COROLLARY THEOREMS: "complexity is only deceiving simplicity."

GREN LEAVES LMost of the under average-intelligence people believe that fluorescent bulbs are more energy-efficient than incandescent bulbs are. Note that just a shade further from "details" there is the Global Picture, as follows:

A. Fluorescent bulbs work with mercury--a terrible poison--and that means we save on "polluting emissions" at the expense of poisoning our environment with mercury. Regardless of how careful we are, a serious percentage of fluorescent bulbs ends up today--and tomorrow--broken, therefore they release uncontrollably the mercury they contain.

If we complain about "global warming" these days, tomorrow we may have a "global-scale mercury poisoning". Please, DO NOT FOOL WITH MERCURY POISONING PEOPLE!

B. Fluorescent light is terribly damaging/stressful for the human eyes because it is a narrow-band optical radiation. This was never publicized: using fluorescent light is ruining our eyesight. That is the reason most people experience headaches after the first 2-3 hours at their workplace, when fluorescent light is used there intensively.

Consider this: in addition to being a narrow-band optical radiation--therefore, alarmingly dangerous for any eye, animal or human--fluorescent light is also pulsing at 60 Hz in N America (and possibly in Australia) and at 50 Hz in Europe and the rest of the World. Although 60 Hz is a little bit better, it is still EXTREMELY straining for our eyesight. Consequently, people feel "tired" and "sleepy" after the first few hours at work.

RED LEAFJust a rough estimation, it is possible that people work at under 40% of their intellectual capacity due to the improper, more precise, torture-like illumination conditions at their work places. Further, damaged or tired eyes generate a lot of abnormal functionality for your entire organism, in general, and for your nervous system in particular.

In contrast, incandescent bulbs have a very slow raise/fall thermal curve, therefore the pulsing nature of the power grid disappears COMPLETELY! In rich countries, where fluorescent light is used intensively--and preferentially--the percentage of people having vision troubles is overwhelmingly alarming.

For those who do not know, over 75% of the eye-glasses wearing people could throw them away, if they take care of their eyes appropriately. What they need is plenty of natural light, and a distant, nice horizon/sky-line to watch (marine environments are the best). The eye is an extremely complex organ, and it does have the capacity to correct impaired vision BY ITSELF! All you need to do to help your eyes to recover is to eliminate all sources of narrow-band optical radiation--particularly the despicable fluorescent light!

Mind this please: the closest artificial light to the natural one--the sunlight--is generated ONLY by the old, reliable incandescent bulb. [Again, the eye is nourishing and healing itself only with natural light.]

C. Incandescent bulbs may be easily improved to become 10 times more energy-efficient compared to what they are today. Just think of the nice, white light generated by a tiny flashlight bulb working at 3V! Unfortunately, the experts--people having stunning resumes with tens of years of light-bulb experience--advocate/promote only the fluorescent light.

The psychological drive behind their action is, the incandescent light-bulb is way too simple, technically, while the florescent one offers exciting grounds for "technical ingenuity"! People adore making things far more complex than what they need to be. Note again that fluorescent light is terribly damaging for our eyes in particular, and for our health in general--just talk about this thing with a true specialist doctor (if you will ever manage to find a honest and a humanitarian one).

GREEN LEAF LD. In spite of the apparent savings in energy, fluorescent bulbs have additional, hidden energy-costs related to their complex fabrication process, and to the technology needed to destroy them safely. Overall, fluorescent bulbs are a lot more "energy inefficient", and they do generate WAY MORE "polluting emissions".

E. Due to their ballast or switching driver module, fluorescent lights generate harmonics into the power grid. The costs associated to annihilating those harmonics are staggering today, and they will become prohibitive in the future.

F. Finally--we need to end this, although there is a lot to talk about--in order to compensate for their narrow-band optical radiation, the power of the equivalent fluorescent light installed is always GREATER than when employing incandescent bulbs. For example, if one 40W incandescent bulb is sufficient to light a work-desk, designers will install TWO 40W fluorescent lights for a total of 80W of consumed power! This is already done in all places where fluorescent light has been implemented. Saving on emissions you say? Ha!

This little social-psychology incident is a perfect example of the existing/real level of average social intelligence (read A38). The truly bright idea would have been to replace all indoors existing fluorescent bulbs with incandescent ones. As for reducing the existing polluting emissions, there are very, very many better strategies; all it takes is just a little bit of . . . intelligence.

[Fragment from "Global Picture in News" April 26, 2007. © Corollary Theorems Ltd.]


GREEN LEAF RNatural antigravity was first described in Three Stories, "PEASANT AMBASSADOR". It says there that the antigravity vector exists naturally in all atoms; however, we cannot "see" its manifestations, because the gravity component is greater. The obvious question is: "How is it possible the gravity vector is greater than the antigravity one?" We are used to see that forces, and their associated reactions, do balance each other; therefore, how could a force and its reaction be imbalanced?

We have mentioned a few times by now about the Universal Imbalance Principle, and time has come to explain it--better said, only a part of it. Now, we have a few Physical Laws, among which the Energy Conservation Law is the most important. This Law says:

Energy is not created; energy is not consumed; energy changes, only, from one form to another.

As you can see, all Physical Laws, principles, and theorems start from a statement, or a set of statements, as the one above. Mathematical implementation of those statements comes later, and it may take many forms. Anyway, the point to note is, the Energy Conservation Law is one of the most important in Physics, if not THE most important. Hundreds and thousands of corollary theorems have been postulated, based on this law--for example, consider the Kirchhoff's equations for electrical nets: they were written according to the Energy Conservation Law.


The point to note is, this mighty Law brings a perplexing observation: before Big-Bang, at Time Zero, there was NOTHING. Next, the Big-Bang comes, and that pops-up a terrible amount of energy into the Atomic Universe. In fact, it looks like that energy is still being injected today in this side--please read our previous articles.

GREEN LEAF LIt appears the Energy Conservation Law doesn't work in this spectacular Big-Bag instance which is also THE most important physical process/aspect for the entire Atomic Universe. Now, the truth is the Law works just fine. All energies existing in our Atomic Universe come from the Subatomic, from Primary Energies--details are presented in THREE STORIES FROM HILSA'N TASSA GALAXY and in MERCY.


The problem is, we cannot measure/detect those Primary Energies, and many doubt that they actually exist. Well, they HAVE TO EXIST otherwise the great Energy Conservation Law it is not right, and 99% of our Physics is totally wrong. However, the point to note is, those Primary Energies ARE NOT energies as we know them; they are SOMETHING capable of GENERATING energies in our Atomic Universe. In the Subatomic, Primary Energies are not capable to react with each other. In fact, the few Physics Laws we know are totally different in the Subatomic--we will take a closer look at this aspect later. Now, if we do not take the Primary Energies into consideration, then our entire Atomic Universe makes no sense. The Universal Imbalance Principle, says:

There is a flow of [energy] from the Subatomic Universe into the Atomic one, due to . . .

RED LEAFWe didn't finish the above statement because we do not intend to discuss the causes of that unidirectional flow of energy. This deals with the Certitude Factors and the Fundamental Reasons, only these notions are so fantastic at this time, that it would be totally futile to attempt explaining them to you. We will do that gradually, starting in our SF books.

That imbalance is extremely important because, if it would cease to exist now, then our entire Atomic Universe disappears instantly. Even more, this imbalance is needed to form the matter [the atoms] in the Atomic Universe. Consider this, our Atomic Universe is now 90% Hydrogen atoms, but it was 100% monoatomic hydrogen atoms shortly after the Big-Bang. All hydrogen atoms miss exactly one electron, in order to complete their "s" electronic orbital, and that means our Atomic Universe is positively charged, chemically and electrically. Now, the true beauty is, that perplexing extra positive charge of the monoatomic hydrogen atom DOES NOT COME from the proton!

GREEN LEAF LThe question is: "Is that electrical imbalance of our Atomic Universe a good thing or a bad one?" Not only that it is a good thing, but it is also a necessary one. This time, the GREAT CREATOR--or Mother Nature--gives us another example of PERFECTION BASED ON IMPERFECTION. If the Hydrogen atom had a complete "s" electronic orbital, then Hydrogen was an inert element, a noble gas, therefore it wouldn't react with other elements. There would be no higher, active, atomic elements--better said, there could be higher atomic elements, but almost all of them would also be inert, chemically--this means, bye-bye life! In fact, that inexplicable positive imbalance exemplifies, perfectly clear, that our Atomic Universe has been built for optimum performance. 

As it is mentioned in our SF books, the antigravity vector exists in all atoms, and it is equal to the gravity one. However, antigravity is much consumed inside the atom, while gravity is needed to structure the matter in the outside-atom, and in macro-cosmos. Now, the antigravity vector may be amplified, and there are many practical ways of doing that.

Potential Pits

The difficult thing with these articles is, we try to change the existing mechanical mentality using notions that are way too difficult to understand--practically, such notions do not exist, excepting our SF books and these Amazing Articles. The good news is, we do not have to listen to absurd arguments, therefore we are able to continue with our articles unobstructed. In time, after many SF books and more Amazing Articles, some people may start "believing", and that is going to be a very good starting point.

The Antigravity EngineAnyway, someone mentioned to us that we do not have engines strong enough to replace the Discovery Shuttle reactive, reusable boosters. That is perfectly true, but it is only because we didn't try hard enough to research for a better engine than the chemical reactive one. The efforts should be focused towards implementing the antigravity engine.

That is going to take some time, say, 25, 50, 100 years, but the idea is, we need to start rather sooner than later--in fact, the best time is right now. It is just a matter of planning and good organization; therefore, we will summarize here a rough scenario. First, although the final purpose is the antigravity engine, the research activity needs to be developed in parallel with other practical applications; for example, the first engine to be developed should be the Plasma Jet one.

"How?" will ask most of our readers. You see, up to now we have developed simple applications based on a single principle, say, reaction OR internal combustion. Time has come to consider a "chain" of engines, or Physical effects, in order to obtain increased performances. The "hybrid" vehicles/cars we use today are an excellent example.

In the Plasma Jet case, we should start with a plasma generator, then with an electrical generator, and then with an ionic reactor. The working fluid used should be only water; better said, monatomic hydrogen and oxygen. This is the least polluting option, and it also has a lot of internal energy--it is only up to us to use the most of it. That Plasma Jet engine needs to be further developed and optimized into the more performing Ionic Jet engine--again, while working in parallel on the antigravity engine one.


First published on July 20, 2005 
© SC COMPLEMENT CONTROL SRL. All rights reserved. 



Send your comments regarding this page using
Page last updated on: July 19, 2018
© SC Complement Control SRL. All rights reserved.



Valid HTML 4.01!

Site pages valid according to W3C

Valid CSS!

Stylesheets pages valid according to W3C