the academic takes total refuge, is to gather more evidence. I mean, do we need any more evidence? Or is it time to cease taking evidence and to start remedial action on the evidence already in? In 1950, it was time to stop taking evidence and start remedial action. But the temptation is always to gather more evidence. Too many people waste their lives gathering evidence. Moreover, as we get more evidence, we see that things are worse than they had appeared to be.


The probability of the extinction of a species is greatest when the density is very high or very low. There is a density dependence. You can see how high density is a dangerous thing for species because of very rapid transmission of plague resulting from the exhaustion of critical elements upon which the species depends. It is more difficult to see how very low densities are also critical situations. The factor of number is a factor ignored
by most communes or communities. I don’t think we know of any society of man whose continuance depends on their own genetic health that can exist below 300 in population, and not even at that number without very rigorous genetic control. We are breeding for extinction in several areas. High density populations often also start to include an enormous range of genetic disasters or mutations.

It is possible to make small changes in a general system to bring about a higher chance of survival of the elements of the system, or high yield within the system. There is an horrific statement called the over-run thesis which says: "Our ability to change the face of the Earth increases at a faster rate than our ability to foresee the consequences of that change." And there is the life-ethic thesis, which says that living organisms and living systems are not only means but ends. In addition to their value to man, or their instrumental value to human beings, they have an intrinsic worth which we don’t allow them. That a tree is something of value in itself, even if it has no value to us, that notion is a pretty foreign sort of thought to us. That it is alive and functioning is what is important.

Resources are something you can feed into a system and increase its productivity, or its yield, or the number of useful storages. But if you continue beyond that point of productivity, then the system itself collapses. And that comes down to the statement that any integrated system can only accept that amount of energy that it can productively use. So you can over-manure anything, over-heat anything; you can over-plow anything. Whether we are talking about money or manure, you can put too much of it in. What then happens is first you start to get less and less increase in yield and then more and more increase in a lethal factor. You can’t continue to pour in more of the same thing and get a continued increase in yield. A friend of mine went to Hong Kong. He ran a sort of energy budget on the city, paying a lot of attention to agriculture. He told me that the older Chinese agriculture (weeding by hand) produced, under very intensive conditions, using natural manures, about three times as much energy as it consumed.

Then they modernized, utilizing small tractors, artificial fertilizer, and weeded by little hot jet flames. I think he said that they put 800% more energy in and got a 15% increase in yield. And then as they continued to pour in more energy, the yield decreased. By now they are into the same kick that we have. They only get 4% to 6% of that energy out again. So agriculture went from an energy productive to an energy consuming system, just as the sea has gone from being oxygen producing to oxygen consuming, all because we are putting too much nutrient into it. You can do it to a pond very quickly and to a nation or a continent more slowly.

We should not confuse order and tidiness. Tidiness is something that happens when you have frontal brain damage. You get very tidy. Tidiness is symptomatic of brain damage. Creativity, on the other hand, is symptomatic of a fairly whole brain, and is usually a disordered affair. The tolerance for disorder is one of the very few healthy signs in life. If you can tolerate disorder, you are probably healthy. Creativity is seldom tidy. Tidiness is like the painting of that straight up and down American with his fork and his straight rows. garden is a sign of extraordinary tidiness and functional disorder. You can measure it easily, but it doesn’t yield much. What we want is creative disorder. I repeat, it is not the number of elements in a system that is important, but the degree of functional organization of those elements - beneficial functions.

I think, again, in our general education, and particularly in our primary education, that we get an awful lot of static phenomena taught to us, and cross sectional phenomena. But we are not taught interactive processes, and we are not taught much about the resonance of things. The real world that we live in is in constant flux. Things are on their way somewhere all the time. There isn’t such a thing as a quiet picture of a natural phenomenon. Everything is on its way to other phases. Yet we teach things as sort of rigid truths. We are culturally blocked. It is because it is a scientific culture; we try to measure everything.

There are different ways of coming at things. I can’t handle symbols; some people cannot handle numbers; some cannot handle dimension. This is why it is beneficial to associate in small groups, just to try to bring different lights on the same truths, trying to comprehend the different shadows of reality. This dynamic is lacking in education.

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Permanent Agriculture: Permaculture

There have been rumors and announcements that Pope Francis will release an encyclical about the environment this year. I think this is providential. During the little Tribulation people of developed nations will have to start thinking about their infrastructures and how unwise all their planning and development has been. We live in a very superficial type of modern advancement, a superficial sophistication . . . run by greedy and ruthless people.  In addition, families will be forced to learn ways to sustain themselves.  

Personally, I'm going to devote some time this year to studying permanent agriculture, also known as permaculture. I downloaded a free 100 plus page book written by one of the originators or the concept, Bill Mollison:

Permaculture is a holistic set of visionary ideas about agriculture, horticulture, architecture, ecology, economics, etc. I think concepts nested into permaculture are the future of civilization.  Permaculturists are very bright, and enlightened thinkers and they apply their ideas to great success.      

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

The Inverse Square Law of Light

We are taught that light obeys the inverse square law. Has anyone ever bothered answering HOW or WHY? The Inverse Square Law for Light is perhaps solved by the assumption that all the atoms of the Universe are physically connected by a fundamental double helix EM Thread that mediates light signals. Lets see if I can give a little manifestation of this descriptive law.

The law for light could be stated as follows:
The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light from a point source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an imaginary object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy.

The point source could be an atom or a star. Every single atom of the Universe is connected to that object that serves as the point source, whether atom or star via a twined and taut electromagnetic thread emanating rectilinearly, or orthogonally from that source to all atoms. The total potential energy of that point source is basically proportional to the number of atoms, i.e. number of atoms in the star or light bulb, etc. For one atom, the potential is derived from that atom's fundamental and permanent connection to all atoms of the Universe via this double helical thread by which the atom constantly torques light signals of all and various frequencies (or link lengths) to all atoms. If we consider one atom, or one star, with decreasing distance we find that all of these 'EM Ropes' converge upon it from all other atoms, hence more capacity in the work of light per conceptual unit area. Inversely with increasing distance from the atom all of these 'EM Ropes' spread out to all other atoms, hence less capacity in the work of light per unit area.

Since, at least, from our galactic neighborhood it seems that all atoms of the Universe are for all practical purposes distributed evenly on the largest scales . . . as we conceptually relate further and further away from that source object the double helical EM Threads, signalling light, emerge out of superposition on course to all other atoms. The closer we get to that source the double helical EM Threads begin to converge upon the source object, thus intensifying the light capacitance per unit area. For unit area we could imagine placing an object the same size as the unit area so AS IF to intercept the light signals propagating to atoms across the Universe. Below, the total number of EM Ropes frequenting light signals per unit area is our Intensity in the equation E = I/r2. For light energy is proportional to frequency.

Point sources are always idealized. Energy quantities vary. Lets do an idealized thought experiment. Lets say that a hydrogen atom is our point source. And lets just say that there are 1 * 10 to the 90 H atoms in our Universe. And let’s just say that this hydrogen atom’s electron or set of electron threads faces a third of the hydrogen atoms of the Universe. This electron will frequents light signals to all of these atoms via the EM Ropes converging and superposing with that electron. The EM Ropes have a capacity to mediate light at any and all frequencies. They will represent our I (intensity at the surface of a sphere or per unit area). The electron flickers sending a set of signals to 1 * 10 to the 30 H atoms.

At 1 kilometer (r) we find the unit area (A) where there is still 1 * 10 to the 30 EM Ropes (I). Twice that distance, 2 kilometers (2r) there will be a fourth of the EM Ropes per unit area. So in each quarter area we should find about 2.5 * 10 to the 29 EM Ropes (give or take if the atoms of the Universe are distributed slightly anisotropically). Three times that distance, 3 kilometers (3r) there will be a ninth of the EM Ropes per unit area. And so on. Why? Because the EM Ropes originating in that H atom 'fan out' of superposition in decreasing sets, with increasing distance, in their nexus to all the atoms of all the stars of the galaxies toward which the electron points.

Eventually, we see that at 1* 10 to the 15 kilometers a there will be single EM Rope per unit area originating in the source object. The distance would of this single EM Rope per unit area would begin at a little over a light year. So at about 1 light year we have EM Ropes originating in that H atom distributed more or less evenly in an enormous imaginary arc of the sky. They will no longer fan out of superposition. They will all be distinctly signaling their target atoms without interference. However if the assumption is sound, all these EM Ropes should eventually end on an atom somewhere across the Universe. The closer they get to their target atom connecting it to the 'point' source the more EM Ropes they will converge with from all other atoms of the Universe.

At some distance all of these EM Ropes will have ended on atoms or stars, so we will have 0 EM Ropes per unit area at a distance (Xr). All EM Ropes and atoms will eventually end and there will be nothing.

Now if we enter a star into the equation as the point source . . . something opposite will happen. With increasing distance we will get every single H atom of the star to superpose their EM Ropes connecting them all to one lone Hydrogen atom somewhere out there across the Universe. So we will get a Bird Beak structure of EM Ropes emerging from the star. The Earth is bathed in these extraneous EM Ropes which do not end on the Earth. And so perhaps we can call these neutrinos. These should converge by about 1 light year in the direction toward their target atom. And again with decreasing distance toward the target atom all those highways of light will 'fan out of superposition' in sets with decreasing distance and connect their target atom.

There is also an inverse square law for electrostatics. I imagine that the law can be explained using the supposed helical electron threads which twist out of the proton or nucleus in a similar manner than that of the double helix EM Thread. Electrical influence and capacity decreases per unit area with increasing distance away from the nucleus. Only these tend to be much shorter, so the distances and scales would be extremely tiny.