Cosmic Fundamental Laws of Nature
Review of "Piece for a Jig-saw"
Unity of Creation Theory
The Michelson-Morley Experiment
Theory of Unity of Creation
Outside the Universe
Light is a Modulation of the Creative Rays
Material Objects
Time
Alteration of Time
Contraction of Length
Rays and Materials are Temporary
Gravity
Magnetism
Electricity
Flying Saucers
Reality
The Authors of this text
A review of "Piece for a Jig-saw" by Leonard G. Cramp
Reviewed by Mike Bayliss.
I can find no entry in The (Sept.
1998) Phone Book for the publishers of this book;
Somerton Publishing Co., Ltd., Newport Road, Cowes, Isle of
Wight. Perhaps someone reading this could tell me what has
happened to the publishers?
Since my signed copy of the book was re-issued back in 1974, anything could have happened.
This book is now available as a 1996 reprinted edition,
published by "Adventures Unlimited" and you can order a
copy online.ISBN 0-9328134-3-7
I am sure that the Newport, Isle of Wight Library has a copy, and you may see one in your local book collectors shop.
This book is concerned primarily with the analysis of UFO sightings. Not to explain away these occurrences as hallucinations or marsh gas but to say "Okay, what I saw was real, how can I scientifically explain the object? and if science can't explain what I have seen, then science must be in error, and I must work out a new scientific theory to develop an explanation".
The theories that are developed throughout this work are to me amazing in there elegance and cannot be disproved until we are face - to - face with a real flying saucer. They include;
The G. Field Theory. In which "a focal point of intensified space" is produced above the saucer to counteract the force of gravity, and lift the saucer without the need of thrust jets.
The R. Field Theory. In which a G. field generator has its polarity reversed to produce "a repulsive focal point of intensified space". This would be produced below the saucer to push the ship away from the Earth ( and relatively speaking, push the Earth away from the ship ) which is more efficient. This kind of UFO would leave behind evidence of a repulsive force such as holes in the ground or crop circles.
In order to explain the first two theories, on how to counteract gravity, the reader must first be aware of what gravity is and how it is produced by a mass in space. This is eloquently described in the "Unity of Creation Theory" which is included here as an extract from the book. I have not heard of this theory before I read "Piece for a Jig-saw" and I feel that many scientists ( which have no time to be reading "crackpot UFO books" ) that are interested in "String theory" and "The unified field theory" may have missed this important piece in their own jigsaw puzzle of research.
This theory seems to also tie in with the "Electric universe", "Brian Bates, The way of Wyrd" and "The force from Star Wars." Other religious texts say that the whole of the mundane or visible universe is created from or by a single God or all powerful spirit. Is this God at the heart of existence as the source outlined, here in this theory?
The recent correspondence in technical magazines seems to show that many readers feel the need for something less coldly mathematical than Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' and his subsequent theories. Few suggest that Einstein's brilliant calculations and theories are faulty, yet by themselves those essays in pure logic are not comprehensible to the average person.
One cannot gain the 'mental picture' of Einstein's theory because the theory is not in a form which leads to a mental picture. If you read the test performance figures for a new aeroplane, you will know a lot about what the plane will do, but you will be unable to visualise whether its lines are beautiful or ungainly, or anything of its appearance.
Einstein's theory was before its time. The calculations of, for instance, the precise amount that a material contracts along the direction of its movement seems to be out of place before it has been explained why the contraction occurs.
I suggest that there has been too much mathematical jigsaw puzzle making and solving, and that formulae have been put forward which, though probably correct, are by themselves without very much meaning to the intellect.
This experiment aimed at finding the speed of the earth through the ether. Scientists had assigned to the ether descriptions ranging from an elastic solid to a rarefied gas. If our speed through the ether could have been determined, it would help us to understand (among other things) whether we are labouring through a mass like black treacle, or wafting our way through a substance as thin and delicate as perfume.
Those who rely on this experiment, or on similar experiments make an assumption which I believe to be false, that is, that the ether is a three dimensional substance - such as gas. Only if the ether was a material substance would the passage of the earth through it cause an ether drag, or an ether wind, which could be measured.
The result of the Michelson-Morley experiment showed (apparently) that either there was no ether, or if there was an ether the earth was not moving through it. Neither of these conclusions seemed to be probable; it would be unlikely that the earth should remain stationary in space when all other observed heavenly bodies were moving. Nor was it likely that there was no ether, for how else could the passage of rays through space be explained?
As neither of these conclusions could be welcomed, it was later suggested that the Michelson-Morley experiment really did show a positive result, but that the measuring rod in the direction of the earth's movement through space contracted by an amount exactly sufficient to remove the positive result from being apparent ( the Lorentz Contraction ). The proposition was of course that all materials contracted in the direction of travel; the supposed contraction was not confined to the measuring rod in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The Lorentz Contraction at first sight seems to be an artificial and far-fetched theory, yet I think that those who have studied the calculations, and those who care to do so will agree that the contraction must be accepted as something which actually does take place.
The Theory of Unity suggests reasons why the Lorentz Contraction takes place.
The interest shown lately in the physical world prompts me to offer an outline of that part of the theory which affects this subject. The theory suggests, among other things, why the phenomena forecast by Einstein's theories take place. It is unsatisfying to be told that time slows when you travel through space, and even to be informed of the precise amount by which it slows compared with your velocity, before any attempt is made to explain what time is and why it is capable of slowing.
The following statements and arguments are set out in rather a dogmatic and oversimplified form, which I hope will be excused, in order to try to offer an outline of the theory which can be followed without undue effort.
The theory anticipates the ultimate result of the fact that research discovers one unity after another in physical phenomena. One is led to expect that before long it will be proved that there is one basic building material for the whole universe. I do not pretend that there is sufficient data available at present to prove the theory fully, but there are many indications that it is an anticipation of what will be proved, by, let us say. the year A.D. 2000.
The theory that I put
forward is that the ether and space are the same and that space
is formed out of nothing by a grid of extremely high frequency rays (
probably having a wavelength of less than 10 -13cm ). Space must
be distinguished from 'nothing'.
Space - even if it is empty- possesses the qualities of length -
breadth - thickness and time. 'Nothing. has no qualities
whatsoever, and cannot support any material or ray. In other
words, creation of the universe takes the form of making space
out of 'nothing', and the method adopted for making space is a
network or grid of rays, which I call 'creative' rays.
Taking 'the universe' to mean all created space, there is 'nothing outside the boundaries of the universe. The old problem of imagining the boundaries of the universe, outside which stretched empty space which space must have boundaries, and what was outside that? - should not arise. 'Endless space' is a contradiction in terms. Space has dimensions and boundaries and cannot be endless. The hand of creation has not touched the 'nothing' outside the boundaries of the universe, and that 'nothing' has no dimensions and therefore no boundaries.
To put it in another way, space is positive creation, while 'nothing' is the absence of space, and thus purely negative.
You cannot visualise 'nothing' for obvious reasons; it has to be accepted. If anyone particularly wishes to try to relate it to human experience, it could be said that he has had more of it than he has had of space and time. It is what he experienced, or did not experience, before he was born.
Space or ether is formed by the creative rays
which emanate from one source in all directions and in all
planes, Fig 14(a}.
Each creative ray covers a circuit from source
back to source, and each circuit is probably the same size. In
this way space with boundaries of globular shape is built, and
whatever point is taken in space, creative rays travel in all
directions towards the source, Fig 14(b)
and Fig 15(a).
By the word 'source' I
do not imply that the formation of the creative rays operates in
only one direction in each circuit; the action may be
alternating.
Light
is a Modulation of the Creative Rays
All rays of whatever frequency, visible or invisible,
detectable or undetectable, are modulations of the creative rays,
in the same way as a high-frequency radio wave is modulated by a
musical note. As a radio carrier wave can be modulated by a
number of separate notes, so can the ether carry between the same
two points any number of waves of differing frequencies.
It would appear that rays or modulations are always caused by
a disturbance in three-dimensional material, and that they are
only of consequence when they encounter other such material. When
a ray travels through space it is merely a slight modulation or
disturbance of the creative rays and of no importance.
The atom is the building material for all solids, liquids, and
gases, and each atom is composed of a nucleus, around which
revolve electrons at distances from the nucleus which vary with
the type of atom. I
submit that the atom is not solid fundamentally, but that it is
composed of modulations of the creative rays in three planes.
Although a modulation is normally a ray which travels in all
directions from its source towards the source of the creative
rays, the chord of modulations forming an atom are locked
together in three planes. This lock prevents the modulations
travelling in opposing directions as rays. Does not the release
of atomic energy show the very close relationship between atoms
and rays? Fig 14(c).
The main point which I
want to make is that rays and atoms are both modulations of the
creative rays, the former being simple modulations, the latter
being complex and static ones. An atom could in some ways be
compared with a ripple caused by a stick in a smoothly flowing
stream of water. It remains the same in appearance yet it is
formed from a constantly changing medium. If this is correct, the
universe is made from the same medium throughout, and what
appears to be empty space between the Earth and Mars is in
reality a connecting medium.
I suggest that time is
the effect on our minds of the frequency of the creative rays. If
the atoms out of which our brains and bodies are made are formed
out of the creative rays, we cannot but be aware of the
alternation of the creative rays. We cannot escape from time
unless we also escape from space, or, in other words, cease to
exist.
It is impossible to look either backward or forward in time
from a fixed position in space. If we could travel at the speed
of light and thus 'keep up with time' we should probably cease to
be three dimensional which would not assist our observations! In
any case, we should find ourselves in a different position in
space, so we cannot by any means foresee what is going to happen,
or look back on what has happened, on earth.
If we were to travel at a very high speed - a substantial
proportion of the speed of light - the frequency of the creative
rays in the direction of our travel would be increased, because
we would be travelling relatively to the pulses of the creative
rays. It can be envisaged that something akin to the Doppler
effect would take place, with the result that our basic time
would be increased in frequency. We should not be aware of this,
because the frequency of the creative rays is our only standard
of time, and there is nothing nearby against which we can test
this standard. But a stationary observer could, by rays of light,
calculate the difference between our time and his time; he would
say that our clock was going slow compared with his clock, or
that our basic time frequency was quicker than his.
Clock time is our way of counting the number of pulses of
basic time. If basic time frequency increases, clock time still
counts as one million pulses what are now, say, two million, and
the clock time appears to be going half speed.
Some space travel enthusiasts consider that if you could
travel fast enough in a space ship, you could spend twenty earth
years away from our planet and come back only a year or two older
than when you left. If this is calculated using basic time -
space, it is found that the effect on your body, and the
impression on your mind, is exactly twenty years' worth of earth
time, and that you could not therefore enjoy almost perpetual
youth by this very inconvenient method.
If an atom moves along the creative rays, the increased
frequency referred to before results in a shorter effective
wavelength of the creative rays, which decreases the measurement
of the atom in the direction of its travel.
For the purpose of simplicity, take it that the material
length of an object is formed by the wavelength of the creative
rays, while basic time is the frequency of the creative rays,
then the wavelength multiplied by the frequency, of the creative
rays will remain constant at whatever speed the object travels,
because as the frequency increases the wavelength decreases. The
product of the length of the object and the basic time is
unaffected by the velocity of the object, and it is this product
which gives to our minds the impression of time and of the
proportions of the object.
The creative rays' present existence or the possibility of
existence, and time and space are a division of that
presentation. In whatever proportions the division is made, the
whole remains unchanged.
Rays and Materials are Temporary
I would now like to
meet the objection of those who say that it is just as difficult
to believe that the creative rays travel through 'nothing' as it
is to accept that light travels through space without an ether to
carry it. My reply is
that the theory holds that the creative rays create space not
casually, but permanently: their cause is not casual, like the
cause of a ray. The theory proposes that rays and materials are
casual and temporary modulations or disturbances of the creative
rays. It would seem unreasonable to believe that a special act of
creation is necessary every time you choose to switch on an
electric torch. The theory of unity holds that you, by switching
on the torch, are able slightly to modulate the creative rays,
which are permanently present, and that the casual phenomenon of
visible light is the result.
It is usually accepted ( to put it basically ) that if in
space two masses exist, they attract one another. I suggest that this idea is
wrong, and that it is impossible for a material object to emit
rays which pull another object. Nor is there anything other than
a ray which could exert the supposed pull. Rays can exert a small
amount of pressure on an object in the direction of the ray's
travel, but they cannot pull.
Is
gravity pushing or pulling on us?
An alternative theory is that gravity is due to an increasing
velocity, and the analogy of a lift rising at constantly
increasing speed is often used. If a person in this lift released
a pencil it would appear, to that person, to fall to the floor of
the lift and he might well consider that the pencil was attracted
by the floor. If this is the explanation, why does gravity act in
more than one direction? It requires adjustments which, seem to me, to be very artificial to
answer this.
The theory of unity explains gravity as the material version
of the natural travel of a ray towards the source of the creative
rays. The modulations forming an atom tend strongly to split up,
to break their three dimensional bond, and to travel in all
directions, like ordinary rays towards "S".
referring to Fig 15(b), "S" represents the source of
the creative rays, and the circle represents the circuit of one
creative ray. While "X" represents the place at which
an atom is formed by the intermodulation of the creative ray
shown on the diagram with the creative rays in other planes; the
latter cannot clearly be represented on paper, nor of course, can
an attempt be made to draw to scale.
The tendency of "X" to act as a ray and to travel to
"S" via "Y" and "Z", and via other
planes is nullified by the three-dimensional strength of
"X". The modulations of the creative ray start for
practical purposes at "Y" and "Z", but they
do not interlock with modulations in other planes until
"X" is reached. These preliminary modulations in ray
form I will call
extension modulations; some of them are of measurable frequency,
others are of a frequency too high to be measured by a material
device.
So long as "X" is undisturbed, it remains still in
space, the tendency to travel to "S" via "Y"
being balanced exactly by its tendency to travel to "S"
via "Z". Its tendency to travel to "S" in
other planes is also balanced. But, referring to Fig 15(c), if in
the position "W" (before the extension modulations of
"X" have for practical purposes faded) another atom is
formed, the extension modulation of "X" is interfered
with and unbalanced between "X" and "W". The
extension modulation of "X" in the direction of
"Z" is unchanged; "X,Z" and "X,Y"
are now no longer balanced, and as a result "X" moves
towards "W"; "W" also moves towards
"X", according to the laws formulated by Newton, or
approximately so.
Although "X" moves towards "W", it is not
attracted by "W", any more than light from the sun is
attracted by the earth. (Here I
am ignoring the almost negligible element of gravitation between
a material object and a ray: the reason why light travels from
the sun towards the earth is not because of mutual attraction
between the light and the earth) "X" moves towards
"S" via "W".
I suggest that it is
not possible for the north pole of a magnet to emit rays which
attract the south pole of another magnet, and repel the north
pole of another magnet.
The travel of one magnet is not towards another magnet but towards "S". Some atoms of iron are arranged, or can be arranged, so that the extension modulations are not the same in all planes. This lack of symmetry can be encouraged by electrical means. It is quite possible that a single magnet removed from a powerful gravitational field would move through space of its own accord. A single magnet on or near the earth is prevented from moving by the gravitational field of the earth that is, it is prevented from moving through space of its own accord. If another magnet of opposite polarity or a piece of iron is placed near the first magnet there is apparent attraction, but what actually happens is akin to gravitation. The first magnet moves towards "S" until it reaches the second magnet or piece of iron. The strength of the magnet probably depends on the number of atoms in the magnet which have unbalanced extension modulations, the degree of lack of symmetry in each atom remaining constant.
I suggest that this is a general disturbance of the extension modulations.
True 'flying saucers' - that is those which are not the results of the imagination of the observer - are vehicles which are based on the principle of unbalancing the extension modulations of material carried in the vehicles.
The question arises:
The answer to this is, I think, what you and I and everyone else are concerned with is basic time x length representing the whole effect of both the frequency and the wavelength of the creative rays. In judging reality before our eyes, we are not concerned with the division of time x space into time and space.
If you want to listen to a concert on the radio it makes no difference to you whether the programme is carried to you by a 500 metre carrier wave or a 1,000 metre carrier wave, and you could detect no difference in the reality of the reception. You might then say that there was no real difference; but an engineer who is more interested in the method of your hearing the programme than in the programme itself would say that one programme was the result of modulating a carrier wave of 500 metres wavelength and frequency of 600kc/s, while the other programme was brought on a carrier wave of twice the wavelength and half the frequency. To the listener who was unable to go further into the problem than to hear what came out of his loudspeaker, the programme would be the same.
The answer then is, shortly, that although the change does actually take place in time and space, it is not real in the sense that it could be observed by a human being living within the sphere of the change, for such a person has not the means to measure basic time or basic length as an engineer can measure the wavelength and the frequency of a radio carrier wave !
The present author ( Mr L.G. Cramp ) would once again like to thank Mr Avenel for the reuse of this remarkable thesis, without which I feel this present work would be incomplete. As many readers may automatically associate the pseudonym Antony Avenel with the Unity of Creation Theory I feel it will cause less confusion by referring to him thus, rather than Antony Parker.
Text Source;
Piece for a jig-saw Author of 'Space, Gravity and the Flying
Saucer'
First published in 1966 by:
SOMERTON PUBLISHING Leonard G. Cramp is one of the founder members of
the Isle of Wight UFO Investigation Society, also a
Vice-President of the British UFO Research Association.
British UFO Research Association. Last revised: Feb 2000.
"Are these changes in time and space real, or are they only deemed to happen"?
by LEONARD G. CRAMP
M.S.I.A. A.R.Ae.S.
Newport Road
Cowes,
Isle of Wight.
BM BUFORA
London
WC1N 3XX
phone 01924 444049