We will start the Mass-Gravity problem by looking at Newton's writings. Newton lived from 1642 to 1726 and stated, "Hitherto we have called "centripetal" that force by which the celestial bodies are kept in their orbits. It is now established that this force is Gravity, and therefore we shall call it Gravity from now on. For the cause of the centripetal force by which the moon is kept in its orbit ought to be extended to all the planets."

"All bodies gravitate toward each of the planets, and at any given distance from the centre of any one planet the weight of any body whatever toward that planet is proportional to the quantity of matter which the body contains."

"Therefore the gravity toward the whole planet arises from and is compounded of the gravity toward the individual parts. We have examples of this in magnetic and electric attractions. For every attraction for a whole arises from the attractions towards the individual parts. This will be understood in the case of gravity by thinking of several smaller planets coming together into one and composing a larger planet. For the forces of the whole will have to arise from forces of component parts. If anyone objects that by this law all bodies on our Earth would have to gravitate toward one another, even though gravity of this kind is by no means detected by senses, my answer is that gravity toward these bodies is far smaller than what our senses could detect, since such gravity is to the gravity toward the whole Earth as the quantity of matter in each of these bodies to the quantity of matter in as these bodies to the whole Earth." and,

He says "The quantity of matter in the individual planets can now be found. The quantities of matter in the planets, are as the forces at equal distances from the centres; that is, in the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth, they are as 1, 1/1067, 1/3021, and 1/169282 respectively." We have grouped these in a table for easier reading.

"Therefore the Sun is a little denser than Jupiter, and Jupiter denser than Saturn, and the Earth four times denser than the Sun. For the Sun is rarefied by its great heat. And the moon is denser than the Earth....", even though he doesn't include the Moon, we have this information today.

Newton expressed his formula about force and gravity as follows.

Inertial mass x a = F = m x g

Where:

F ‐ is force measured in Newtons

m ‐ is mass in kilograms kg

a ‐ is acceleration. Distance/Time² or m/s²

g ‐ is gravity, and on Earth = 9.81 m/s²

Newton assumed that mass is the cause of Gravity. As a cannonball is swung around a person, a force is generated in the chain that the person must overcome. The larger the mass, the greater the centripetal force and the greater the strength required from the person. Newton accepts this experience without question. Therefore, he assumes the planets must also have mass, and the force that holds them in orbit around the Sun is a centripetal force, which he is now calling Gravity. Likewise, the planets with their moons must act similarly, so they, too, must have mass and be held by this invisible chain called Gravity.

While Newton's argument sounds acceptable even logical, it is not until we look at the current values of gravity of the Moon, Planets and Sun that problems start to arise.

Celestial Mass and Gravity.

The current table shows no relationship between mass and Gravity. Why would Saturn, at 100 times the Earth's mass, have less Gravity than the Earth, or Mars, at one-tenth the mass of the Earth, have a third of our Gravity? Neptune, at 20 times the Earth's mass, has Gravity close to that of the Earth's? It should be understood that these figures are based on F= G x Mass/Radius² and use the Earth as our sole known base for comparison, and presumes Gravity comes from the very centre of the planet's mass, and that all planetary bodies are constructed like the Earth. The better question would be whether magma movement in each planet has an effect on the value of Gravity?

To expand our knowledge of Gravity it would be helpful to perform the appropriate experiments on each planet or the many moons, but until then, we must theorise ways out of this conundrum. One may say we have been to the Moon, but this ignores the fact that the Moon is the satellite of the Earth, and is probably affected by Earth's Gravity. The Moon may imitate the Earth's Time and, therefore, have Gravity, whether there is magma movement or not. For the past two hundred years, we have seen mass as the cause of Gravity, but this is obviously not as clear as we were led to believe.

Newton promotes the concept that any mass will have Gravity, but he does not guide us on when Gravity starts in a mass. If all celestial bodies had Gravity, shouldn't they all be spherical? Many celestial objects are not spherical, so at what point does Gravity become large enough to reshape a body to a sphere? We may suspect that a small planet or celestial object has broken up by being impacted by another object, but when did that impact occur? Was the impact in the last few years or at the start of the universe? If we suppose Gravity has been operating since the impact millions or perhaps billions of years ago shouldn't we see cracks and fissures on the surface of the broken parts as they move into place, making the body spherical, similar to scrunching paper into a ball.

We conclude that there is insufficient supporting evidence to maintain the claim that mass is the single cause of Gravity and its better to ask, what kind of mass determines Gravity? We also conclude that since Time is included within Gravity it also has to be studied.

Is Time Everywhere?

Discussing Time is difficult because we cannot see, feel, or hear it. We all talk about clock time, such as at 2 o'clock or yesterday and tomorrow, and accept that it only has a forward direction. We do not know where it comes from, yet science discusses the arrow of time. However, the archer who shot the arrow is no longer around, so where was the archer standing? Did their arrow come from the East, West, North or South?

Some even suggest that Time is only a psychological manifestation because when you close your eyes and don't move or are placed in a darkened prison cell, movements are no longer seen, and there are no objects to compare in space, moving against clock time past the person. When something hits the person in this dark place, they may become painfully aware of the impact. This experience is still within the person's body and not external to them. As this object came towards them, their eyes couldn't track it, so time is still excluded from their experience, as only space is perceived with arms or by movement. This is one reason why time is thought to be related only to the observer, is not real or physical. Though this is a powerful counter-argument, there might be more than one answer, as the idea conflicts with our assertion that time is related to Gravity, and therefore must be real, and external to humans. Therefore, we will confine ourselves to time being real and external to all Humans. From here we will confine ourselves also to velocity and use time 't' in the formula as for distance travelled, divided by the seconds of travel of a mass, recognising acceleration is also similar with change in velocity over time.

Emanuel Kant lived from 1724 to 1804 and is often seen as the original thinker about Time. He wrote saying: "In the transcendental aesthetic (a thing not based upon experience) we shall, therefore, first isolate sensibility, by taking away from everything which the understanding thinks through its concepts, so that nothing may be left save empirical intuition. Secondly, we shall also separate off from that everything, which belongs to sensation, so that nothing may remain except pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is all that sensibility can supply a priori. It will be found that there are two pure forms of sensible intuition, serving as principles of a priori knowledge, namely, space and time." "Hence it follows that an a priori, and not empirical intuition underlies all concepts of space. For kindred reasons, geometrical propositions, that, for instance, in a triangle two sides together are greater than the third, can never be derived from the general concepts of line and triangle, only from intuition, and this indeed a priori, with apodeictic (capable of demonstration) certainty."

As most will appreciate, Kant is an intellectual and probably discovered the Dictionary at a very early age. He uses very specific but uncommonly used words to describe his field of endeavour. Being an intellectual doesn't make him infallible or even right on what the average person may already know. However, when he loses the average man, his role of giving imagination to them means his discoveries, if any, remain to collect dust. We say imagination because the average person responds to such things and is responsible for taking any knowledge forward into creative activities. The average person usually understands using different techniques and can quickly assess an argument, often more quickly than the intellectual and think nothing of it, whereas the intellectual may labour over the simplest of things. We see the intellectual as important, as are the psychologically stressed, without disparaging either, as the listener may learn from both to move society forward.

Kant states, "Time is not an empirical concept that has been derived from any experience. For neither coexistence nor succession would ever come within our perception, if the representation of time were not presupposed as underlying them a priori. Only on the presupposition of time can we represent to ourselves a number of things as existing at one and the same time (simultaneously) or as at different times (successively). Time has only one dimension, different times are not simultaneous but successive (just as different spaces are not successive but simultaneous.) ...The fact that any knowledge about motion is possible shows that we understand time without having to experience it.", And with that he confines time, to akin to a ghost, which we will have to disagree with.

We conclude, using Kant's logic, that time is throughout the universe and is always active, though unknowable. However, we know it is active on the Earth and Kant presumes it is active further out, as he saw planets move around the Sun in clock time units. Clock time, was how Kepler came to his conclusions, when he measured the areas described between the Sun and the orbiting planet in relation to clock time. The problem is we need to find a boundary condition that shows time is not everywhere to discredit Kant and show Time is not a priori. By finding a limit to his theory, we would then be free to develop a better theory and replace this paradigm with another one. The boundary condition will not be related to personal intuition, as no independent verifiable method will be available for this; rather, the most likely place will be related to velocity. Velocity is an external phenomenon and can be checked by individuals using reliable technological observations.

This concept of time was further developed by Einstein along the same well-trod path his predecessors took, and did not deviate from the idea that time is throughout the universe. Einstein lived from 1879 to 1955 and wrote his theory of relativity, as a result of the Michelson and Morley findings. He tried to explain this unusual result using relativity, and from that point onwards, he found some interesting insights, just as Newton did with Gravity. However, Einstein's important weakness was using the speed of light in a vacuum when using Earth clock time. Einstein developed or furthered Newton's thoughts by the concept of 'space-time' and said "mass controlled Gravity in a similar way a mass on a rubber mat distorts the mat, and hence the mass creates Gravity". To find the boundary condition for time and Gravity, we may discover that Einstein made assumptions regarding Space and Time and thereby made mistakes with Gravity.

The other Problems to solve relate to Time and hence Gravity.

The Three-Body Problem.

This problem is described as follows. Two bodies revolve around their centre of mass in circular orbits under the influence of their mutual gravitational attraction, and... form a two body system... [whose] motion is known. A third body (generally known as a planetoid), assumed massless with respect to the other two, moves in the plane defined by the two revolving bodies and, while being gravitationally influenced by them, exerts no influence of its own, the problem is then to ascertain the motion of the third body. The planetoid is, for example, the Moon, which in the table above has a small mass, while, say, Venus and the Earth are similar in mass. The problem is that the system no longer stays circular but becomes chaotic over time rather than circular. Newton introduced this problem in 1687, and the problem has pushed subsequent theorists to find ways to not get chaos and collision. The best formulations developed show that time is implicit as the masses move through space, and the best solutions remove time to make the analysis easier to calculate. The best theory used the cubed root of time, so that time became very small, close to 4% of the original time used to move between two points. The problem is enlarged when we have to consider all the planets around our Sun and explain why they remain circular or, more accurately, elliptic and not chaotic.

Maxwell's laws

The problem here is described and summarised by Rob Salgado concerning the speed of light. "Currently, there is a serious problem with Galilean, Newtonian and Einsteinian space-time not being compatible with Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics and optics. The source of this problem is the appearance of a 'constant speed' as a fundamental constant of nature, and the speed of light is automatically built into the laws of electromagnetism and optics. It turns out that if the speed of light were infinite, then there would be no conflict between Galileo's space-time and Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism and optics".

For light to have at once, a constant and an infinite speed doesn't make sense. For this to occur, time would have to be flexible, such that it could be changed, that is, slowed down or sped up. Otherwise, if that weren't possible with time, then space, that is distance, would need to be reduced, as space would have to be changing constantly so that the speed of light could travel large distances more quickly, even to infinite speed. This looks impossible and doesn't match our observations on Earth or the current paradigm. The paradigm we use from Newton to Einstein is time and space are everywhere and unchanging, and the speed of light is constant.

The Michelson and Morley Experiment (1887)

The next problem with Time, or the speed of light problem, is further compounded by Michelson and Morley, who famously performed a scientific experiment meant to identify the relative speed of light on the moving Earth through the ether, but they failed. They created an experiment where a beam of light was split, one in the direction of the Earth's orbital travel and the other at right angles to this. It should have shown a difference in arrival times due to the large movement of the Earth. It actually showed that there was no absolute motion of the Earth relative to the light source. It didn't matter what direction the beam of light was pointing, the result remained the same. Meaning firstly, the Earth did not orbit, which is obviously wrong, and that light travelled at the same speed no matter what speed the observer was travelling at, which also contradicts geometric theory, using vectors and time being everywhere. The Earth is both rotating and orbiting around the Sun. The greatest speed is the speed of the Earth orbiting around the Sun, so this is an important vector of motion. When the vector around the Sun is added to the speed of light in that direction, it should be considerably greater than the speed of light travelling at right angles. Therefore, one beam must be much quicker than the other. This obvious inconsistency is where we suspect we will find the boundary condition.

The maximum speed of light on Earth

Another problem, which the author accepts, is that light does not travel faster than c=300,000 km/s on the Earth and can, therefore, be seen as a constant for the Earth. It is further accepted that electrons can be accelerated close to the speed of light but never faster, even when using our very best equipment. We don't expect this to change in the future.

Travelling faster than light

Yet another problem is a logic test, which states that when you have a spacecraft with infinite fuel, you should be able to travel at any speed, even one greater than the speed of light. But the current theory says nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Therefore, it is thought that the spacecraft cannot do this. It is suspected that some hidden force restrain it? Some say the mass would become infinite in weight, and would begin to gravitate and cause the spacecraft to collapse in on itself. A situation no one would want to have when travelling to another planetary system in the Universe.

Observed Reductions of Gravity on Earth

Our input to those seemingly unsolvable problems about the speed of light, a mass generating Gravity, and Time being everywhere started when we had been studying infrasound vibrations of a geological nature for several years. We discovered that when certain infrasound vibrations were active, the attractive force of Gravity reduced due to these vibrations being present. This was a very unexpected observation, and we could not replicate it because we were not prepared for such an effect. We also lacked practical knowledge with sound equipment, oscilloscopes and electrical expertise to do what was required. Without the ability to do further testing, it lay outside our research field and the current understanding of Gravity. We could not disbelieve the experience as we saw it as a very real event, even though it conflicted with our current engineering knowledge and paradigm. It is suggested, that, to understand why we were studying infrasound, you will need to read the other website about the Hum. This research showed that there were probably three vibrations involved, and these were not related to any man-made vibrations. We suspected, with sufficient electrical knowledge, they could be identified and replicated, but this was definitely outside our training.

David Deming, in his research paper on the Hum, stated that something similar had been happening. He reports: In Kokomo, Indiana, residents reported seeing dead tree leaves move for no apparent reason. Truck driver Billy Kellems said there are days when he could sit on his back patio and watch dead leaves dance on the ground, cracking and popping like butter in a skillet (Albrecht, 2002: A-1). Obviously, leaves don't leave the ground without the wind or a change in Gravity.

We had two options available: ignore our observation, or investigate and try to understand what might be causing this conflict with the accepted paradigm. The question soon became: how does one go about researching this, without equipment or assistance to match the infrasound vibration? We were stuck, as talking to the University would get nowhere, when saying, it was an unusual personal experience, and that it was unlikely to happen again. The next best option was to do the hard work and check for other occasions where people had also reported reduced Gravity. If there were any examples, they may give us independent evidence, and maybe, shed light on a common instigator. However, initial thoughts said this would get us nowhere, since the mass of the Earth will never change.

We started. We could think of several occasions that suggested Gravity on Earth could be lowered or stopped through a vibration. The first example was the religious Indian Guru sect that levitates by humming the word Ommmmmm. Though we hadn't seen this, others had, and it suggested to me that when we were being liberal in our assessment, it may be real and not a trick. As luck would have it, with the power of the Internet, we discovered an interesting video filmed on June 2013's TV program called "America's got talent". Youtube: Special Head Levitates and Shocks the Crowd - America's Got Talent. This video showed an American gentleman in his 30s standing lightly resting against a wooden walking stick, making disgusting humming noises from his mouth and nose. The judges and audience's first reaction was, What the hell is this? The first of the four judges immediately gave him a cross to exit. The other judges waited a little longer, and then suddenly, this gentleman pulled up his legs in a lotus position and floated in the air on stage. The audience was stunned as were the judges, so the judge who gave the X removed it, as he was so impressed, and so this gentleman moved forward to the next round. So you can see it we have inserted the video below.

If this video of a Levitating Man doesn't show, copy and paste this link into your internet browser using https://youtu.be/fjugJaNnN3w

We assumed that when using this evidence, the judges and audience would have known if the stage had been set up for him to do a magic act, as they were sitting there all the time vetting contestants. But there was only a young gentleman with a walking stick and no other external props. Some magic tricks are amazing, but my interest is related to vibration and anti-gravity. Both sound and vibration were present, so it had to be of interest. This matched my infrasound experience, and so it is considered worthy of inclusion. Some may say this gentleman used a hidden seat from his walking stick, but this answer suggests a lack of knowledge as the overturning moments from his weight, which were eccentric to the walking stick, would make him fall over.

The second occasion concerned a news item from Scotland in the 1970s, where a farmer discovered in a remote part of his farm a large piece of grass and dirt about 10m in diameter, ripped out of the ground and moved many metres away in one whole piece. Though one can be critical and suggest animal involvement or an April Fools trick, it did make headlines worldwide. This is included as we could see a similarity with the geological infrasound that we had been studying, and not an animal or human cause. A geological infrasound similar to my experience could occur anywhere, including in Scotland. A farmer would not be easily fooled, and no April Fools joke would last long with the media looking on, so we will let it remain.

The third occasion was remembered from a 20th-century book, where a group of people walking in an English park suddenly floated into the air. We recalled a sudden shout from one member alerted the others, who then came running. The book described the occurrence by drawing a woman wearing a long dress floating above the ground. One or two of the group could walk into the spot and then be lifted off the ground, as had happened with the woman. They could walk in and out at will, without harm, and return to earth on the other side. After a while, the spot and this ability disappeared, and they could walk through the spot with no changes to their weight.

The final occasion is documented in the Bible, where by blowing on horns the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. Of course, this was attributed to God helping, but why did sound make a difference? If they were so loved by this God surely they would need only to point to the walls and pray for them to fall down? But this wasn't the requirement, as they had to encircle the walls and start blowing. Suggesting the sound lowered Gravity, and the weight of the wall's large stone blocks, which with the aid of small boulders being catapulted at the walls, caused the blocks to easily dislodge and come tumbling down.

To overcome Gravity, we currently use an opposing accelerating force 'a' against mass, such as with igniting fuel in a rocket. This is understood by using Newton's formula: Inertial mass x a = F = m x g. If you wish to reduce a force, you must either reduce mass or Gravity, and the fuel's force lowers mass. It is important you notice that Gravity is made up of space and time (Distance/Time² or m/s²). If you were able to change time, you could change Gravity, and therefore, the mass or weight would change, as would the resultant force. The mathematics of this is F=0= m x D/0. For a geological infrasound or an Ommmmm noise to be effective against Gravity something in this formula must be changed. It is accepted that space or distance did not change, and mass could not change, leaving only time that changed.

The unexpected answer to our problem of loss in weight, levitation or being lifted into the air against Gravity without an opposing force, and blocks of stone tumbling is that a vibration affected Gravity. But for a vibration to alter Gravity, must mean that Gravity was also a vibration? Either, we accept Newton's formula should be used, and recognise that Time is integral with it, or, his formula is poorly described or wrong, and time cannot be changed or affected. We do accept his formula is correct and the math of dividing by 0 is correct. This unexpected result lies well outside the current paradigm, so must become the essential aspect to be explored, for what we call the boundary condition.

Development of a Theory

Without the small but important experience of a vibration changing Gravity, we would still have the same problem everyone else has had. As, previously, nothing combined all these theories and facts or observations into a coherent explanation as easily as time does. It is accepted that any theory is a close approximation of reality, which means, to disagree with Kant and Einstein, we need to find the boundary condition with Gravity, and it turns out it is time. This means Time may not be a priori. Also, how can Maxwell be correct, yet experiments show light has a constant speed? Hence, time is the boundary condition, or else there is something seriously wrong with tested facts, and no sane person will accept that idea, and nor do we.

Time in Space and the Origin of Time

The best place to start in solving this mystery is with the Michelson and Morley experiment, as it stands out as having the boundary condition. To understand this boundary condition, we must comprehend where Time plays a role in the experiment, and hence where Time emanates from, as the direction of the light beams is measured in metres/second or space/time parallel to the Earth's surface.

There are three possible ways to understand Time, apart from Time popping out of nothing. One is that Time is a fixed point in space, as with Cartesian grid points, and when objects pass through these time points, they experience Time. Secondly, Time is a moving wave that objects are affected by as they pass through the wave, but the origin point of the wave has to be found to do this. The third is that Time is not in Space or the Universe but is only on Earth. Explanations one and two with Cartesian points or waves are not liked because they presuppose Time is everywhere, and that conflicts with Michelson and Morley's result. Their result proved the Earth didn't move in space and that the speed of light varied. The important point is, if Time existed beyond the outside surface of the Earth's, then the velocity vectors should work with their experiment, and the Earth would again be seen to be orbiting around the Sun. Their experiment showed Time via velocity wasn't applicable or didn't exist, yet we still experience Gravity as the light beam did, which has Time incorporated within it.

When theories get complicated and result in nonsense, this usually points to a fundamental error. The problem may be, that we have taken an earthly or personal concept called time and tried to force it into Space, where it doesn't fit. If Time wasn't in Space, then as the Earth orbited the Sun, it doesn't move through points of time or waves of Time. So there is no external vector of velocity to add, and the experiment would be seen as accurate. This would solve our problem and would mean Kant was wrong about Time being everywhere. But there are still problems, as Time from the theorists still has a direction of travel from today to tomorrow or a beat, which a wave concept could fit into. We also note that Time doesn't go backwards, and by inference, it should mean that since it goes forward, it has an origin.

There has to be an origin for any phenomenon, including time, especially if it is not an a priori intuition. To understand Michelson and Morley's experiment, let's do a thought experiment and consider an object in Space moving in relation to a light source. This object starts at the mid-point between three widely spaced galaxies, in a very sparsely populated region of the Universe, unaffected by any gravitating galaxy or any temperature change. We will imagine time flows as a single wave from one direction, and is at least as fast as light, and starts from some yet unknown origin in Space.

When at this spot, as seen in the drawing below, the object is to the left of the light sources origin, and the circle represents the spreading of a light signal from point 0 during the first second. During the same second, the object moves the distance V to the left, so that relative to the light signal, it should have travelled to the left only a distance of C-V, but to the right as much as C+V, to the light ring on the right-hand side. As you will see, this is based upon vectors and relativity, and is mathematically correct when using a light ring with a constant velocity as Michelson and Morley presumed. However, when we break down the velocity formula, we find that it has distance divided by time (d/t). We now must ask where time is coming from in this place between these three galaxies, if we assume that at this place no forces are acting, no Gravity emanating from the galaxies, and no near attractive or repulsive force from any other object seen or unseen, and no changing temperature that occurs in a unit of time. Then, by removing all those actions incorporating time, we have removed all the known laws that incorporate other time sources and leave only the object's velocity and our observer in this place. This will only leave a pure form of time related to velocity, and then we can see which direction time is coming from.

The vectors would work if time traveled as a wave from the left to the right in the opposite direction of the object's travel. However, you could expect the light ring on the right-hand side of the circle to be slower than the left as it moves away but eventually gets caught by the time wave, and therefore could not be circular. If the object moved now in the opposite direction to the right of point O, the actual object's velocity would also be slower than before, because there would seem to be a greater distance between the time wave beats or crests, even if the object was travelling at the same velocity as before. Hence, there is a problem with this scenario when using vectors. It also makes no difference if the time wave came from the right-hand side, moving to the left of the light ring; the result would still be the same.

There is now only one other direction left to test for the wave to be coming from. If the time wave was going through the page, either up or down, that is at right angles to the movement of the object, whether going left or right, would give a result consistent with Michelson and Morley, and the light ring would also be circular. So, the vertical direction for time's origin becomes the best analogy for time in this picture. However, as we will realise, the object in Space could move in any direction, including up and down, causing failures in the experiment. Time can't be travelling in every direction at once; it either moves or doesn't move, or exists or doesn't exist. Michelson and Morley are saying Time doesn't exist or is not moving above the Earth's surface in Space.

Now, when we apply the same concepts to Michelson and Morley's experiment on Earth, we have an interesting finding. If we firstly use the same object and light ring on Earth and assume time is coming through the page, that is, from the ground upwards towards the object. We see the equations are correct, and the circle is true and not misshapen in any way. The two light beams can travel in any direction simultaneously and return to their origin both at the same time. With Michelson and Morley's experiment the planet Earth can orbit around the Sun, and we immediately see there is no external vector of the Earth's solar orbit, when time originates only from the Earth and not in Space. The only logical conclusion can be that Time comes from the surface of the Earth, and it will also be understood that you cannot go back in Time, as you would need to travel towards the Earth's centre. Going back in Time is impossible and reflects experience, as we only remember the past.

When you look at the physical experiment by Michelson and Morley, the equipment was sitting on the ground, and the light was split parallel to the ground's surface. As the light beam travels, it moves through time, emanating from the Earth. Also, when time is a local phenomenon, it can be experienced by people and understood by using memory and measuring motion. But this is contrary to what Kant states, therefore, time will not be a priori, as time is only local on the Earth and not outside in Space or the Universe! As you will understand, this breaks the paradigm, as we have found and described the boundary condition that conflicts with Kant's and Einstein's logic and matches with Michelson and Morley's experiment.

Having proved that Time emanates from the Earth and not somewhere in Space, we must ask what is inside the Earth that causes time? it's not mass, as shown by the table on the planets, so it must be something else. We do know the Earth's interior, below the crust, there is a mantle of magma that surrounds a very hot core of iron. You may recall that infrasound was observed in conjunction with reduced Gravity. Therefore the Earth must be generating a second infrasound to reduce Gravity, counteracting Earth time, whether the observers hear a sound or not?

Before continuing, haven't we seen two masses being attracted to each other in the air as the Cavendish experiment proved? This experiment successfully showed a small mass being attracted to another much larger mass on Earth. The apparatus constructed by Cavendish was a torsion balance, made of a six-foot (1.8 m) wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2-inch (51 mm) diameter 1.61-pound (0.73 kg) lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12-inch (300 mm) 348-pound (158 kg) lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches (230 mm) away, and held in place with a separate suspension system. The experiment measured the faint gravitational attraction between the small and the larger balls. Since the Earth's gravitational force on the small ball could be measured directly by weighing it, the ratio of the two forces allowed the density of the Earth to be calculated by using Newton's law of gravitation. Of course, this would appear to contradict our contention that mass by itself does not have a gravitational force, that is, until you look more carefully at the experiment.

The aspect to note, the equipment was rigidly and firmly sitting on the ground, not floating in air, or in Space, which means it was at all moments in contact with the Earth's time vibration emanating from the ground. This vibration is carried from the ground, through the floor, through the frame, and down the suspension wires into the masses. So having this vibration in the structure and going into the balls, the balls, like all masses on Earth, will gravitate. So while it seems right to conclude that all masses attract on Earth, it doesn't prove that mass creates Gravity when using our understanding of Gravity and Time within that experiment. The time vibration would have to be excluded, and the structure needs to be at least in air or outside the Earth's Gravity field in Space.

When we assess the three-body problem, using this new understanding of time as a vibration, the problem can be analysed. When two planets and the Moon are orbiting around the Sun, each could be expected to have the time vibration that creates Gravity. So when one planet is close enough to have a gravitational effect on the other planet, the gravitational fields will overlap. The Gravity fields may or may not have the same peaks and troughs, but the signals are likely to be modulated when they pass through each other. Let's say the two signals reduce the attractiveness of the planets, as they fly past each other, without changing each other's paths, and the Moon is not thrown out of balance, and no chaos occurs. However, one planet may cause the other to wobble, due to a portion of the signal being increased, but not enough to cause chaos. A wobble should show that the time signals are different in the planets if detected.

To summarise, we have explained that time emanates from the Earth, not from its mass or somewhere in Space. Time is intimately tied to the Gravity of the Earth, such that where Gravity is felt in a region well past the Moon, time is still present, but not where its Gravity stops. With this new understanding, it will be possible to create a vibration that resists Gravity, and lead to a pollution free transportation system and reduced Global Warming.