The document format supports printing of
two pages per sheet, and binding on the left long edge.
1. People who enjoy science, especially
2. People who teach physics, especially at
the highschool and college level.
3. People who want our society to
progress, and who want to eliminate blindspots and misconceptions.
Errata (2nd ed.): A clarification is needed regarding the dimensions of the expansion of a balloon surface. The "dimension" of the spatial surface expansion is given as s2/t. Note that this is NOT two dimensions of motion. A "motional dimension", as I often call it, is (s/t)1 or (t/s)1. "Two motional dimensions" would be (s/t)2 or (t/s)2
. I have not found clear, unambiguous, non-confusing terminology here. Example: mass is (t3/s3). That is, mass is ONE three-dimensional motion, not three (dimensionally separate) one-dimensional motions(t/s)3 Again, this usage is different from what you learned in highschool
(page 7). Be careful, and anticipate some confusion with this
terminology (until the dust settles). Likewise, do not
confuse "dimension" with "intensity" or "amount".
Photons do not accelerate
up to light speed when emitted from an atom. The emission takes place
AT lightspeed, from our standpoint, or at zero speed (1/1) from
the photon's standpoint. The photon has no independent motion, and is
swept along in the Expansive Ether. It is the atoms of matter
that have independent motion with respect to the Ether. Atoms are
moving temporally (not spatially) at the speed of light. The photon's instant speed could be viewed as a non-local effect.
"Black Holes are a Mathematical Fantasy, not a Physical Reality",
Gurcharn S. Sandhu, Applied Physics Research; Vol. 11, No. 4; 2019 https://tinyurl.com/y2pu3v4q
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
by Albert Einstein ("Albert Einstein gave an address
on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. He chose as his topic Ether and the Theory of Relativity.
He lectured in German but we present an English translation below. The
lecture was published by Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922." http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html ) Note: only the last paragraph of this interesting speech is quoted below:
we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is
endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no
propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for
standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore
any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not
be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it."
say space has properties of magnetic permeability, electric
permitivity, and a free space impedance of 377 ohms.
Mathematians say it is "metrizable" (supports the
common concept of distance; not all "spaces" do this.). Astronomers say
it "progresses" or "expands" and has three dimensions. With space
having so many properties useful to physics, we may as well say it is a
manifestation of an aether,
also have specific properties? It probably does, but this
possibility has not been investigated "physically". All that is
commonly known is that time progresses and is scalar in the
equations of space.
Errata (1st ed.): page
2: In the phrase "the Universe really does have non-casual, non-local
behaviors", the words "non-casual" should be deleted. The word
"casual" was an unintented mis-spelling of "causal"; Even so, the
non-local events described are clearly caused by the experimental conditions imposed by the experimenter.
pages 8 and 22: the words "gravity waves" should be changed to "gravitational waves"
Not mentioned in the article`(1st ed.):
There is also a diffuse Far Ultraviolet (FUV) background:
“the source of a substantial fraction of the FUV background radiation
remains a mystery. The radiation is remarkably uniform at both far
northern and far southern Galactic latitudes…” See “The Mystery of the
Cosmic Diffuse Ultraviolet Background Radiation”, Richard Conn Henry,
Jayant Murthy, James Overduin, Joshua Tyler (2014)
Another thought about a two-in-one (local + non-local) Universe:
“What we know as the universe could actually be just one of a pair that
exists in the same space but at different times.” (Science News, July
25, 2015, p. 17 “Times Arrow”.)
made some brief comments about the Aether on page 12 ("The static
Aether was not detectable"). Most textbooks will state that the
fringe shift of the Michelson-Morley experiment was absolutely zero
(within experimental error). I believed that the non-directional motion
described in my article would affect the perpendicular beams equally,
and result in no fringe shift. But apparently there actually was
a small fringe shift. Yet this piece of experimental data got buried by
institutional politics because of prevailing views about Relativity.
This subject will have to be revisited.
"Although the theories cannot answer what happens atc,
the scientists suspect that an object crossing the "light barrier" may
have some very interesting consequences. They compare our current
understanding of this boundary to that of an object crossing the sound
barrier for the first time, an event that was highly disputed before it
was achieved in 1947.
wondered what would happen," Hill said. "Were we all going to
disintegrate? Would the plane fall apart? It turns out passing through
the speed of sound led to a big bang. I suspect going through the speed
of light will be more interesting. I have a feeling the world will
change in some dramatic way as we move through the speed oflight. All sorts of things could happen. Time and space could interchange."
world we experience possesses all the qualities of locality. We have a
strong sense of place and of the relations among places. . . . And yet
multiple branches of physics now suggest that, at a deeper level, there
may be no such thing as place and no such thing as distance. Physics
experiments can bind the fate of two particles together so that they
behave like a pair of magic coins. . . . They act in a coordinated way
even though no force passes through the space between them. Those
particles might zip off to opposite sides of the universe, and still
they act in unison. The particles violate locality—they transcend space."
for Gravitational Waves Associated with Gamma-Ray Bursts During the
First Advanced LIGO Observing Run and Implications for the Origin of
"We present the
results of the search for gravitational waves (GWs) associated with
γ-ray bursts detected during the first observing run of the Advanced
Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). We find no
evidence of a GW signal for any of the 41 γ-ray bursts for which LIGO
data are available with sufficient duration." https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07947
propagated at the speed of light instead of instantaneously, the
effects on orbits of satelites and solar system planets would be very
obvious. However, these are relatively small systems.
Instead of a solar system, consider the effects on something the
size of a galaxy:
We know, the
solar system and other stars are orbiting around the center of the
Milky Way and the radius of the Milky Way is larger than 5☓104 light-year. . . . But, we know, the Milky Way is moving with a speed on the level of 5☓102km/s.
Therefore, the distance between the retarded position and present
position of the center of the Milky way is . . . 25 light-year.
And, a galaxy is usually older than . . . 1☓1010 years . . . . The distance between the retarded and present positions of this center should become larger than 5 x 106
ly. In this case, a spiral galaxy could not maintain with the form of a
disc. Instead, it was a very long strip along the direction of the
galaxy moving. However, no galaxy has become such a long strip one.
("The speed of gravit;y: An observation on galaxy motions
", Yin Zhu (September 2016) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30917.45287
Abstract The LIGO
Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration have announced that on 14
September 2015, LIGO detected an Einstein gravitational wave directly for the
first time, with the first observation of a binary black hole merger. The
announcement was made with much media attention. Not so long ago similar media
excitement surrounded the announcement by the BICEP2 Team of detection of
primordial gravitational waves imprinted in Bmode polarisations of a Cosmic Microwave
Background, which proved to be naught. . . .The insurmountable problem for the credibility of LIGO's
claims is the questionable character of the theoretical assumptions upon which
they are based.In
this paper various arguments are presented according to which the basic
theoretical assumptions, and the consequential claims of detecting
gravitational waves, are proven false.The apparent detection by the LIGO-Virgo Collaborations
is not related to gravitational waves or to the collision and merger of black
Appendix A . . .
However, the crucial point of the foregoing mathematical
development is that Einstein's gravitational waves do not have a unique speed
of propagation. The speed of the waves is coordinate dependent, as the
condition at Eq.(A.6) attests. It is the constraint at Eq.(A.6) that selects a
set of coordinates to produce the propagation speed c. A different set of
coordinates yields a different speed of propagation, as Eq.(A.3) does not have
to be constrained by Eq.(A.6). Einstein deliberately chose a set of coordinates that yields the
desired speed of propagation at that of light in vacuum (i.e. c = 2.998x108
m/s) in order to satisfy the presupposition that propagation is at speed c.
There is no a priori reason why this particular set of coordinates is better
than any other. The sole purpose for the choice is to obtain the desired and
the coordinate-systems differ from Galilean coordinates by small quantities of
the first order. The potentials gμν pertain not only to the
gravitational influence which has objective reality, but also to the
coordinate-system which we select arbitrarily. We can ‘propagate’
coordinate-changes with the speed of thought, and these may be mixed up at will
with the more dilatory propagation discussed above. There does not seem to be
any way of distinguishing a physical and a conventional part in the changes of
gμν. “The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational
waves are propagated with the speed of light has, I believe, been based
entirely upon the foregoing investigation; but it will be seen that it is only
true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a
certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is
that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is
altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates
and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely
introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from
representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument
thus follows a vicious circle.” Eddington [38 §57]
 Eddington, A.S., The Mathematical Theory of Relativity,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
(1963, reproduction of 1923 publication; the paperback edition is from
Forgotten Press and the quote is on p. 130-131) (If
you search the reprint of this book using Amazon's
Look Inside feature, use "vicious circle" for the search text.)
There is a widespread and erroneous conviction (see e.g. Fock ,
p.194) according to which in GR gravitation is propagated with the
speed of light in vacuo, i.e. with the speed of light in empty space of
SR. The supporters of this false opinion claim that it follows, e.g.,
from eqs.(4) and (5), when interpreted as differential equations of
wave fronts and rays of GW’s. Now, this is trivially wrong even from
the viewpoint of the believers in the physical existence of GW’s,
because eqs. (4) and (5) – quite independently of their interpretation–
affirm in reality that the concerned wave fronts and rays have a
propagation velocity that depends on the metric tensor gjk(x),
even if this tensor has the form of a mathematical undulation. The
non-existence of physical GW’s has the following consequence: if we
displace a mass, its gravitational field and the related curvature of
the interested manifold displace themselves along with
the mass: under this respect Einstein field and Newton
field behave in an identical way .
. . . It is regrettable that various physicists insist on publishing useless considerations and computations on hjk–waves
. It is time that astrophysical community desist from beating the
air – and from squandering the money of the taxpayers.
"Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", Foundations of Physics,Tom Van Flandern, Jean-Pierre Vigier, July 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 1031–1068
Abstract ( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016530625645 ) General
relativity has a geometric and a field interpretation. If angular
momentum conservation is invoked in the geometric interpretation to
explain experiments, the causality principle is violated. The field
interpretation avoids this problem by allowing faster-than-light
propagation of gravity in forward time. All existing experiments are in
agreement with that interpretation. This implies the existence of real
superluminal propagation and communication of particles and fields,
free of causality problems. The introduction of real physical
faster-than-light propagation into gravitation, electrodynamics and
quantum theory has important consequences for physics.
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity,
edited by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith (2008) "Global
Positioning System and the twins’ paradox", Tom Van Flandern
. . it is entirely possible that reality is Lorentzian, not
Einsteinian, with respect to the relativity of motion. In that case,
physics may have no speed limit when the driving forces are
gravitational or electrodynamic rather than electromagnetic in nature.
And that may be the most important thing that the GPS has helped us to
Abstract. This article analyzes the data for the five gravitational wave (GW) events detected
in Hanford(H1), Livingston(L1) and Virgo(V1) detectors by the LIGO1
collaboration. It is shown
that GW170814, GW170817, GW151226 and GW170104 are very weak signals whose amplitude
does not rise significantly during the GW event, and they are indistinguishable from non-stationary
April 10, 2019, the first image –to be precise –the first “shadow” of a
Black Hole was presented to the public in a press conference at Brussels."
this an "image" of a Black Hole ("shadow") or was it something else?
The giant Black Hole is in the center of Messier 87--a famous
gigantic spherodial galaxy that is about 55 million light-years
from Earth. The Black Hole is about 7.5 microarcseconds in diameter.
The Event Horizon (radio) Telescope has a resolution of about 42
microarcseconds. For comparison, the Hubble space telescope has a
resolution of about 50,000 microarcseconds and a backyard optical
telescope has a resolution of about 1 arc second. Obviously, the
Black Hole cannot be seen optically, and is even below the resolution
of the Event Horizon (radio) Telescope. The pictorial representation of
the data cannot show any features smaller than 42 microarcseconds, but
can show larger features around it. This is a problem because at this
distance and this wavelength, and this resolution, the radio waves are
coherent. They cannot form an image based on interferometer techniques.
The result will be a black spot at the center of the image. So this
"Black Hole" could just be nothing more than a diffraction limited picture of an infinitely remote source.
The second problem is the speed of the
gravitational waves. Einstein states that the speed of these waves is the same
as the speed of light. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on this issue too.
This also has very justified reasons. Firstly, there is a fundamental
difference between the propagation of light and the gravitational waves. Light
propagates in a form of quanta called photon. A photon emitted from its source,
which is probably millions of light years away, is the same as the one reaching
our eyes. It is photon entity energy that brings it to us from millions of
light years away. The photon is still the same photon because it keeps total
entity energy along its route. However, the quantum structure of the
gravitational field has not yet been observed. It is likely that the space
fabric is the one to allow the emission of the gravitational energy. It is the
most important evidence that the gravitational field does not lead to the loss
of mass, while radiation does. Propagation of the gravitational energy by the
space texture also reduces its probability of propagation at a constant speed,
i.e., as the gravitational waves propagate, the speed will decrease. Why?
. . . How can this controversy regarding the
gravitational waves end? It is important to end because it leads to unnecessary
time and resource loss. This is the reason I suggest a project to ESA and NASA.
It is not necessary only but obligatory. The project is a different and simpler
renewal of what these organizations have done before.
. . . Now,
with remote sensing, the gravity acceleration can be measured more sensitively
than ever. Therefore this is certainly an achievable proposal.
Mass can store (absorb) energy and momentum, but the reverse is not true.
Mass has the dimensions of t3/s3 . Momentum has the dimensions of t2/s2 . Energy is t1/s1
Logically then, mass has enough dimensional freedom to absorb (or
store) a massless particle (having only momentum) and it could also
absorb a photon of energy. But the reverse is not true. Photons cannot
store mass, nor can massless particles store mass. Massless
particles, like the neutrino, however, can acquire more energy (as in
And if a massless particle becomes part of a massive system (like
an atom) it may contribute to an increase in the mass of that system,
even though it has no mass by itself.
A non-local alternative to the nuclear model of the atom
The common nuclear model of the atom is based on the concept of locality ("touching is space"), not non-locality.
back to Rutherford's original experiment (circa 1911) . He discovered
that a material aggregate (gold foil) has an array of tiny massive
objects ("kernels") in it, each containing most of the mass of the
atom, and each separated by plenty of "space" (or some kind of
emptiness) . What were these massive objects? The previously
existing model was based on spatial contract, viz.
atoms in an aggregate are pictured as touching each other, like
billiard balls in a shoe box. The volume of a ball could be estimated
by calculations from soap film experiments and by known molar volumes
of metals. Rutherford found something that was 10,000 times
smaller in diameter than that implied by this volume. Both
picutures had factual support and so the tiny massive objects became
"nuclei". Hence, the atom "has" a nucleus.
But that is not what his
picture really showed. The tiny massive objects, which contain
virtually all the mass of the atom, and ultimately account for all the
properties of the atom, could be the atoms themselves! The "emptiness"
is simply between the atoms, not within
the atoms. Physicists could have developed a whole new different form
of atomic physics if they had accepted this realization! But
historically, they were neither fluent nor comfortable with the concept
years later, quantum mechanics began to be developed. It had
features that clearly pointed to a non-locality model. Originally,
electron orbits were thought to be clearly defined (like the orbits of
planets around the Sun), but later the orbits turned into a fuzzy
"electron cloud"; it was not that the electron orbits could not be
found and measured, but it was that they did not have
any sort of actual spatial trajectory in the first place. Later, more
and more conceptual problems developed with the atomic electrons.
It now seems that this model should be discarded and a new one
created based on the concept of non-locality. Atoms exist and
they can have various energy levels based on different types of
intrinsic spin systems (see links above).
Electrons can be an agent to express those energy levels without
actually being "parts" of an atom (any more than a gamma ray is a
"part" of the atom). A conceptually "cleaner" model of the atom could
lead to additional useful insights that are not readily apparent in the
"Milgrom’s correction allows
gravitational attraction to fall off with distance more slowly than
expected (rather than falling off with the square of distance as per
Newton) when the local gravitational acceleration falls below an
extremely low threshold. This threshold could be linked to other
cosmological properties such as the ‘dark energy’ that accounts for the
accelerating expansion of the Universe. " "Has dogma derailed the scientific search for dark-matter?" Corey S. Powell, ed.https://aeon.co/ideas/has-dogma-derailed-the-scientific-search-for-dark-matter
however, proposes that, at very large radii and small accelerations,
gravity decays with distance more slowly than Newton’s inverse square
law. This removes the need for dark matter, providing a clear
explanation for the tight non-Newtonian correlation between visible
matter and radial acceleration." "Galaxy rotation study rules out modified gravity, or does it?" 21 Jun 2018 https://physicsworld.com/a/galaxy-rotation-study-rules-out-modified-gravity-or-does-it/
Why is the speed of light limited to c and not to some other value?
A partial answer: the speed of light equates to the value of 1/1. It is what the speed of light actually is. And this is a number with special properties.
1. Only 1 is equal to its reciprocal 2. Only 1 has the property of 10 = 11 = 12 = 13
The real question: why do humans equate this to 186,000 miles per second?
Can stationary charges radiate electromagnetic radiation?
walk across a carpet and then touch a doorknob. A big fat spark leaps
from my hand to the doorknob. The doorknob is now charged. It is also
being accelerated at 9.8 m/sec^2 (like everything else on this planet).
We are told that "accelerated charges radiate eletromagnetic
radiation". Hence the questions:
1. Does the doorknob radiate as long as it retains the charge? Why or why not?
2. Is it possible to accelerate
an object without having it change speed, position, or direction in
space? (this is related to the "motionless motion" discussed in Beyond Einstein)
Suppose the doorknob remains stationary, but the remainder of the room
moves or oscillates. Is radiation present? Does this relate to the
question of absolute motion?
4. Does this question relate to a "change of direction of motion" or a "change of dimension of motion"? See "Origin of Intrinsic Spin" for some insights.
The Periodic Table displayed in chemistry and physics classrooms has only one row based on 12 . The others based on 22, 32, and 42 each have two
rows. The reason for the missing row was not given in the
article. The missing row represents massless particles. These do not
have sufficient intrinsic spin systems to qualify as mass. They
therefore cannot come to rest in a gravitational reference system and
do not have "chemical" properties.
Where is the antimatter?
considerations suggest that antimatter would be just as likely to exist
and matter. So where is it? It is actually here with us in our everyday
living space. It is not really "anti" matter, but "inverted" matter.
That is, it has space/time relationships that are inverted (time/space)
from our perspective. It is represented by an "inverted Periodic
table" (and the masses, as seen from our perspective, can be worked out
in terms of natural quantities as explained elsewhere in the article).
These are all "non-local" to our gravitational reference system and fly
through our system atom-by-atom at the speed of light much like the
massless particles of our own system. And instead of low energies, they
may have extremely high energies. Their distribution in our space is
essentially homogeneous and isotropic. We call them "cosmic rays".
An appeal to my readers
paper "Beyond Einstein: non-local physics" indicates that
approximately half of our potential physics knowledge, the non-local portion,
is missing. So far, we have only the non-local physics of quantum mechanics
("physics of unit space") which has a limited (but important) scope.
The non-local "physics of unit speed" has been completely ignored, as
has the important role played by other unit quantity boundaries. It now seems
possible to combine the local and non-local descriptions into ONE seamless physical
theory based on nothing more than space and time relationships (mass and charge
would be derived concepts).
would be a huge undertaking. Currently there is nothing in mainstream science
or mainstream publications that even hints of serious interest in this
direction. Engineerable technology has been admirably well developed but the
science--the basic understanding of how the Universe truly works--is still way
off in the weeds. After 100 years we are still arguing about Special and
General Relativity, and even something as simple and basic as gravity is still
enigmatic at its roots.
problem is mathematical representation of physical phenomena. It is highly
desirable to have seamless mathematics for a seamless physical theory. The
mathematical framework must comfortably and naturally handle some rather
strange and thoroughly unfamiliar (but still accessible) concepts:
1. It must accommodate an absolute
reference system based on centerless expansion of fundamental discrete unit
space/time and time/space (i.e., motion and its inverse) and its relationship
to a differential (relative) reference system such as the one in common use. It
must comfortably accommodate motion with direction, motion with no direction
(scalar motion), direction with no motion (intrinsic rotation), and a
fundamentally stationary photon; (See #DiagramSpeedsInGravBoundRef ;In Search of the Geometry of Space, Time and
of this could be handled by the various specialized, piecemeal mathematical
systems commonly taught at the college level, but there seems to be a better
choice: Geometric algebra:
"Geometric algebra and its extension
to geometric calculus unify, simplify, and generalize vast areas of mathematics
involving geometric ideas, including linear algebra, vector calculus, exterior
algebra and calculus, tensor algebra and calculus, quaternions, real analysis,
complex analysis, and euclidean, noneuclidean, and projective geometries. They
provide a common mathematical language for many areas of physics (classical and
quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, special and general relativity) computer
science . . . and other fields." (Linear
and Geometric Algebra, Alan MacDonald (2010) Preface )
knowledge is expressed mathematically, but the importance of the
optimal choice of the appropriate mathematical language is often
underestimated ... . The geometric algebra (Clifford algebra)
formalism, according to Occam’s razor principle, is by far the best
choice for modern physics. Clifford algebra provides a simple and
unifying mathematical language for coding geometric entities and
operations ... . It integrates different mathematical concepts
highlighting geometrical meanings that are often hidden in the ordinary
algebra. ..." ( Maxwell's Equations and Occam's Razor, Francesco Celani, Antonino Oscar Di Tommasoy, Giorgio Vassalloz, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 25 (2017) 1–29 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274378_Maxwell%27s_Equations_and_Occam%27s_Razor )
though Gibbs was able to reduce Maxwell’s twelve equations down to
four, as mentioned,
his formalism for vectors had significant structural limitations. For
cross product only applies in three dimensional space, because in four
dimensions there is
an infinity of perpendicular vectors. However, probably most serious in
terms of students
learning physics, is that, conventional vectors do not integrate with
intuitions regarding basic operations. That is, there is no division
operation, the cross product
does not apply in two dimensions and one cannot freely add vectors to
algebraic elements (scalars), so that vector algebra becomes a
monolithic structure unto
itself. Hence the intuitive understanding of physics concepts, as well
as general geometric
understanding, which depends on the understanding of vectors, is
Historically, as vectors became more popular in physics and in various
other fields, new
scientific discoveries such as quantum mechanics and relativity meant
that vector analysis
needed to be supplemented by a basket of other mathematical techniques
such as: tensors,
spinors, matrix algebra, Hilbert spaces, differential forms etc. As
noted in 7
, ‘The result is a
bewildering plethora of mathematical techniques which require much
learning and teaching,
which tend to fragment the subject and which embody wasteful overlaps
of translation’. " ( "A simplified approach to electromagnetism
using geometric algebra", James M. Chappell, Azhar Iqbal, Derek Abbott
(November 11, 2010) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.4947.pdf See also: Vectors and Beyond: Geometric Algebra and its
Peter Simons, dialectica Vol. 63, N° 4 (2010), pp. 381–395
DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.2009.01214.x http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/61825/Vectors%20and%20Beyond%20as%20Printed.pdf?sequence=1 )
of this could keep an army of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers busy
for 100 years. It is the scientific equivalent of "fill the Earth and
subdue it" or staffing a newly discovered planet.
are the things of God, and God will give us assistance just for the asking:
cry come to me, and I will give you an answer, and let you see great things and
secret things of which you had no knowledge.”(Bible in Basic English,
Let the asking begin!
"Though your beginning was insignificant, Yet your end will increase greatly. Job 8:7, NASB
"the ant" has "no chief, officer, or ruler" (Proverbs 6:6-7, NASB So, get to work!