As we all know, perpetual motion machines are impossible, and claims of such devices are a clear sign of bad science.  No device (or natural phenomenon) can expend energy without draining a power source, and certainly cannot operate with no power source at all. Yet our science states that an  object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would be accelerated to the center by gravity, then decelerated as it approached the other end, only to be accelerated down again,  over and over – endlessly. Even our most elementary physics states that it takes energy expenditure from a known power source to accelerate and decelerate objects, yet there is no power source in site here, let alone a draining one. Despite detailed atomic theories and even having split the atom, science has never identified a gravitational power source.  This describes an actively operating mechanism that never ends and never drains a power source – an impossible perpetual motion scenario, according to today’s physics.

When all else fails, we are told not to worry about the gravitational power source because gravity never does any work throughout the universe. According to today’s science, all of the gravity-driven dynamics in our universe occur without any work being done, therefore there is no reason to expect energy expenditure from any power source – no power is required for any of it. We are told that objects are pinned forcefully and continually to the planet by gravity, but since they just sit there, even though forcefully pinned down, no energy source is required to explain this. How can such a claim be justified? Simple – ignore the physical gravitational energy expenditure and recast it as a formal Work scenario.

Why does this suddenly seem to solve such a deep physical problem?
Because the formal definition of Work in physics is: (force applied) x (distance moved). Note: this is not the form of work that we all relate to, where expending energy is doing work. Instead, Work, by definition, ignores all energy expended unless it happens to move something. While this formal Work definition does calculate the energy expended to move objects it will also obviously give a zero result whenever an applied force cannot move an object, such as when we push on a wall or when gravity pulls on an object that is already on the ground. Of course this does not mean no energy was expended, but simply that the Work equation was only designed to deal with a very limited energy scenario where the applied force happens to move something. It is an extremely grievous elementary abuse of physics to borrow the formal Work formula and misapply it to a scenario where no motion exists just to claim that the "zero work" result means no energy source is required to forcefully pin objects to the ground. Part of the reason this explanation has been allowed to slide for so long is because this very limited Work definition has the same name as the actual concept of energy-driven work that we are familiar with.  So when an authority figure presents a formal "Work" equation from a physics textbook and does a calculation that gives a "zero work" result, apparently resolving enormous questions about gravity in our science, it is difficult to resist the "no work, no energy" assurance from a teacher, which everyone else seems ok with, never to seriously question it again. And so it goes, generation after generation, leading to the current mess  we have over common gravity in our science today.

Even the forceful constraining of the moon in its orbit is said to require no energy, since the Work equation is also defined to give zero when an object moves perpendicular to the applied force. So the fact that gravity pulls downward on the passing moon is said to free science from acknowledging the enormous energy that must be required to constrain the moon in orbit.  Not only is this just as grievous and elementary an error as shown above for all the same reasons, but it further mistakes the motion of the passing moon as pertinent to the calculation.  In actuality, the moon already had a pre-existing coasting motion past the planet that has nothing to do with gravity’s pull. It is the continual motion of the moon downward due to the downward pull of gravity that keeps its coasting constrained to circle the planet rather than proceeding off into deep space.  Once the thinly veiled "zero work" excuses are removed, it is clear to see that none of today’s gravity theories can answer even the simplest physical questions about gravity, which is why the Work equation diversion technique is used over and over in classrooms around the world when such questions arise, since the only alternative is to admit "I don’t know".

Q: What about atomic clocks flown on jets, which
     seem to show Einstein's Time Dilation Effect?

A: Even Einstein’s own theory shows this is impossible!
As shown above in the Twin Paradox explanation, Einstein's
Special Relativity Theory has a logical flaw, initially appearing
to predict such effects, but a closer examination shows that
they should not occur. We could consider either the airplane
or the Earth below to be in motion since everything is relative,
giving totally opposite results. So, even according to Einstein's
own theory there should be no absolute time difference when
an atomic clock is flown on a jet. This is a theory that clearly
displays its own futility, which should be expected from any
theory whose basic mathematical support is propped up by
clear errors and improper hidden mathematical operations.

So why do we hear reports of success in these atomic clock
experiments? Since we have no rational or scientific reason to
expect such effects, it stands to reason that these reports are
either erroneous or they reflect other effects such as turbulence
or acceleration effects on the plane and instruments. Note that
although it is commonly stated that atomic clocks operate by
reading the inner oscillations of individual atoms, in actuality
they are very cumbersome, delicate instruments that operate
on the external properties of clouds of atoms as they are
accelerated and irradiated by various fields. One could imagine
many ways in which the delicate machinery of an atomic clock
might be affected by a variety of environmental influences that
might occur on an airplane flight. Again, Einstein's own relativity
theory states that we could look at the situation from either
perspective -- a moving atomic clock on a jet or a stationary
clock and jet as the Earth moves instead -- invalidating any
claims that one absolute result was experimentally observed.

Q: Isn't there still further evidence that appears
     to support Special Relativity Theory though?

A: Yes there are still further lab experiments and thought
experiments that are commonly touted as proof, each of which
can be readily shown to either have clear logical flaws or
simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation",
"relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".

Q: Did it really all begin with a "Big Bang" where
   all the matter in the universe was compressed
   to a space smaller than an atom?

A: Of course not. Today’s belief in the Big Bang / Expanding
Universe theories has even led today’s astronomers to claim
that some type of mysterious antigravity force is pushing the
galaxies apart -- faster and faster the more distant they are.
Such a force has never been observed in any experiment or
explained by any scientific theory, and it even violates our most
cherished laws of physics. Where does this mysterious force
come from and how is its ever-accelerating effect powered?
Even the term "Big Bang" first arose as a disparaging reference
to this theory from the noted astronomer Fred Hoyle.

The only reason this concept ever arose is because light from
distant galaxies is Red-Shifted -- i.e. it arrives with its colors
shifted toward the low end of the visible spectrum where red
light resides. It was assumed that this was the same as the
Doppler Effect for sound, which describes the shift to lower
frequencies in sound waves from objects that are speeding
away. However, sound waves are completely different from
light. Sound is not pure "sound energy" but compression waves
within an atmosphere of air molecules, while light is considered
to be a very strange form of pure energy, full of "quantum-
mechanical" mysteries and paradoxes. Not only is there no
clear scientific reason to link the Doppler Effect of sound with
the Red Shift of light, but it is well known that light is easily red
shifted by simply passing it through gases or plastics. The
Compton Effect is a very well known cause for shifts in light
frequency, and has nothing to do with motion of the light source.
And as any astronomer knows, distant starlight passes through
billions of light-years of various gases, plasmas, and fields
before arriving at our telescopes. Is it any surprise that the
further away a galaxy is, the more Red-Shifted its light?

==> The Big Bang Theory myth is debunked
        further in Chapter 6.

Q: OK, so scientists are still struggling to even
     explain gravity, but isn’t this just academic?
     Doesn't today's science still function fine?

A: Absolutely not! As just mentioned, we have no explanation
for the power source for gravity, we have numerous theories
of gravity in our science right now (Newton’s, Einstein’s,
Quantum Gravity, MOND, TeVeS, etc.), and all these theories
have impossible physical implications that overturn everything
we know about matter and energy, violate our laws of physics
or simply fall apart upon serious critical inspection. The recent
"Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" inventions are prime
examples. This is no small failure of our current science!

==> The new description of gravity in Ch. 2
     shows that our galaxy doesn't contain billions
     of "gravity-generating stars", but billions of
     stars and solar systems that exhibit a very
     different gravitational phenomenon, likely
     resolving this great mystery in our science.

Q: It is often stated that Quantum Mechanics
     is one of the most accurate and elegant
     theories in science. Is this correct?

A: Given our lack of understanding of so much in nature today,
we have no choice but to invent theories and refine -- or even
hammer -- them into experimental agreement. There is no doubt
that something very different occurs within the atom (and in the
phenomenon known as energy today), and it shouldn't be
surprising that we are resourceful enough to invent some sort
of explanation, but we have mistaken models for reality.
Quantum Mechanics is merely a very bizarre, mysterious
mathematical model that has undergone tremendous work by
generations of scientists straining for experimental agreement.
As a result, it makes all manner of counterintuitive, bizarre
claims about our world, when in actuality ours is a very simple,
commonsense world when seen from the right perspective.

To quote from the article "Was Einstein Right?" by staff writer
and editor George Musser, Scientific American, Sept 2004:

"As Einstein was among the first to realize, quantum
mechanics, too, is incomplete. It offers no reason for why
individual physical events happen, provides no way to get
at objects' intrinsic properties and has no compelling
conceptual foundations."

And from "The Master's Mistakes" by Karen Wright,
Discover magazine, Sept 2004:

"In the 1920s quantum mechanics became the rage, and
it advanced by leaps and bounds, thanks in large part to
Einstein's persistent efforts to discredit it."

==> Quantum Mechanics is debunked, and the
       subatomic realm properly explained in Ch. 5

Q: Is light really sometimes a wave and
     sometimes a particle (the photon)?

A: The true nature of light has been hotly debated for centuries.
Today's science states light is mysteriously both a wave and a
particle, depending on the detection method. This bizarre
belief even leads to the conclusion that detecting starlight as
either a wave or a particle then instantly reaches back billions
of years in space and time to determine the corresponding form
in which the light was originally transmitted. Such impossible
time travel beliefs show just how lost today's science is due to
its blind belief in quantum-mechanical theory as the true
physical description of nature.

In fact, it is very easy to debunk even our simplest beliefs about
light today. For example, it is currently believed light-waves
somehow "cancel" in "destructive interference" when they meet
out of phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the
valleys of another. Yet, a simple experiment crossing 2 light-
beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible
for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis-
aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of
Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur. Light is
not a mysterious quantum-mechanical wave-particle entity, but
something much simpler to understand.

==> The true nature of light is finally exposed in
       Ch. 5 since the new subatomic principle from
       from Ch. 4 also relates to energy of all types.

Q: But don't the famous Double-Slit experiments
     verify both the wave theory of light and its
     bizarre quantum-mechanical particle nature?

A: No. In fact, quite the opposite. For generations this
erroneous belief has simply been repeated without thinking
it through. The wavelike interference pattern in this experiment
is always equated to water waves interfering. But water waves
are not "waves of pure water energy" in the same manner that
we think of waves of light energy; they are a wavelike group
behavior of countless particles (water molecules). Interference
patterns between water waves are the result of interaction
between groups of particles, not "waves of pure water energy".

So, why is this analogy used as proof that a similar interference
pattern between light-beams is an interaction between "waves
of pure light energy"? Simply because our instructors merely
accept and repeat what they’ve been told, mentally locking
themselves and us into the flawed science legacy that we have
inherited. In actuality though, the Double Slit experiment is
clear evidence for an interaction between groups of countless
particles of light, just as the water-wave analogy would imply.

But what is meant by "particles of light"? This is not a reference
to today's even more mysterious quantum-mechanical photons,
but something much simpler that arises from the same sub-
atomic principle that runs throughout The Final Theory. Also,
this new perspective solves the mystery of why an interference
pattern appears even when individual light photons are shot one
by one through the slits. The answer is really quite simple and
straightforward, removing all the mysterious and bizarre
"quantum-mechanical" myths we are taught today.

Further, with the new understanding that this experiment shows
group particle interaction and not individual energy wave
interference, it is now easy to see why experiments with beams
of electrons also show a similar interference pattern. Far from
proof that even matter (electrons) has a bizarre wave-particle
dual nature (as Quantum Mechanics states today), this merely
shows straightforward particle interaction, just as we would
expect from electrons. But what does this all mean?

==> This is all clearly explained in Ch. 5. Not only
         is the true nature of light finally explained,
         but a definitive end is finally brought to the
         bizarre theory of Quantum Mechanics.

Q: Where does Einstein's famous E = mc²
     equation come from, why does this simple
     equation apply to the atom bomb, and how is
     it that matter converts into pure energy?

A: This equation has been largely misunderstood and
misrepresented. It is often shown in complex mathematical
derivations and is said to literally describe matter mysteriously
converting into energy in an atom-bomb explosion -- a process
that is completely unexplained even today. But, in actuality,
this equation is extremely easy to derive in only a few lines of
simple math, and does not truly describe a process as
mysterious as a transformation of "matter into energy".

For starters, consider that the classic kinetic energy equation,
K.E. = ½mv², is almost identical to Einstein's equation. In fact,
it only differs by the factor-of-two term. That is, if we write
the kinetic energy of an object traveling at light speed, the
classic kinetic energy equation would be E = ½mc². This is
precisely Einstein's equation, only divided by two. So, why are
these two equations so similar, and what does this really tell us
about the nature of light, energy, and the atomic bomb? Here's
a further hint in a simple four-line derivation that can easily be
arrived at for Einstein's equation, based on well-known
equations for the momentum of light:

p = E/c        -- momentum of light, p, equals its energy
                      content divided by its speed

p = mc         -- momentum of light, stated in terms of its
                       classical momentum, mass x speed

E/c = mc      -- equating the two momentum terms in
                       the two lines above

E = mc²       -- rearranging the above line gives
                       Einstein’s famous equation

==> For the full truth about this equation and
        what it really says about light, energy, and
        the atomic bomb see Chapter 6.

Q: Science says protons are positively charged
    and tightly clustered in the nucleus, but like-
    charges would strongly repel in such close
    proximity. Why doesn’t the nucleus fly apart?

A: This mystery has no true answer in today's science.
Scientists used to scratch their heads over this issue decades
ago -- until they simply decided the answer must be that some
type of mysterious attracting force must appear for some
unexplained reason between protons when they are very close,
counteracting their mutual repulsion. This mysterious new
attracting force is called the Strong Nuclear Force, and is now
taught as one of the four fundamental forces of nature in today’s
science. Yet, this is clearly just bad science -- a closer look
shows many serious flaws with this entire picture.

First, consider the endless repelling electric charge force that
tirelessly pushes the positively charged protons apart. Where is
the power source behind this endless repulsion, and how can it
be that this mysterious power source is never drained or even
diminished in the slightest? Benjamin Franklin invented this
Electric Charge Theory to explain why charged objects repel or
cling to each other, but his theory overlooked the fact that this
concept violates our most basic laws of physics. Objects or
particles should not be able to endlessly attract or repel each
other, and without even a power source in sight. This is the
first problem with positively charged protons in the nucleus, and
also with the concept of negatively charged electrons held in
orbit about the nucleus by an endless unknown power source.

Secondly, this clearly flawed concept in our science legacy was
merely glossed over and patched with yet another scientifically
unexplained force -- the Strong Nuclear Force. Now we have
two scientifically unexplained forces behind the stability of the
atom (the Electromagnetic Force between charged particles
and the Strong Nuclear Force), both acting endlessly and with
no known power source.

==> Electric Charge is re-explained in Ch. 4
        according to the new subatomic principle,
        explaining atomic structure and showing
        the Strong Nuclear Force to be a completely
        unnecessary invention.