Every few months, someone reaches a new milestone in understanding that I have held for years, or a group has discovered that which I had already passed through. Since my publishing of in 2006, my model has been available to all, so I can cite passages in my models to show background and validity. An event announced in the media during these past two weeks has put a twist into the now-usual process: Mayonnaise.

Roll back my time to that of Mr. Hertzler, who received occasional science demonstration materials, circulated by some unknown source – possibly within some government department or local university. These demonstrations were infrequent, usually very quick additions to our day, and I imagine he shared them all – he was a great mentor.

The illustration using mayonnaise immediately changed my life. I had been studying science since I was five or six years old, and I immediately held an accurate grasp of that illustration’s significance to physics. The outcome of the illustration framed my model of the universe until this day.

I had no idea how the illustration worked or why it worked when I observed it, only that it was spectacular. From that moment, every time I reached a significant scientific conclusion or plateau in logic, I assured my latest finding tied back to the mayonnaise model with total validity.

Mr. Hertzler was my tenth or eleventh grade science teacher: I do not remember which, but I was either fourteen or fifteen years old. I have not felt the need to amend my model of the mayonnaise for at least the last two decades: I was done with the mayonnaise model in the 1980’s or 1990’s.

In the last few weeks, physicists have acknowledged to the media that they are looking at the properties of mayonnaise to help in generating new physics: this is close to where I began. My initial study was followed by decades of review and enhancement before I discarded the mayonnaise model as to be exhausted of strategic flexibility; I moved on.

The notices I have read these past few days are the latest in the pantheon of community breakthroughs that directly acknowledge my model. Mayonnaise, however reverts back to my beginnings, which is a new thing. My Susie says it means that other people are thinking about it too. That I thought it significant fifty years ago got her silent shrug, implying it is a good thing that others are thinking of it.

Beyond my website, careful review of all my posts on Yahoo will provide momentary references from over a decade ago, reprising my viewpoints on the physics surrounding colloids; I do not remember mentioning mayonnaise by name, and probably did not.

I am certain that modern scientists and scholars will immediately conclude that their studies are far more scientific than the works of me as a young man, and I muse how better their grasp will become in their next five decades to match my five decades after the illustration. Apparently your best and brightest will be trudging down a road paved by viewing a condiment; a road that I finished probably thirty years ago. I am certain it will bring the vigilant among you the same joy I have from the exercise.

At this point, I usually suggest that you “try to catch up”, but alas, the majority of you see it as insult, not encouragement. There is no mockery, only my desire for things to move faster.

I do not give a care whether you agree with my model: science doesn’t care what you think, or what I think! I only ask that you read my model with enough intensity & that you go over it enough times to completely understand it. That you discuss segments with colleagues and tear it apart like good scientists. My goal here is to convince you to learn it as a heretical model of physics, because only when you see it as heretical by your own standards, when your experimental and experiential evidence departs from the dogmatic norm, you will have the opportunity to see where your results instead match my model. Your joy will be my joy.

Look on the bright side: I have intentionally not published the formal proof that concludes everything inside the “event horizon” of every star moves faster than the local definition of the speed of light. From the Einteintinian perspective anywhere inside the star’s event horizon, it is an easy proof. From an outside locus looking in to the center takes a bit more imagination.

Here is a hint: Dr. Albert Einstein got something wrong: all of the experimental data, along with all the mathematical packages at his disposal were derived from observations and experiments conducted within the Solar System. He and everybody else presumed the rules of physics outside the Solar System were the same as the set he was given. They are not, and that was clearly, exhaustively demonstrated in the observation and scientific analysis of a 2005 supernova off the horizon of Jupiter. Dr. Al was working with myopic parameters while fully believing he commanded the whole universe.

See the opportunity to publish a proof for each perspective on a star’s core as a carrot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s