Now let us consider in a new light this property of matter which we call weight. What is weight? It is defined as "the measure of the force with which bodies tend toward the earth's center, or the quality thus measured." It is also defined as "the downward pressure due to gravity, diminished by the centrifugal force due to the earth's rotation." Nothing in Nature could be more variable and more relative than weight, for any mass which has weight in respect to the earth has a different weight in every variation of its position in relation to the earth. A pound of anything weighs more at the poles than at the equator; and less than a pound on the mountain top; and less as its distance from the earth increases. This we know. It is admitted as a proven fact of experiment. This being admittedly true, there must be a point somewhere in space where the weight of any object leaving the earth has no weight in respect to it. This must be so. It is illogical otherwise.

Let us determine from further consideration of this principle if the moon has not risen from the earth to a point in space where it has no weight in respect to the earth or to any other planet, or to the sun. Let us also determine if there is not a mutual point somewhere in space where something rising from the earth and from the moon have no weight in respect to either body. Let us determine whether there are not low pressure points between all masses in the universe which are mutual centers of repulsion, or radiative centers in the same sense that there are mutual centers of attraction, or gravitative centers. To determine this would clear an age-long mystery.

In other words, is space polarized just as mass is polarized? I believe that space is as definitely polarized as mass is. I believe that there is an invisible bar magnet between every two masses in the universe, the poles of which are the positive and negative plus and minus equilibrium positions which act as controls of the relations between the two masses. One of these is the mutual gravitative center around which both masses swing. It exerts its force in drawing both masses together. The other is the mutual radiative center which holds both of the masses away at arm's length and exerts itself to its utmost in thrusting both masses farther apart.

The polarization of space reasonably accounts for many unexplained phenomena. It clears up many deceptions which Nature unintentionally practices upon us through her illusions of motion.

This illusion of weight and the conclusions drawn from it, which led Newton to decide that the moon had weight in respect to the earth, is one of the greatest of these deceptions. Another one of them is the tidal theory. The evidence of our eyes is conclusive and convincing evidence that the moon and earth have relative weight in respect to each other. The moon apparently exerts its attractive pull on the earth to such an extent that the ocean bulges in such a manner and at such intervals that the moon's attraction must be the cause of it. No other conclusion is possible, says science.

There is, however, another bulge on the opposite side of the earth away from the moon which has never been explained in a logical or rational manner. The polarization of space accounts for both of these tidal bulges and also harmonizes with the fact that the earth and moon are pushing each other away from each other with more vigor than they are pulling toward each other. For the present the following diagrams will explain the accentuated pull and thrust exerted between any two masses in the direction of a line drawn through their gravitative centers. For a double purpose let us take the earth and moon as our example. This diagram illustrates the spatial control of both masses by the mutual high and low pressure points in space of which both the earth and the moon are extensions. There is such a point in space as a mutual gravitative center. That fact is conceded and mathematically proven. If there is such a point of mean high pressure in space there must be a mean low. If one pole exists as an appearance in this bi-polar universe of opposition in every effect of motion, it necessarily follows that the opposing pole must likewise exist. All effects of motion run in pairs of opposites and all moving things are polarized. When motion ceases, or appears to cease through simulation of non-motion, polarization disappears.

Let us now consider whether any of the planets of any system, either solar or atomic, have any weight in respect to any other planet or in respect to the sun of its system, or whether they are not all floating in equilibrium positions proper to their respective potentials. If we can prove this, it will dispel the old belief that planets and satellites would fall into their primaries if deprived of their "initial impetus." Not only this but it would prove that if the moon were pushed a thousand or more miles nearer the earth and released it would rise again to the same position, exactly as a ball of air forced under water would rise.

There are so many other conditions which alter the weight of the mass that it is quite necessary to readjust our thinking about it. Mass means quantity of matter, yet weight and mass are too often joined together as inseparable. Actually they are as separate and separable attributes as are weight and time. A given mass is always the same quantity of matter irrespective of what changes of volume, temperature or density it experiences. The weight of a given mass can be taken away from it entirely, without in any manner changing its quantity, by expanding it as a rain drop expands to vapor, until its potential lowers to that of its environment, or by surrounding it with water or any approximately equal potential until displacement and replacement equalize.

Tides are not caused by the pull of the moon but by the increased thrusting power of the earth, due to the mutual additional charge and discharge of proximity.

The increased thrusting power is exerted equatorially and the increased pulling power is exerted axially.:

• Increased potential in any mass adds to its centrifugal force in its area of maximum speed of rotation and least density (at equator), and to its centripetal force in the bi-polar areas of least speed of rotation and greatest density (at poles). (emphasis added)

The moving high points of the earth's pressure gradient are the two points on the earth nearest to and farthest from the moon. The tides follow these two high points.

It is supposed that a man who weighs 150 pounds still weighs 150 pounds when floating in water. This is based on the supposition that his "weight" is pressing down on the water as a force with which bodies are "attracted" toward the earth's center. Is this supposition correct? Shall we not find that radiation is pushing the man up just as much as gravitation is pulling him down? Let us ask Nature a few questions and see if we cannot get a different concept of weight. If so, then let us write a different definition for weight than that which defines it as the amount of "downward pressure due to gravity."

Let us consider a mass of water vapor expanded to a pressure of ten pounds per square inch. It is quite obvious that this volume of water vapor cannot remain at the earth's surface where the pressure is fifteen pounds per square inch, for the upward pressure of its surrounding environment thrusts it upward. Science claims that there is a downward thrust to every mass which is known as the attraction of gravitation. Let us see if the upward thrust of radiation should not eradicate the idea of a downward thrust.

As the water vapor rises, it expands and, consequently, cools and changes its volume and pressure, but for the sake of illustration and simplicity, let us assume that it has risen, unchanged, with lessening speed until the pressure under it could no longer thrust it upward. It would then stop. It could go no higher for the pressure above and below it would be equal. Then what would happen? Would it not float in an orbit of equal pressure? What else could it do? What else does it do than just that?

Now let us suppose that a cold wind condensed this vapor to a pressure of twelve pounds. The same volume of vapor would then occupy a less volume and the theoretical "downward thrust" from above would push it down closer to the earth where the pressure was twelve pounds. Would it not again float in an orbit parallel to the earth's surface at the new level? At each of the two levels, can it be said that the water vapor has any weight whatsoever in respect to the center of the earth? If a weighing scale were placed under it, would it indicate any weight? Of course not. But, says modern science, if you could place that water vapor in a vacuum without destroying it as water vapor, it would be found to weigh something; or if you condensed it into water, it would have weight.

That is true, but by doing this, it would then have weight because conditions which take weight away have been altered to conditions which give weight. One might just as well heat cold water to show that it had heat as remove the conditions which cause weight to prove that a mass could have weight. If one could connect the earth and the moon with a huge vacuum tube, conditions would so change that the effects which caused those conditions would change. Scientists who attempt to prove anything regarding the effects of gravitation must leave Nature as it is and not alter it. Every inch of Nature is relative. Its pressure gradients change in an orderly manner. Not one inch is absolute, or homogeneous, and to apply a principle where resistance is removed by pumping one form of electric potential out of a tube necessarily leaves the other form of electric potential unaffected by that which has been removed. Pressure of fifteen pounds an inch removed from a tube is a large amount of potential force of actual energy removed.

Let us consider the man floating in the water. We will put under him a scale which cradles his entire body. Does he weigh anything? No. Not unless you lift up the scale to push him above the equilibrium position where "downward thrust" and upward thrust are equalized. If you push him farther down in the water, will he not rise again to the same position? If this is admitted, and if we can show that weight is a purely relative and continually changing local quality belonging to "potential out of place," its relative difference depending solely upon how far "out of place" it is, then we can prove conclusively that the moon would require force to push it down toward the earth or to push it farther up, just as any body floating in any equilibrium pressure would.

If water vapor floating in an equilibrium pressure parallel to the earth moved in that direction due to a change of air pressure, which generates a wind current, perhaps we can find that the moon and the planets are floating in equilibria, and that their motion is partly due to being caught in the drag of a changing electric pressure generated by their rotating primaries and more especially to the fact that the one and only points of comfort are being removed from them continuously and they must keep on moving to find it. Just as the donkey never gets the hay hung on his rider's stick, so does a planet never find a stopping place for that ever moving point of comfort.

Let us return to the man floating in the water and admit that if a tube were placed all around him, and down into the water, he would drop down with the lowering water as it was pumped out of the tube. He would not, however, have weight so long as he floated in the displaced substance which his body equally replaced. To weigh anything, he must be suspended in the tube above the water where the potential displaced by the man is vastly less than the potential of the man. Over the floating man, the water vapor, drifting at a twelve-pound pressure density, suddenly strikes a cold current and contracts to a twenty-pound pressure or more. The result of such a condensation causes the water vapor to become liquid. Immediately this heretofore weightless substance, floating in an equal pressure, descends.

Why does it descend? Let us not, for the moment, be conventional, and answer parrot-like: "Because it is attracted by the earth," for it is exactly the same substance which was thrust from the earth a short time ago.

Slight reasoning should convince us that nothing has happened to the substance of water except change of volume. It has stepped up its energy by taking a few more turns in its solenoid. When the given content of potential was spread out over a volume of environment of greater pressure than it could displace, volume for volume, it arose. When it contracted to a smaller volume of exceedingly greater pressure than that of an equal volume of environment, it descended.

As water and air are two different substances, let us consider the same effect with each substance taken as one. It is conceded that warm water or warm air has a greater volume for an equal mass than cold water or cold air. Applying the rules laid down herein, one can explain the increased volume by the increased strength of the repellent radiative outward thrust due to the energy of that dissipative force we call "heat." Nature's step down transformation works in every atomic solenoid to reduce the number of "turns" in each coil. On the contrary, the number of "turns" in the colder water atoms has been increased with the resultant increase of generative inward pull. In this instance, the same homogenous substance has been divided into a repellent force which rises, and which has a lifting capacity in respect to its environment, and another force which falls and has a compression capacity in respect to environment.

It will also be observed that the rising part of the substance has an evacuating effect of discharge which is dissipative, while the falling part of the substance has an accumulative effect of charging, which is integrative. It seems incredible that science should attribute this disintegrative effect to the attraction of gravitation for it exactly corresponds to the repulsion of radiation. It seems incredible also that science should continue to overlook the fact that the power of gravitation and radiation to exert themselves are adjusted entirely by relative proximity, and that relative proximity always changes with change of volume.

Substances which are compressed into close quarters by Nature's genero-active processes and radiate a sufficient amount of the heat developed by the resistance to such contraction, "freeze" together into close quarters. We call this frozen condition a high potential because a large volume of energy has been forced to occupy less space in the universe. A high pressure point is thus created around which Nature's lines of force more closely wind their solenoid turns. The space between each spiral turn slightly widens, then closes and widens again and again, until the surface of the mass is reached. This gives a series of spiral wave striations of electric preponderance within a mass. This will be treated later in detail, when wave mechanics are considered.

When the surface of the mass is reached the same spiral striations of close and open windings of variable pressure continue out into space, until the pressure voltage reaches its lowest point somewhere between it and the next mass. That condition which parallels the planet and which is known as the "Heaviside layer" is the first one of the striations which ring the planet. There are many of these at varying distances, varying also in densities, each succeeding one lower in potential than its inner companion. They correspond exactly with the "loops of force" with which every electrician is as familiar as a boy is with marbles.

Let us repeat the following law to see how the principles contained in it apply to this known effect of two directions for the same substance.

Every mass has the relative apparent ability to attract and repel every other mass, its relative ability depending on its relative potential.

Upon close analysis, is it not clear that every particle of the substance of water, or of air, which departed from the original mass changed its weight, its volume and its potential without necessarily changing its mass or its quantum of energy? Is it not clear that the rising substance lowered its potential and the falling substance raised its potential? Is it not clear that the drop in voltage pressure of the rising substance and the increase in pressure of the falling substance, exactly corresponds to the principles and mathematics of modern electrical practice? Is it not clear also that the rising substance of lowering potential is less dense the warmer it becomes? If so, is it not clear that every particle within it repels every other particle within it to accomplish the result of expansion into larger volume?

If this is so, can we reasonably continue to say that the discharging force whose sole office it is to repel by expansion (entropy), can possibly attract the charging force whose sole office is to attract it by contraction (syntropy)? We know as an undisputed fact that condensing air falls, and contracts into closer quarters as it falls within higher pressure zones. We also know just as certainly, that volatilizing substance rises, and expands into larger volume as it reaches lower pressure areas. Yet science persists in repeating as a fundamental law that "positive charge attracts negative charge."

We know also that rising substance is of less "weight" than the same substance when it is descending just as a thermometer registers a higher degree near the stove than in the ice box. If rising and descending substance find their opposite directions because of changing volume, and if changing volume is due to changing potential it must necessarily follow that changing volume and changing potential must be closely related to gravitation and radiation.

Let us review these effects once more in another way.

Decreasing volume must mean increasing weight, for the upward thrust of radiation must lessen in proportion as the potential of the contracting volume increases its preponderance over the potential of its environment.

Increasing volume must mean decreasing weight, for the downward pull of gravitation must lessen as the potential of the expanded volume lowers.

Dense masses fall with ever increasing speed toward gravitation centers. Their "weight" also increases as they fall.

Tenuous equal masses of the same substance will not fall at all. They may rise.

If this is true, it is illogical to say that opposite charges attract each other, for it is well known that approaching bodies charge each other and receding bodies discharge each other. This being admittedly true, charging, contracting, high-potential and gravitation are either the same thing or attributes of the same force. This force must be Electricity, for Electricity does just what these qualities in a contractive force must do.

Dense bodies are high potential bodies. The closer the atoms of a system, and the closer the units of an atom, the denser the mass. Density is, therefore, the gathering together into closer relationship the energy of electromagnetic units, all of which are trying to get together, and resisting getting together, at the same time. The closer they get, the higher the potential of their energy. The farther apart they are the lower their potential. This being true, discharging, expansion, low potential and radiation must be attributes of the same force. This force must be magnetism for there are but two expressions of force in the electromagnetic field.

We have now established the fact that dense bodies have greater weight the closer they come within the influence of gravitative pull. We also have established the fact that tenuous bodies weigh less as they recede from bodies of higher pressure, and that their "weight" disappears when they reach an equilibrium position. Can we not logically and reasonably conclude that every potential has a true position somewhere for which it is seeking? Could we not reasonably write it as a law that:

There is a true position for every potential.

Could we not also reasonably conclude that weight is the measure of the force which a body exerts in seeking its true potential?

Could we not also define weight as the sum of the difference between the inward pull of gravitation and the outward thrust of radiation?

Would it not also be reasonable to define that which pulls toward high potential as positive weight and the opposite kind which has a lifting capacity as negative weight? Weight should be so divided for it works both ways.

All dimensions work both ways. Negative weight, obeying the laws of negative force, travels in the opposite direction from positive weight, for they are opposites. No opposites in Nature attract each other. Positive weight and positive charge attract each other. Both are gravitative and contractive because they come closer together in every increase of their functions. Negative weight and negative discharge not only repel each other but also repel positive weight and positive charge. All positive dimensions attract all other positive dimensions, and all negative dimensions repel all similar and all opposite dimensions. (underlining added)

The three following laws relate to this opposition of effect.

• The degeneration of any mass is exactly balanced by the regeneration of another mass.

• In every mass, the attraction of the accumulating pressure and the repulsion of the distributing pressure exert their forces in opposite directions.

• In any mass, the Iifting capacity, in relation to high potential, is equal to the compression capacity in reference to low potential.

The exchange of potential, or pressure, or voltage, or weight, or heat, or of any other expression of energy is exactly and simultaneously equalized in the opposite of each expression. If we could get into our consciousness the feeling of two directions, one which heads towards the genero-active center of high pressure which accumulates (syntropy), and the other which heads toward the radio-active area of low pressure which dissipates (entropy), we would rid our minds of a lot of confusion. The effects of motion would seem more simple, for every effect of motion could be found to be two-way and could be easily classified, as one or the other.

Let us do this now, and write down as many of the effects of motion as we can think of. It will be found that each one can be placed in either the gravitative or the radiative column as equal and opposite positive actions and negative reactions.

<center>

Gravitation	Radiation
Attractive	Repulsive
Appearance	Disappearance
Positive	Negative
Decreasing volume	Increasing volume
Generating	Degenerating
Inhalation	Exhalation
Genero-active	Radio-active
Endothermic	Exothermic
Integrating	Disintegrating
Distinctness	Nebulousness
Composing	Decomposing
Induction	Conduction
Accumulating	Dissipating
Charging	Discharging
Assembling	Distributing
Attracting	Repulsing
Absorbing	Emanating
High melting point	Low melting point
Contracting	Expanding
Rising potential	Lowering potential
Cooling	Heating
High pressure	Low pressure
Centripetal	Centrifugal
Plus	Minus
Freezing	Melting
Hardness	Softness
Solidity	Tenuosity
Slow rotation	Fast rotation
Condensation	Ionization
Fast revolution	Slow revolution
Density	Evaporization
Storing	Leaking
Solution	Dissolution

</center>
It can readily be seen that every effect in the gravitative column is accompanied by closer proximity, while every effect in the radiative column is accompanied by greater separation. The fundamental law of modern electrical practice, however, claims that each opposite in both columns attracts the other and each like repels. If we could but become two-way conscious, it could very readily be seen that gravitation is the genero-active force which puts the universe of solids together and radiation tears them apart. We would then not worry about the universe running down by the so long expressed idea that the heat of the universe is radiating itself away (entropy) for we would know that an energy must be generated in order that it be radiated.

Nature composes and decomposes. She does not decompose that which has not been, or is not being composed. This is as true of a sun as it is of an apple on a tree. The belief expressed by Sir Arthur Eddington and others, that the universe is running down by the gradual waste of radiant energy is based upon the observed evidence of the decomposition of our stars and failure to observe the evidence of their continued composition. It is presumed that they were "created" billions of years ago and are now being decomposed, all of them, so in some future far distant date the universe will be an equilibrium.

In point of time the "creation" of the stars precedes the "creation" of the apples on our trees but time is the only element of difference. Both stars and apples were composed in the same generative manner, by contracting large volumes of various substances into small volumes of high voltage pressure through the medium of solenoidal polarization in space. Both stars and apples are but visual extensions of their invisible polarized entities in space. Both stars and apples are decomposed in the opposite manner, by expanding their small contracted volumes of high voltage pressure into large volumes of low pressure. During this process a gradual depolarization takes place.

Both processes of polarization and depolarization, of composition and of decomposition, exerted themselves simultaneously in alternating preponderances just as they do in all growing things. All things are growing things, whether they are stars or apples, and all growing things follow the same law. We are accustomed to seeing the entire process of the growing apple but not of the growing star. If our lives were long enough to see as many generations of stars come and go as we see generations of apples, the concept of a running down universe would not persist. How so inconsistent a thought could have so long persisted in the face of the belief in the law of equal and opposite action and reaction is incomprehensible.

We should realize that: An action calculated to displace is simultaneously accompanied by an equal reaction to replace. Knowing this, we should clearly see the cycle of motion which forever swings between high pressure points and low pressure areas, assembling the universe into solids and disassociating it, over and over again, forever and ever without ever ending. All idea is repeated in repetitive cycles and no apparently new effect of motion once started ever ends. No state of motion ever began or ever ended. The creative universe of apparently new ideas which apparently requires new states of motion are but variations of old ideas materialized by variations of old states of motion. When we think we start new effects of force we are but using old effects of force in what are to us new ways. All force has always existed and always has exerted itself in repetitive cycles. Cycles have no beginning nor have they endings. Cycles have two directions, however, and both directions exactly balance.

Let us apply this two-way principle to the subject of this chapter, "weight," and see if by a change of consciousness applicable to nature's principles, we cannot correct that "downward thrust term" so constantly used in physics.

There is no "downward thrust" in Nature. Gravitation pulls inward from within every mass and radiation thrusts outward from within every mass. Force is not exerted "above" a mass to force it down. It is "pulled" down from underneath which means pulled together from a common center. This is in accord with the known action of an electric force which shortens a line in the direction of its length. The force of attraction works from center and so does the opposite force of repulsion. The force of repulsion does not extend from one mass to another by thrusting itself out from one mass and pushing the next mass away from it by pressing down from above. The force of repulsion acts by thrusting discharge away from charge until it reaches its expansion limit at the dead center equilibrium plane which lies between every two masses. At that position, the gravitational pull of the next overtone position at the center of the next mass acts upon the discharged emanation and it continues the last half of its journey as a generative charge.

It will, therefore, be seen that the term "downward thrust" has no meaning in Natural law for no force exists in Nature to which such a term can be properly applied. Negative weight ceases to rise when it reaches an equilibrium position where both forces acting upon it are balanced. In this position, it has no weight in respect to the mass from which it arose nor in respect to the next mass. A scale put under or over it while in place would register zero. Positive weight ceases to fall when it has reached an equilibrium position where both forces acting upon it are similarly equalized. In this position, it also has no weight in respect to the mass into which it has fallen even though that position is not the center of the planet.

Let us consider the ocean. Each inch in depth is a different density because of its different potential. Each part of it is where it belongs and if changed to another altitude would have to change its potential to a proper one for that new level. No part of it has any weight thrusting down upon top of it for all parts are in equilibrium. A scale plunged into any part of it would not register weight anywhere for in all parts the pressure in every direction is equalized.

If one were to place a stone, or some more dense substance, in the scales, it would register weight. This weight of the stone would vary exceedingly according to the depth of the liquid at the position of the scales. The stone would weigh less anywhere in the liquid than at the surface. At a sufficient depth, there would be no weight to the stone. Potential would equalize, volume for volume, somewhere. At that position, the stone would float and find an orbit parallel to the surface. Its direction would be anti-clockwise. Its speed would be determined by the resistance of the surrounding pressures. Its rotation would be determined by the difference between the plus of centripetal force and the minus of centrifugal force at that same level. As a freely moving body it would become as much a moving part of the solar system as the moon is; or as any electron of any atom within the planet or external to it is.

The moon above the earth is as much in its proper potential position as the stone deep down under its liquid surface. If the position of either were disturbed it would return to that position. The same principle which applied to the speed of revolution or rotation would apply to weight.

The weight of potential out of place is the sum of the difference in power of the two forces acting upon it.

When potential has momentarily found a position where force acts upon it equally from all directions, it is said to be potential in place.

Potential in place has no weight in respect to anything in the universe.

All potential is always changing. Potential in place for this moment would be out of place the next moment if it remained in that position.

All mass in place for the moment is potential out of place for the next moment, and all mass constantly seeks the proper zone for its changing potential.

If these statements are logical, and the facts are in accordance with Nature, then weight is not a property, attribute or quality of substance, but is a dimension of the motion of force. It indicates the difference in preponderance in pounds or grams of the two forces in an accumulated potential, just as the thermometer registers it in degrees of temperature. If our planet were a homogeneous liquid each point in it would be in its true potential position and would be as much an equilibrium center of one force, through the unity of the two, as the center of gravity of the planet would be. There would be no motion whatsoever within the planet until, and unless, some portion of it condensed or expanded, in which case the changed particles would again seek proper weightless positions.

It is necessary to remold the traditional concept of gravitation as a simultaneously acting universal force in which the time element is absent, by understanding that it acts from every point in the universe simultaneously but in accordance with the potential of that point. Also it is necessary to understand that it is only one half of a double force which also acts simultaneously and oppositely from every point in the universe. Also this double acting force has no effect whatsoever of "action at a distance" in the sense which we understand action at a distance to mean. One mass does not pull or push another mass, no matter what its distance, by what we understand as the attraction of one mass for another, as accounted for in the Newtonian laws.

Each point in the universe regulates the potential of a volume (see Outreach) outside of which its influence does not extend except as each volume is bounded by other volumes, all of which act together simultaneously throughout the universe just as a taut chain of any length would move simultaneously with the movement of any one link. Each point in each volume is as much a similar vortical center as the one point of the inclusive volume, the difference being only that of relative potential and relative preponderance of potential.

Another idea must be inserted here to make this action of the universal force more comprehensible. The idea of force and the motion of force must be divorced from each other. Force is an existent and universal cause. Motion is a non-existent illusion of force. Universally existent force is non-dimensional. Neither time, distance, temperature, weight nor any other dimension alters or affects it one way or another. All effects of force, as expressed in motion, have dimension and are sequential.

The following laws may make this new idea more clear.

• Every point in the universe is the gravitative-radiative center of the universe. Toward, and away from, that point everything in the universe is directed. (See neutral center)

• Every point in the universe swings around every other point in the universe.

• Every point in the universe is the beginning and the ending of a cycle of motion from which all things move and to which all things return.

The universal Force is non-dimensional. Every point in the universe is the same point. The motion of force is dimensional. Every point in the universe of form "created" through the motion of force, is a dimensional reflection of the One non-dimensional Force.

Think these laws over for a while and ask yourself the following questions while so doing:

Is not every point in the universe a place where condensation can, and does take place?

Is not every point in the universe a place where expansion can, and does take place?

Is there a point in the universe which is not constantly oscillating with the contracting-expanding pulsations of the electro-magnetic life principle which makes of this universe a living universe?

Is there a point anywhere in a solenoid or its field where the power to attract is not equal to the power to repel? In other words, is not every passing point in a solenoid or in the universe, an equilibrium point?

Is not every equilibrium point in, the universe a gravitative-radiative center toward which the entire universe is falling and rising in constant adjustment to the changing, universal potential preponderance?

Is not this admittedly endothermic-exothermic sequence an inbreathing-outbreathing, pulsing of the motion of force?

Is not every mass in the universe, whether giant sun, or electron, or man, subjected to this polarizing effect of sequential generative and degenerative preponderance?

And are not all forms of the life which we know as living growing things constantly changing?

Can one not conceive that this sequential, dimensional thing which we call life, is but a reflection of the idea of that thing by the non-dimensional universal thinking Force which is unchanging?

Can one not go farther and conceive of motion as the motive power for manufacturing the ideas of thinking Mind, and of all solids of matter as but the building blocks to give fleeting form to those immortal ideas?

When this viewpoint of gravitation and radiation shall have been reached in which it is thoroughly understood that there is an invisible dimensional control in space for every visible effect of motion, and back of that is a non-dimensional source in Mind from which all dimensional effects are born, one will then have a better understanding of this mysterious and elusive thing which we have up to now known as gravitation. It will simplify the process of reasoning regarding all effects of motion if two characteristics of Nature which unintentionally deceive us are constantly borne in mind and used as a test by which to check our conclusions.

One of these effects is dimension. To remember that dimension is born, as an effect, out of non-dimensional force, which is its cause, is to warn us always of the inherited longing of matter to at least appear to be non-dimensional. To that end all substance throws off whatever it can that is dimensional to simulate the effect of non-dimension. It tries to eliminate heat by absorbing the cold of surrounding objects and giving off its heat for absorption by them. Any excess of charge, weight, potential, density or any other dimension it endeavors to its utmost to share with all surrounding dimensional things to simulate the stability of equilibrium.

Substance never succeeds in doing this because the expense of such a simulation is thrust on to the opposite effect from that which it concentrates its deceptive desire upon. Mercury, for example, in simulating non-motion by a slowing up of its rotation must run faster around the sun to balance it. A hot object in order to share the normal temperature of its neighbors must do so at the expense of greater density, or a cold one at the expense of less density. And so on down the line.

The other effect which invariably leads to an endless chain of deceptions, one following upon the other, is that all effects of motion exhibit both of their opposite effects simultaneously under all circumstances. If an object is heating it must also be cooling in a less degree. It is only preponderantly heating, for heat radiates and radiation cools. If a mass is expanding it must also be contracting for expansion cools, cold generates and generation contracts. (underline added)

The trouble which arises from this deceptive two-way action of motion is that science often sees the lesser of these two instead of the greater and ascribes its offices to the lesser. For example, the tide acts as a brake to slow down the revolution of this planet. That is true, but that is its lesser office, its centripetal or generative one. Its greater office is its degenerative, or centrifugal one, which is to oblate this planet, along with its kindred centrifugal disintegrators, such as deserts, belts, rings and satellites.

Failure to see the greater of the two opposed offices which each mass in motion is fulfilling led to the conclusion that the earth was once turning very fast and will some day turn very slowly. This is an unfortunate and confusing conclusion because all masses universally rotate very slowly and revolve very fast when near their primaries, while those far away do just the reverse. This orderliness of nature is one of its most self-evident ones.

It is regrettable that science persists in claiming that mass is charged either positively or negatively alone, for when it is ready to admit the double charge of all mass with a preponderance of one or the other in all positions save the amplitude position of the wave, it will then be ready to observe the double office of every mass and the two ways of every dimension of motion. We say of a man "you are male," and yet we know he is only preponderantly male. We say the same of woman knowing full well that male cells constitute a goodly portion of her biological composition. To apply the above to our subject is to realize that changing things are changing two ways simultaneously in every dimension in which it is changing.