Is it crazy to think that the earth spins less gravity on its equator than at its poles? Is it furthermore crazy to think that the same elementary forms which constitute waves of light are the very same tetrahedral-shaped elementary forms which the earth spins around it to make a gravitational field when said tetrahedral forms travel at a speed less than that of light?

If the above two ideas have any merit and are not taught at schools and colleges, then why wouldn't a person such as myself have reason to pause and question all the information spoon-fed to me, and therefore take a longer time to complete an education, while at the same time demanding my money back for things taught to me which are flagrantly and demonstrably wrong?

If there are different amounts of gravity on different parts of the earth, then people would evolve to reflect this extra force upon them. I recently went to the top of the world where I noticed my body expanding, and my inability to wear certain clothing hindered. However when I went down south, all my clothes fit, because my body compressed under the more gravity and heat extant there.

When I read the Bible I notice that Jesus tells people to either "stand forth" or "be raised" when he wants to heal their diseases, so I can't help but think that his cures have something or other to do with changing the amount of the force of gravity onto each person he heals, and that diseases are caused by an excess or defect of both gravity and temperature. If one travels northward a person is healed quickly because the force of gravity on them is lessened and their bodies are able to draw nutrients to parts of their body quicker than under the force of more gravity and heat down south.

Why would the earth not spin more gravity around the center of the axis by which it spins and less at the poles, when gravity consists of elementary particles that are onto each other and go where pushed by elementary forms which have more inertia than they?

If the earth is made of elementary forms that are formed to atoms, then they could push the static elementary forms onto them and cause a gravitational field which is larger at the equator and less at the poles. Why don't schools teach people this simple logic so that their students can heal themselves the same why the Bible tells them too?

If small spheres of elementary particles form by some elementary forms colliding with others not moving as fast, and which are headed to an opposite direction and are of an opposite speed of the first set of elementary forms they collide against, and those spheres spin the elementary forms which constitute waves of light around them, like Saturn spins small rocks around its center, then why wouldn't atoms be the same size as each other and be small one small sphere instead of many?

Aren't atoms the same size as each other because when elementary particles of equal and opposite speed collide against each other and make a spiral shape, a few have to hit each other first to form the center of the spiral and more need to collide against each other on the outside of the center of the spiral to the point that they keep spiralling to converge and form a sphere which can only be a single size?

If atoms are nothing but small spheres don't atoms spin other elementary forms around and onto them just like the earth or sun spins a gravitational field of slower moving elementary forms onto them? Wouldn't these elementary forms which are spinned onto them be the same as what is vaguely taught to be an electron orbital? Is this crazy logic? I don't think so.

If two spheres of elementary forms, which I have now deemed to be atoms, can conduct electricity, doesn't that mean that they must be less than two radii apart from each other so that the orbitals of both cannot hold elementary forms of light onto them, and so must constantly attract more electron light while also passing it over them?

If atoms are attracted to each other by the same means which two planets' gravitational field attract each other, yet unlike planets they are all the same size, then couldn't up to four atoms be latched together to form a square and then a layer of atoms which are individually connected to only three other atoms and no more? Couldn't also two atoms be latched together by the attractive force of their electron orbitals and be attached to no more than two more atoms? Is that crazy?

If all planets and stars are all influenced by the gravitational field of each other then wouldn't atoms be as well, though on a smaller scale?

If that which conducts electricity are atoms which have no electron light on their orbitals because they are latched less than two radii apart from other similarly latched atoms – and are what we consider metals - is formed when atoms are pressed together very tightly from all directions, then wouldn't the atoms which constitute metals be closer than two radii apart from each other, yet not all latched together, because the atoms ontop of each other would pass no electrons onto the atoms below their electron orbitals because the radii of their electron orbitals wouldn't attract electron light from the electron orbitals out of reach of them and not touching them?

If there is any logic to the above, and I'm sure there is, and this logic is not taught at schools, then wouldn't I have a reason to think I was being ripped off?

If all the atoms of metals were ground to powder so that only the electron orbitals of the atoms side-by-side were still less than two radii apart from each other, and electricity were introduced onto this powder while it was confined to a small area, wouldn't the molecules get excited and cause an explosion? The electricity would quickly go over the atoms with electron orbitals latched together and would cause the atoms latched together to get hot and expand, and then rise, until they could pass that electricity onto another set of atoms which are latched closely to each other. Wouldn't this cause an explosion if more electricity was introduced to such a mixture of atoms than there was room for both the mixture and the elementary forms which constitute the electron light particles of the electricity?

If different atoms were formed from the same star-stuff which constitutes the star the earth most surely have been before it cooled off and stopped rejuvenating its atomic electron orbitals, then wouldn't all of the atoms which are proximate to each other at specific points of teh earth have formed by similar amounts of pressure and heat?

If all different conglomerations of atoms have certain colors, and the ontop-of-each-other atoms are at a similar distance from the atoms which are latched together by side-by-side by electron orbitals, then are not colors formed by the distance of the side-by-side atoms of at least two layers of atoms?

If all colors are the conglomeration of two separate layers of atoms which are ontop of each other, but on the side of each other at certain distances, then wouldn't the human mind associate certain colors with certain naturally occurring molecular structures and, concomitantly, layers? It is true that certain man-made colors which are similar to those which occur by nature are the results of atomic structures that are not equivalent to those which form by nature because they have been man-made, however, to think of the idea of the name of the color, wouldn't man have to name those colors similarly to those he found naturally occurring before the made-made color was made? Wouldn't this naming of colors be similar to the synthetic apriori the philosopher Kant wrote about?

If a man names colors, and other certain forms of naturally occurring objects by sounds which best imitate the forms of those objects, wouldn't the sound come from the pattern of the vibration of oxygen molecules hitting his ear at the time he saw those molecular structures?

If man can hear a form because of the vibrations of oxygen molecules which hit his ears at the time he views or touches an object, then wouldn't different sounds be imitations of different kinds of vibrations of oxygen molecules which come off the forms he's naming, and wouldn't all sounds of objects be similar to men who have ears which are similar?

Could it be that oxygen has more electrons on its atomic orbitals than the kind of atoms that form together to make a man's ear, and so transmit a certain amount of electron energy to his ear when he hears things, so that all sound must contain a certain amount of heat from the oxygen which transmits it to his ears?

If all the words we use to imitate the sounds of certain molecular forms come from the heat transmitted off the electron orbitals of oxygen molecules, and the oxygen molecules distribute the heat to our ears based upon the way they vibrate when they are struck by an object, or when they strike an object, then couldn't sound be imitated by waves of light which contain vibrations similar to those found on the forms of light which constitute the electron orbitals of oxygen molecules?

If the above is posited, then wouldn't I have logic enough to think that someone would try to exploit this niche of science to manipulate me, if I have already been manipulated as to the simple logic of science by many universities and governmental organizations thus far? This is a fair question, and not an insane one given the amount of lies about other things already told me.

Getting back to the sounds of objects. If each sound people use for words is an imitation of the heat off the electron orbitals of oxygen molecules which have hit the ears when viewing an object, then isn't each letter of the alphabet an expression of a different molecular structure or atoms, from which certain oxygen has bounced off?

If the letter "s" sounds like the sound of a gas, and air is a gas, then why doesn't the word for air have an "s" as part of it? Is it because only compressed air sounds like ssssssssss, and regular free flowing air sounds like the word "air"? If "s" sounds like a gas, and a gas is the furthest spaced apart molecule we have on earth, then wouldn't "s" represent number twenty-six of the alphabet, if the alphabet is defined by the sounds that are different spaced apart molecular layers of atoms? The other letters would represent sounds thought to signify layers of molecules which are of different layers of molecules though spaced apart at different lengths, though the letter "s" would be the last letter.

If phonetic sounds were placed at intervals that matched different spaced atoms, a chart of the alphabet would look like this. There are two different cahrts, actually, which might be approximate.

1k 12m 24c 1= oo close together is a different sound than the most spaced apart layers of atoms, the chart would look like this

2q 13o 25f 26 =o----o far apart 1k 2q 3x 4g

3g 14w

5d 6b

7l 8u 9v 10j 11t 12p 13f 14s 15c 16z 17m 18o 19w 20h 21n 22a 23r 24e 25y 4d 15h

5b 16n

6l 17a

7u 18r

8v 19e

9j 20i

10t 21y

11p 22x

23z

The above could fit some logic as to why the the ancient runes were worshiped to such an extent. When letters like this are combined together to make words and then read backwards, they would probably make the kinds of colors you see flashing before you when you close your eyes, the penumbra as Nabokov called it. In fact, when we hear different sounds, the brain would logically associate those sounds with the kinds of colors we see when hearing those sounds.

Now given that all molecular structures seemed to have formed similarly but slightly altered from each other during the formation of the earth - or should I say its transition from a star to a planet - all minerals that need mining would be disbursed just about equally about the face of the earth (I have written a geometry pamphlet explaining the logic for this subject more in depth). That's another thing I didn't learn at college and reason enough to ask for my money back.

Another reason I want my money back from college are for such things like the absence of thought paid to the rejuvenation of electron light around atomic orbitals, which I have written copiously on for my medical pamphlet, which I have a copy of and will append to this piece of writing.

The logic goes something like this: if atoms spin elementary forms around them, and those elementary forms are what what we call electrons, then the elementary forms onto them, which are not spinning by the force of the atomic orbital could absorb movement from light disbursed somewhere else on the universe and contribute that inertia to the elementary forms onto the atomic orbital and speed them up the elementary forms of the atomic orbital. If elementary forms were onto the elementary forms of the atomic orbital, then those forms would have to have some inertia, or lack of it.

What Aristotle deemed the "soul," and that which causes people and animals to have circulatory systems - to replenish the inertia of the electron orbitals of the body with fresh light from the breath of life - would have been a nice thing for my college to have taught, however, this was not taught there, though it seems to have been a staple of liberal education since before Christ.

A person can easily build from the logic of the rejuvenation of the light of people's electron orbitals, that it's the same mechanism which makes stars burn for very long periods, and though stars do eventually stop producing light, the ability for the electron orbitals of their atoms to keep rejuvenating light, is only hindered by forceful light given off by other stars. However, the ability for the electron orbitals of stars' atoms to rejuvenate light wouldn't be possible if other stars didn't release light form their electron orbitals and contribute the soft inertia stars need to gradually increase the speed of the elementary forms of their electron orbitals.

The rejuvenation of electron light is the foundation of the understanding of how the human and animal body works as an electrical and biochemical mechanism. I've written a medical pamphlet on the way different organs of the body function electrically; on a biochemical basis, and which I will append to this paper. It begins with the fundamental realization that the need for respiration of most animals results from the need for them to rejuvenate the electron orbitals of their bodies, and the only way to do that is with a circulatory system that cadges electron energy from oxygen molecules and does this by some process of respiration. All of the functions of the rest of the organs become quite clear after learning about elementary forms and the rejuvenation of speed on atomic orbitals, and one can posit that mans evolutionary ascent from the small shell-fish to a larger organism by this basic and simple logic, not to mention from examining animal bodies geometrically with the simple algebraic formula s = o/n / n/o.

I will attach my medical and geometry pamphlet as an appendage to this page. The pamphlet explains these concept more fully than that to which I've made mention here.

Another matter I've been misinformed about and lied to for various nefarious purposes and of which I cannot be quite sure the point of is the structure of the governments of other countries. The American form of government works upon a check a balance system where the president is elected by the people, or the electoral college system (I'll make more mention of that soon) and is charged by the military, appoints judges to the all the courts for certain lengths of time, and uses his influence on both courts and military establishment to set forth bills to the legislature. The Congress is bicameral having a Senate and a House of Representatives which are elected for 6 years (the Senate) and two years for the House. The House of Representatives draws its own voting districts, or there is a very influential (I'd imagine) redistricting committee charged by the responsibility for drawing up electoral districts, and a certain amount of districts are available based upon the amount of population a state has. To check the passions of the mob, there are two senators from each state no matter what the population.

Laws are passed by being voted upon by both the House and Senate and any items attached or taken away from laws are done at committees for the House and Senate respectively. After both Houses vote on a single, though slightly different bill a Conference committee looks at the additions and subtractions from the law by both houses and sends a finished and identical copy back to both houses to voted upon again. The chairs of the committees, and therefore the most powerful people of each committees, are from the political party which has the most number of people elected in either the house or the senate. The advantage of being a chair of a committee is...I'm not sure. I don't know whether or not the people who get elected to the House or Senate get onto certain committees because they promise certain things and do some sharp politicking, or whether they are picked randomly, however I do know that the level of standing people from a committees have is dictated by their seniority at that Senate or the House; defined by how long they've been continously elected. So the chair of a committee is always the most senior member, and what privileges that entails I'm not sure of. I need to ask someone about this. However, I was under the impression that a simple majority vote of each committee determines what happens to the bills so I'm not sure what privilege it is to chair a committee, though I thought it brought some. Even if the chairs of some committees were stacked to the brim of members from a single party, should the rule for chairing a committee be based upon party/seniority lines, the other committees would be stacked to the brim of members from the opposite party. However, I do know that the majority party chairs all of the committees, and was under the impression that this brought big advantages, though I could be wrong.

The courts can overturn the law passed by the house and Senate and the Houses can overturn the courts by a two-thirds majority. I don't know if the court can make line item changes to each law, but if they can, then that brings special advantages to the courts! The President can veto a law (though there is no line-item veto) and the the Senate and House acting conterminously can overrule the President by a two-thirds majority, or can vote to change the two-thirds majority rule and vote a simple majority in some cases, (I think, though it would be interesting to know) and Senators who don't have enough votes can defeat a law can filibuster it before people vote on it, and that means the law doesn't go anywhere because there is too much continuous debate, and other business is stultified before the Senate adjourns for the year.

When the president is elected he gets the majority of votes for a majority of states respectively, and at the states where he gets a majority he receives 100% of the electoral college votes for that state. The amount of electoral college votes for each state is determined by how many congressmen and senators each state has. There are times, when the president might get a small majority of the votes for the most populous states and get all the electoral votes for those states, and then the sheer number of losers from the populous states can outnumber the amount of winners from the less populous states and from these means, the president can win the presidency even though he doesn't get the popular vote. If it's a tie, however, the Supreme Court decides.

However, when I came to England, I was led to believe that England had the form of government described above, but once I got here I learned that the Queen appoints the House of Lords, draws up the electoral districts of the House of Commons, is the head of the courts, and prisons and can overrule the parliament. That's quite a big difference from what I'm used to, and as with the committee system of the United States government, I'm not familiar to the intricacies of this kind of government, so it seems overwhelming to me, and is a cause for me to want my money back from the college which led me to think otherwise, and which, furthermore, didn't explain to me the committee system of my own government.

Now, the above are only a few of things of which I know, and a few of things that I asked professors about at college, and wasn't given a straight answer, and why I want my money back and why I think I have fairly solid ground for not trusting who claim themselves experts about certain issues.

Another big thing is evolution and gravity, which I'm fairly sure I've listed above. Right now, I'm about to leave a fucking mental institution because of several misunderstandings I've had concerning basic applications of science - only some listed above. Anyone, please tell me where I'm wrong

Also, there's the matter of divining the size of elementary forms by building a model of spherical forms made up of tetrahedrons. The spheres being spaced approximately two radii apart, so that one might look at the smallest carbon bubble and deduce the approximate size of an elementary form; the knowledge of which wouldn't invalidate any of the concepts above, however would certainly sharpen the logic of the applications above and also man's ability to apply them to his everyday life. I'm sure this has already been done. When I look at high definition televisions I'm positive someone has done some stringent calculations as far as the size of elementary forms is concerned.

There's also the matter of the explanation of various forms of technology which I'll not name here. My only purpose when writing this paper was to illustrate some very simple concepts (by the standards of the 21st century) to show how people are ripped off by educational institutions. I have yet more evidence of schools ripping off people from my e-mail account, on which I ask professors certain questions which have self-evident truths, and then show them blatantly lying to me.