Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
Jesse Babcock
local time: 2024-02-26 04:12 (-05:00 DST)
Jesse Babcock (About)
World Science Database Profile
Interests: Gravity

My theory is an entirely different way, but a right way, of explaining everything.

How is it possible to make predictions from a theory for 55 years,and not have a single prediction be proven wrong, plus having several proven right, unless the theory is correct? I stand behind my claim that there is very little that science is exactly right about. This may be hard to believe but it is true. It seems that the science community steers away from anything logical.

Science believes that electricity is a thing in itself, and that is where they made their biggest mistake of all times: by assuming that everything is here just because it is here; when the truth is: it is only a flow of energy in a medium that is not well understood by scientists. They are using it and a lot of other things, such as particles as things in themselves. This is why math is so important to them, but understanding is much more complex than that. Instead of just a particle: there is a complete understanding there, if they could see what is happening.

There is no such thing as suction in our world, yet we have the name for it. If you can find anything that has actualIy been sucked, I want to hear about it. When we suck, (expandon the cavity of our mouth) on a straw, this is expanding a cavity against atmospheric .pressure, and that is pushing, and atmospheric pressure pushes the liquid into the cavity of our mouth. The word "suction" all by itself implies energy. Why do we have the word "suction" if we can not demonatrate it. I say "because my theory has to be right.."

The reason I was the one person that was most likely to get it right, is because I only had an eighth grade education: I had not been subjected to all the mistaken beliefs of science. Getting it right the first time is proof that common sense is better than observation, and the fact that I became interested in perpetual motion before 1923. I was born in 1915. This study gave me an advantage over scientists. It taught me a lot about common sense. This means that I was not older than 8 years when I became interested in perpetual motion. When I became 15 years old I predicted that the secret of the universe would have to become known before anyone could build such a device. The reason I said this was because I had just discovered that the most perfect idea for perpetual-motion still balanced out. I also seen that it would make a slide rule that showed anything mechanical will balance out. I will explain this to you.

If you take two wheels of spokes without the rims mounted side by side on the same shaft, each free-wheeling, and attach a hundred pound pull spring to the outer end of a spoke, and then attach the other end to the center of a spoke on the other wheel you will have a hundred pound pull on the rim the first spring is attached to, and a 50 pound pull on the rim of the wheel that the spring is attached to a spoke?s center. This would pull a hundred pounds in one direction and pull back 50 pounds in the other direction. If you repeat this, you will have 200 pounds pulling one way against 100 pounds. If you wanted more energy just add more and stronger springs, and no matter how fast it ran: it would keep going faster until it flew apart. This would work only in theory because the angle of the springs cancels out the benefits. This also showed that if you changed the position of the springs it would still balance out.

I say that true suction is nature. Before I came up with my theory I believed suction was unlimited. I do not know if you can understand this or not, but when I put this and energy together I thought I had it all cut and dried. I thought suction was unlimited, and suction is energy. If you can truely explain how to create just one thing in space: you have explained it all. This has to be true because there can be only one explanation: so if you can?t explain how it all started: (such as the Big Bang, or why a God has always existed) then you havent explained anything. The following is my explanation fo why a God has always existed.

In the fiirst place, nature (which is my theory) has always been here. This means that the universe has always been here. When I first came up with my theory I kept asking myself: what is love? What is hate? What is fear? What is peace? What is anger?What is awareness, and so forth? I finally decided that the answers were not in our world, but is borrowed from the Spiritual universe that my theory predicts.

I want to give you a simple example that will prove that all galaxies would be the shape of a doughnut if gravity were a pull: think of a long line of stars in a straight line; each end star will be pulled toward the other end until it reaches the center. The center star of this line of stars will be pulled as much one way as it is being pulled the other way. The pull between stars stays the same unless the distance between them changes. There is no way that a pull of gravity can cause density at the center pf a galaxy. It would cause the center to open up, and all the stars around this open area would move towards their nearest neighbor.

The following is how I came up with my theory.

In 1953 I was listening to the news on the radio when it was announced that the ground crews working on jet engines were receiving lung damage from the high frequency sound waves from jet engines. This would not surprise me today, but at that time, I thought that sound was nothing. I was surprised because I thought: "How could sound which is nothing...destroy lung tissue which is something?"

Well, like all Christians, at that time, I thought that anything was possible; so I thought: "Maybe everything is made from nothing?" Then I closed my eyes to try and picture what space would be like without anything in it. The picture that came to mind was just as shocking and educational as the news that sound could destroy lung tissue: It was the realization that "Space" has to be endless. Not so much as just being endless, but the fact that there is no other place for anything to come from. So If my theory is wrong, why are all my predictions, and assumptions coming true? an000000000000000000d why are scientists, especially astronomers, continually having to revise their theories?

Well I had enough sense to realize that whatever we were made of, it had to come from nothing but empty space, and whatever it was about empty space that caused everything to be created. This made me realize that there could not be anything that was a true solid, so my very first intentional prediction was that science would eventually discover that there was no such thing as a true solid. When I learned that science had already came to that conclusion...I was elated...It was like winning the jack-pot. This told me that I had to be on the right track. I was so certain I was right that I told an older brother that there had to be a way to package energy and that I would find it, and I did.

Figuring out the origin of everything is no big deal. Why should it be? If everything could be taken away: all that would be left is space. Think about it. All you need to know is: "How do you get something from just space?" If you can put a name to it that referes to a thing then you have to be wrong because that would be a thing, and nothing can exist without a reason. We only need to know that reason. This means that space has to have a characteristic that makes space dynamic, and that characteristic has to be: "True suction." True suction is not a thing: it is only a characteristec of space,

Us mortals can not grasp the truth of this because what we call suction is not suction. It is only the mirror image of "true suction" We expand a cavity against atmospheric pressure. and that is pushing: not sucking. There is not one single thing in our world of experience that has actually been sucked.

At the time I first figured this out: I thought "suction" was a natural experience, until it was explained to me that what we call "suction" is limited to atmospheric pressure. It then became a problem until I realized that it was impossible to test for true suction in our kind of world because our world does not have true solids, also all the basics of matter moves, plus it would require a true solid for us to create true suction. What we call "suction" is a mirror image of true "suction." Space relative to itself is a true solid.

Keep in mind that we are created. Only the creators can relate and understand that true suction is "nature itself." If you were a Spirit you would understand this.

4-10-07 I say there are natural laws that just have to be true. (1) Space has to be endless. (2) You can not have a situation in which nothing can exist, including space. (3) Anything that exists had to come from nothing but empty space and whatever characteristic space might have. (4) The universe is also endless. (5) Time is just a way of keeping records: If nothing at all existed you would have no way of keeping a record, but time would forever continue to lapse: there just would never be a record of it. (6) A universe of some description has been here forever: If there were a time when nothing at all existed, what could possibly make it change? (7) Nothing can happen without a reason. (8) There has to be, and is, an explanation for everything. (9) The reason for everything being here has to be the ultimate in simplicity: If not, what would create the complexities? (10) The reason for everything being here has to be something entirely natural. If not, there never would have been anything here in the first place. (11) The only thing that can explain all of the above is my theory: "True suction."

One of the reasons it is taking science so long to accept this is because of how we relate to reality. The problem is this: Different people have a different concept of reality. To a religious person: everything relating the Bible is reality. To some scientists: everything relating to Einstein?s theory is a reality. To me: only reality itself is a reality, and the best way to determine which is correct is to add up which of the three can best predict the future. Under Rewards are several predications I made that came true, plus many that will come true. Almost all of science?s predictions will have to be changed.

Everything needs, and does have an explanation." Also there can be only one explanation, and that explanation has to be the ultimate in simplicity and must be something entirely natural. If magic were possible: it would take on a life of its own. There is nothing in the entire universe that can not be explained.

Why the universe is here has been explained in all the early dictionaries. Read Items of interest and Gravity, or vice-versa, but I will try and get my point across right now. Space has to be endless. No matter what direction you go, you are not going to run into a brick wall. Space goes on forever. This means that no matter what space is: Space is all there is for anything to come from. This means: that in a sense everything had to come from nothing, or to put it another way: everything had to come from whatever it is that "Space" is.

Where before we had nothing: Now we have space that is dynamic, and the whole of space must be perfectly balanced, such as balancing a straight pin on its point, or it is going to try and balance itself at a velocity that is normal for that kind of medium. Also where before we had nothing: now we have something.

This is why true suction seems so unreal to us. A world of pressures would seem just as unreal to this other world. In other words we can not experience Heaven until we become a part of it.

This is the only theory that explains everything except how all the pieces fit together, and this is what science should be trying to do, instead of trying to give everything an equation. Everything is cause and effect.

Most people do not realize that a lot of scientific thought was first introduced by me.