
and to that of our planet in a world threatened by our own development. 

Planemo, Planet, Planetar, Planetary Mass, Planetesimals, Planetoid, Plutino, Pluto, Plutoids, Protoplanet, Puffy Planet, Pulsar Planet and, Dwarf Planets, Among Others: A Commentary on the International Astronomical Union's Definition of a Planet. A spacetime/motion analysis is presented of the wordconcepts in the 2006 International Astronomical Union's definition of a planet, dwarf planet and, small solar system body. click The IAU2006 definition of a planet is based on the Planetesimal hypothesis. click If the Planetesimal hypothesis about the formation of the solar system is incorrect, then the IAU2006 definition will require overhauling. click Taken from today's science literature on astronomy, a selected partial list of 122 wordconcepts referring to planet types is offered with summarized features for each term. click The deficiencies of oneword [planet], twoword [dwarf planet] and, fourword [small solar system body] terms of definitions are examined as of the methodological requirements for classifying planet types. click The numerous features in the selected 122 wordconcepts for planet types cannot effectively be encompassed by the three IAU2006 definitions. click The spacetime/motion analysis of the IAU2006 presented in this essay offers a methodological procedure for evaluating the task of creating wordconcept definitions. click 


Electromagnetic ParticleWaves [EMPW]: Charles William Johnson 

Science writers like analogies. Here is one that explains why the different colors of visiblewhite light travel at different wavelengths and frequencies. The reason has to do with avoiding interference with regard to the transmission and reception of visible light specifically, and with regard to the entire spectrum of electromagnetic particlewaves [EMPW] in general. Consider the similarities between a fourminute mile foot race and the speed of electromagnetic particlewaves [EMPW], i.e., the speed of visible light in a vacuum. Commonly referred inversely in the science literature as the waveparticle duality. Physically one must begin with the particle and then the wave of particles. Since the wave theory was developed first in science writing, the common usage continues to be presented inversely [waveparticle] as to how these occur temporally in spacetime. With that said consider the 4minute mile foot race compared to the speed of light traveled in a vacuum during a measured period of one second between two points. Science writing today defines exactly the speed of visible light as traveled in one second, as being 299,792,458 meters/second. The measurement is obtained as an abstracted straight line between two selected points: A and B. The speed of light in one second determines the relationship of distancetime. However, given the fact that the electromagnetic particlewave travels along a curved line, as in a sine wave, there is no presence of matterenergy along the abstracted straight line; nothing exists there. In a sense, something similar occurs with the 4minute mile foot race as measured distancetime, between the Starting and the Finish lines. Runners occupy different lanes within the race track as shown, with adjustments made at the Starting Line in order that each runner runs exactly one mile distance. The object is to beat the 4minute mile goal. All runners are required to leave the starting line at the same splitsecond or be disqualified. But, the object is to beat the other runners to the Finish First, ahead of all other runners.

With regard to the speed of white light, all electromagnetic particlewaves (different colors) leave at the same time and arrive at the same time. Necessarily for visible light to exercise its being, the different electromagnetic particlewaves of color leave point A at the same begin moment/time and arrive at point B at the same end moment/time, simultaneously together. With the 4minute mile race, the winning racers who reach the finish line at the same end moment/time; must have a runoff race, a tiebreaker. The colors in visible light must always produce the same arrival time. The racers in the 4minute mile foot race have to stick to their own corridor and be sure not to invade the lane of the other racers, or risk being disqualified. With electromagnetic particlewaves, something similar happens. Each color (EMPW) has its own path, or corridor within which it travels so as not to interfere with the other colors. Each color achieves this by having its own defined wavelength and frequency. Each of the foot racers travels along a different corridor that is supposedly the same length, although of a different shape along a curved path on the racetrack. Each color travels about a perceived straight line from point A to B in one second, each color along a different curvilinear path with a unique wavelength and frequency. The different corridors established by different wavelengths and frequencies traveled by the whitecolor electromagnetic particlewaves avoid interference among the different particlewaves. And, this also means that the particular particlewaves of different paths, wavelengths and frequencies travel the defined onesecond course at greater/lesser velocities among themselves. Further, all of them travel faster than the defined speed of light in a vacuum abstracted as of the straight line between points A and B. The obvious conclusion, as pointed out in other essays, is that the currently defined speed of light in a vacuum is a limited definition, and does not represent the maximum speed of matterenergy in spacetime/motion. Also, all electromagnetic particlewaves of visible light (whitecolor light) travel at superluminal speeds meaning above the defined speed of light in a vacuum. Beyond these limited observations, all electromagnetic particlewaves [EMPWs] travel at velocities greater than the defined speed of light in a vacuum. In essence, then, it is necessary to take into consideration the superluminal velocities of the different electromagnetic particlewaves and their unique paths, wavelengths and frequencies, in order to understand the nature of light and its purported measured velocity as restrictively defined by today's science writers. ©2014 Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson, Earth/matriX Editions, P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, LA 701831126 
The New Order of the Genetic Code by Molecular Weight for RNA A Proposal by Earth/matriX for Listing the Amino Acids from Smallest to Largest 



NEW ESSAY Patterns of Periodicity among Proteinogenic Amino Acids (Towards a New Paradigm in Scientific Notation) Click (pdf) 





The incredible fact is that the boiling point of water, mass defect, Planck implied energy and, the elementary charge are near fractal multiples of one another. A New Special Right Triangle: 15° · 75° · 90° click The Solar System's 60Degree Angle of Inclination to the Galactic Plane 
Superluminal Velocities

A Comment on the Land Mass on Earth and the Superficiality of Continental Drift TheoryThe Land Mass on Earth [Composition, Form and Motion] is determined by the following factors and their interplay, together with innumerable other considerations that have been discussed in my book, Eventpoint Cosmogeography. click 

1) The Equator Fixed Rotation 2) The Ecliptic Plane [EarthSun relation] 3) Precession motion 4) Nutation 6) Gravity PulltoCenter: Earth 7) InnerCore Levels 8) Gravity PulltoMoon 9) Gravity PulltoSun [closest star] 10) Gravity PulltoSolar System 11) Gravity PulltoStarsGalaxy 12) Gravity PulltoGreat Attractor 13) Gravity PulltoOther Galaxies 
[resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] [resulting motion] 
The Speed of Light in a Vacuum is Not the Maximum Speed of MatterEnergy 

The Electronic Schemata of the Elements: Atomic Radii (pdf) 

The Big Bang Theory Debunked by Its Own Reasoning: As Illustrated in the Popular Scientific Diagrams of the Big Bang 


The scientific diagram of the Big Bang theory of the creation of the Universe reflect a purpose and intent of representing exactly what is purportedly to have existed. The critical evaluation of these diagrams and the theory they supposedly portray need to be questioned in a like manner of exactitude. The question is whether the spacetime/motion coordinates presented in the diagrams are possible according to what we know about matterenergy as forms of spacetime. Further, the theory of the Big bang does not account for the apparent appearance or creation of matter in the Cosmos, apparently from nothing. The Big Bang theory would presuppose the idea that whatever matterenergy was created at the moment of the Big Bang is what exists now and forever. Its theoretical limitation is the restrictive interpretation of the transformation of matterenergy where it apparently appears to be created or recreated in some parts of the Universe.... more 
Different Planets as Unit 1.0:


The conjecture A^{x} + B^{y} = C^{z} made by Mr. Andrew Beal is concerned with the common prime factor for positive integers and their exponents. "If ,a^{x} + b^{y} = c^{z }, where A,B,C, x, y and z, are positive integers x, y and z are all greater than 2, then A, B and C must have a common prime factor." [Mauldin, 1997] This represents the original wording of the Beal Conjecture. The Beal Conjecture requires positive integers in the terms [A, B, C] and exponents [x, y, z] of the equation (the latter whose value must be greater than 2). The products of the terms must reflect the selfsame multiplication of the terms in whole numbers or positive integers. Obviously, no fractional expressions are to appear in any of the three terms or three exponents of the equation. And, the most significant part of the conjecture affirms the necessity that the terms share a common prime divisor. Or, to the contrary, present counterexamples. 
In our view, the concept of a counterexample stipulated by the Beal Conjecture is simply impossible by definition. An equation with coprime terms cannot have positive integer terms and exponents, as stipulated, given the very definition of primes and coprimes, and their multiples. If a coprime pair of terms (divisible only by the greater common denominator of 1) were to exist, then that would represent a counterexample in our view. Now, the fact that the conjecture may wish to see a counterexample with all exponents as whole numbers (as well as the terms) is simply expecting something that cannot derive from coprimes and their relationship in the cited equation. We shall explain the reason for this as of the concept of selfsame addition of terms. The argument made in this essay is directed at the system of notation that we have inherited throughout history, based upon, in this case, the limiting method of selfsame multiplication of terms. In that sense, these observations go beyond the Beal Conjecture. The insight posed by Mr. Andrew Beal in his conjecture serves as encouragement for looking at old problems in a new light. We are simply attempting to peel back the first layer of algebraic notation in order to emphasize the relations occurring behind the symbolic language. And, in our mind, that is precisely what Mr. Beal has afforded in launching such a critical conjecture. ..... more 
++++++++ Purchase the Complete Essay, 73pp: $1.00


The physics paradigm today is based mainly upon the concept of csquare, the squaring of the speed of light in a vacuum. Numerous fundamental physical and chemical constants provided in the physics literature [CODATA] reflect numerical values based upon powers of c, the speed of light in vacuo. The speed of light in a vacuum is determined to represent the upper limit of movement of massenergy by physicists. 
The upper speed limit for a light photon is 299792458 meters/second. The square of that number produces a numerical value that does not exist in any form of matterenergy. The csquare actually represents a number that corresponds to a near massless event: a light photon. The author goes beyond a critique of Albert Einstein’s famous formula based upon this unreal number. The rejection of Einstein’s formula is explored through basic math, the summation of powers in the equation’s terms. 
Charles William Johnson, email: charlesjohnson@earthmatrix.com Earth/matriX:
Science in Ancient Artwork Series ISSN15263312 