Tom Lethbridge’s ideas about gravitation.

Gravitation - Comment on 2012 April 23

Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
Home > Comments > 2012 > Comment on 2012 April 23

2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |

2012 April 23

Go to the end of this webpage:

We have evidence produced by the pendulum for an unimaginable number of double cones, terminating as rays, proceeding up into space. Read more:

We had already two entries about information coming from Tom Lethbridge, 2012 Apr 15 – How to make spiritual things tangible and 2012 Apr 20 – The human electro-magnetic field, and gravitation was mentioned in the second one and there it says: “I find this quite interesting that Tom Lethbridge here suddenly talks about gravitation. The entire scientific world talks about the problems with the Standard Model and there gravitation is one of the key problems and no-one really seems to know what gravitation is and Tom Lethbridge comes here with an explanation that a normal person can understand and can envisage.”

Now Tom Lethbridge has more to say about gravitation and here it comes:


“Now, presumably every child is still taught about Newton and his discovery of the law of gravitation, because an apple fell on his head. It is explained that, were it not for gravitation which causes small objects to be pulled towards a larger one, a force known as centrifugal force would cause all planets to fly outwards into space away from the sun and the moon to fly away from the earth. This state of affairs is often demonstrated by swinging a tennis ball round the teacher’s body and then letting go the end of the string. The ball flies outwards from the demonstrator. This illustrates centrifugal force causing the ball to fly outwards, while gravitation is represented by the string. But where is the string in real life? The facts of centrifugal force and gravitation are obviously correct; but how does gravitation act. Surely it cannot act across nothing at all, or why all this weightlessness problem for astronauts in space? Of course we are told it isn’t quite nothing at all, but relatively it seems a very poor substitute for the string on the tennis ball, which, compared with the earth, would be many miles thick. Something to the casual observer seems to have been forgotten in this gravitation story, and if anybody can be bothered to think about it and not just swallow everything he is taught, he must see that this is so. No mathematically learning can explain away the absence of the string. Just to say, ‘Gravitation sees to that’, explains nothing at all. Gravitation must have something on which it can pass. There must be a substitute for the string on the tennis ball.
Of course I haven’t the slightest qualification for saying any of these things at all. I am not a mathematician, an astronomer or anyone who is supposed to know about these matters. I am simply a very inquisitive archaeologist. But I am quite unrepentant and do not mind if people say I am daft, for I think I know what the string is. The answer comes from another little ball on a fathom of cotton.
If anyone has followed my somewhat clumsy and incoherent arguments as far as this, they will remember that I said we seemed to learn from the double-cones surrounding every fraction of matter, that they could not easily be traced to their peaks and that it was thought they might be no more than vibrations on a swelling string. I guessed, no more than that, that they were in fact vibrations on taut strings, which were more or less infinite. One end might go down to the centre of the earth and the other go for an unknown distance out into space. This is simply and entirely guess-work. I don’t want anybody to think that I know. But to me it seems reasonable from what we have learnt; and I do not see that my reasoning need be any worse than that of trained philosophers and scientists, whose ideas are frequently shown to be wrong. Well then, if you do not think that I have been talking complete balderdash up to this point, look at this. We have evidence produced by the pendulum for an unimaginable number of double cones, terminating as rays, proceeding up into space. These cones interlock and the presumed rays proceeding from the earth must be so close together as to form an almost solid band all round it. It must look far more furry than the skin of a coconut. Out these rays go, fixed at one end in the earth’s centre, and, as they are endless, all day long and all night too, most of them end up for a period in the sun. It is rather like the old-fashioned musical box, where the tune is obtained from spikes on a rotating drum lifting up a comb and letting it go again. The earth revolves and the rays are twanged against the sun and against the moon too. At any given time there is a tight band of rays joining the centre of the earth to the sun and another smaller band joining the centre to the moon. Other rays, since all the objects involved are spheres, miss both sun and moon and proceed on into space where a small band will hit this planet or that. But along these bands of rays, when they are in contact with sun, moon, or planets, the gravitational pull can travel, and this is so strong that an object like the moon, which appears so small that you can cover its image with a sixpence held at arm’s length, can pull the great oceans up into lumps and cause the tides.
Here I feel must be the missing string to the tennis ball, which makes gravitation reasonable. It would also account for the bending of things like light rays. Nothing would be absolutely straight, except those rays in a dead line between the centre of the earth and the centre of the sun at any given moment. At any one instant there will be one absolutely dead straight ray. Not that this is of much importance.
If there is any sense in this piece of reasoning, we must try to look for evidence with the pendulum. It was in fact such evidence, which set me off on this particular line of thought. I do not usually bother my head with cosmic matters, and do not care whether the universe originated in an explosion, or by the collection of minute particles of gases in space.”

“I have suggested then that we can bend our rays in whatever direction we like. Of course we would not bend the whole ray for I suspect that this is how the life force really reaches us. But we can send out a beam at an angle to the main axis of our body. We do not do this, unless we are experimenting, consciously at all. But it can be done. I have no idea what forces can move up and down these rays, which apparently could form the string to the sun preventing the earth from flying off its course. But they may be very great, far greater in fact than the relatively trivial power, which is at present assumed for the earth’s field.”


Now the year this book I am quoting from was first published was the year 1965 and that is now half a century ago and what Tom Lethbridge wrote half a century ago seems to be still true now, nothing seems to have changed.

In an entry 2011 Dec 24 – Prof Higg’s suggestion I quote a science writer with these words: “After 30 years in the shadow of biology, physics is in the news as never before.” So it seems that at least for 30 years nothing has been really coming from the physicists, they seem to have been in the shadow and in the dark, going the wrong way and now they seem to get their results: they seem to find nothing.

The main purpose of science is to keep people away from truth. They erect a smoke-screen of so called knowledge in order for people to be mesmerized by it and thereby kept in the dark.

The main purpose of religion is to keep people away from God. They erect a smoke-screen of so called spirituality in order for people to be hypnotized by it and thereby kept in the dark and away from truth.

There is no real difference between science and religion. Both are forms of believe in something that prevents people to come directly to God.

What else has science and religion in common? Whenever someone comes to them with spiritual aspects of life then they are immediately alarmed and in opposition and start the persecution machinery. Why is this? Because it shows and reveals their incompetence. It demonstrates their inability to really deal with the things of life.

Tom Lethbridge’s ideas about gravitation are out for half a century and more or less an entire century ago were Einstein and Heisenberg and what after them? After them we had Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And what the physicists have put forward like the Big Bang and the Standard Model seems to start to make them uncomfortable and they look for something else.

There is though one female physicist who has recognized the whole nonsense of modern physics, and kicked this nonsense out of her house: Angela Merkel - and her Fukushima kick. Now it is just needed that she instructs her, also female, minister of science, to also kick Cern out of the house. The only good thing about Cern seems to be that it is proven there that the entire modern physics is on the wrong track.

Tom Lethbridge’s ideas about gravitation are out for half a century and as usually our scientists ignore it because it does not suit their religion. The search for truth is unimportant. Religion is all what counts.

These ideas coming from Tom Lethbridge– and being ignored - are nice examples of scientists digging in the dark und finding nothing. Here we have got something where a combination of physical methods and of spiritual methods are used and apparently quite successfully and no-one seems to have taken up the idea and followed it through with further investigations.


Back to: 2012 April 23


Go to the top of this webpage:

2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |

Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous

For an overview of this website and for access to the individual webpages go to:
Site Map

The web address of this webpage is: