Einstein’s Theory said that light in a vacuum was the only absolute. But that premise
is clouded with new doubts, since the discovery of quasars which appear to be traveling much faster than the speed of light. From the Bible, we know that light was created by God (Genesis 1:3). Being one of His creatures, it cannot be absolute.James W. Stivers, The Seed of Cain & the Revival of Mystic Humanism, 1987, p. 43, fn. 8
Introduction
Scientists measure astronomical distances in light-years. This is another point of contention between scientific advocates and religious thinkers. The old method of using trigonometry seemed insufficient for the calculation of large astronomical distances to scientists. Stars are too far away and too small to use parallax. Calculations differed from one scientist to another. Making the speed of light as the standard seemed to solve the problem.
But then different questions had to be answered: What is light? How fast does it really go? Can it slow down and speed up?
In 1921, German physicist, Walter von Nernst thought that light can lose energy as it passes through space and encounters far away stars. Scientists began to use the term “tired light” to describe what they were seeing.
In a recent article, we discussed the Old Earth v. Young Earth controversy. Here I try to tackle the question of distances. I will be discussing James McCanney’s Induced Electric Dipole Red-Shift hypothesis (IEDRS) and demonstrate how it demolishes the Hubble Constant. The Hubble Red Shift dogma that uses the speed of light is not a reliable astronomical yard stick after all.
Why It Matters
Unlike its nomenclature on the measurement of time, the Bible does not really discuss the matter of distances very much. It never offers a discussion on how “big” the Sun is, or how far away the stars might be. Such calculations are not necessary to the biblical story. The closeness of God to His creation is based upon the doctrine of Divine omnipresence, and since God is the prime mover in human as well as geophysical events, His immediate presence is always assumed.
But science, on the other hand, is concerned about the “cause and effect” of natural law. Accurate measurements become the foundation in understanding natural law. Science is not possible without the ability to measure time and distance.
This website is attempting to provide a scientific description of a solar event due to occur at the peak of the next Gleissberg Cycle in 2046AD. Some think that a galactic current sheet is colliding with our Sun’s heliosphere and will induce the catastrophe or as Douglas Vogt called it: God’s Day of Judgment.
While Vogt used this expression as a metaphor, followers of the Abrahamic faiths will want to know if we are about to experience the conflagration taught in their respective sacred texts. Before we sound the public alarm, we better get our science right.
The Role of Science
The role of science is not meant to be an impious competition with God’s rule over creation. Rather, it becomes the foundation of mankind’s role of dominion over the terrestrial universe. The “subduing” of the Earth requires human calculation: whether it is the distance between rivers for purposes of trade, the weighing of metals for commerce, or the harnessing of the atom to produce useful energy. Man’s work of dominion, his interaction with the physical realm, requires the ability to measure time and distance.
I have referenced numerous times the existence of an “esoteric” tradition involving the activities of the biblical characters which are not a part of the biblical record. While apocryphal accounts ought to be received with caution, as they are often fables to advance partisan movements within Judaism, some facts about their “extra-biblical” activities can be known.
Abraham, for example, was a surveyor and an explorer. He knew trigonometry and is credited by Josephus and other ancient writers with teaching arithmetic to the Egyptians (Whiston). If true, trigonometry would have taught Abraham that the Earth is round. In fact, it can be argued that he predated the Greeks in knowing the Earth’s circumference. Moses would have inherited this knowledge through the Egyptian priesthood which had benefited from Abraham’s sojourning among them for some 20 years.
Abraham, Moses, Solomon and Daniel would have been key figures in this esoteric tradition which would have been passed down either orally or in whatever manuscript entries left to us by the ancients. The 17th Century “Sons of the Enlightenment,” such as Sir Isaac Newton, became custodians of this tradition, which to the unlearned and superstitious may seem like the occult, but to us, it represents proto-science.
While Freemasonry and other so-called “secret” societies often misappropriate credit for this tradition, they do so while mingling it with their perversions and gnostic claims that set aside the imperatives of revealed religion. For these groups, the Mosaic Law becomes anathema as a thing to be resisted and overturned. But Moses was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7) which would have embodied the science and mathematics as it was taught by his ancestor, Abram of the Chaldees. We should expect, then, that the Pentateuch represents not only Divine revelation but also the best science of the time. A deviation from that tradition would not be a progression, but rather a regression and descent into darkness.
While these bastard offspring of the Enlightenment might covet the endorsement of Newtonian science, Newton himself, on the other hand, was a firm believer in biblical revelation and the abiding validity of Divinely-revealed moral law. Even though he acknowledged that a causal link between his gravitational maxims and the Deity could not be demonstrated, he, nevertheless, believed that God was the First Cause. Yet, to resolve these limitations, he saw prophetically the role of “electric universe” concepts to either complete or at least enhance his scientific theories:
He who investigates the laws and effects of electric forces with the same success and certainty [as I have of gravity: JWS] will greatly promote philosophy [natural philosophy, i.e. science: JWS], even if perhaps he does not know the cause of these forces.
Principia, (Cohen & Whitman edition, UC, Berkeley, 1999, p. 53) as quoted by Mark Gaffney, Deep History and the Ages of Man, self-published, 2022, p. 256
Standing on the Shoulders of Greater Men and McCanney’s IEDRS Hypothesis
The IEDRS [Induced Electric Dipole Red-Shift] concept can explain the anomalous red-shift of photons observed at the Sun’s edge and resolves two other mysteries. One is the differing red-shifts of galaxies and certain quasars which appear to be associated visually with the nearby galaxies (suggesting that the red-shift cannot be used as a measure of astronomical distances).
The second is the existence of planetary nebulae (ring clouds long known to circle certain stars). According to traditional astronomy, these appear to be many light years from the central star because the red-shift is interpreted to give a great distance to the star from Earth. But if the red-shift is due to the IEDRS, then these stars may be much closer than previously thought . . .
James M. McCanney, “The Nature and Origin of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies, Part III,” p. 44, originally published by KRONOS IX:3, Summer, 1984 and as Appendix to Planet-X Comets & Earth Changes, self-published, 5th Printing, 2003 (emphasis added)
McCanney cites his sources, but he probably stands alone as the master of plasma physics and electric universe science. “Thunderbolts Project” advocates, such as the recently deceased Wal Thornhill, have advanced the polemics of this new branch of science, but it was McCanney who first commanded the field and still does to this day.
It took me twenty years to grasp the IEDRS hypothesis, not because it is necessarily that hard to learn, but because one’s high school and college education takes the student in the opposite direction. In other words, the student must unlearn some concepts first.
The Hubble Red-Shift Theory is one of the first that has to go. In short, its use for calculating astronomical distances has created an impossible vastness to space which gravity cannot explain or control. A mythical “dark” matter doctrine has been proposed as a remedy, which, after countless man-hours of fruitless research and perhaps the expense of billions of dollars, still has not been verified.
Another is the expanding universe dogma predicated upon the Big Bang Theory. Both of these are destroyed by the IEDRS hypothesis.
For the reader who might be unacquainted with it, the Hubble Red-Shift Theory is one named after the scientist Edwin Hubble who thought he saw what he called “a red-shift” in stars. Like the sound of an approaching and then a passing locomotive, as it approaches the observer, the sound waves are pressed closer together to make the sound louder, then as the locomotive passes, the sound waves stretch farther apart to make the sound weaker. With proper instruments, the distance and speed of the locomotive can be determined by using the acoustical “shifting” as the primary indicator.
In radar, this is called “the Doppler shift,” a thing that the average person learns from his local weatherman.
Likewise with the red-shift, Hubble observed the presence of light in the red spectrum – which is the lower end of the light spectrum – to determine distance and speed of the object as it passed a star. Readers should recall that this was the very experiment used in 1919 to prove Einstein’s Relativity Theorem. When Mercury passed the Sun at a solar eclipse, it was possible for astronomers to observe and measure a bend in the light. It was assumed that gravity was responsible, just as was claimed of Einstein:
Having formulated the relativistic, geometric version of the effects of gravity, the question of gravity’s source remains. In Newtonian gravity, the source is mass. In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the stress–energy tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress: pressure and shear.
[But hold that thought.]
Up to this time, trigonometry had been used by employing a parallax to calculate the distance and size of the planets, the Sun, the Moon and so on. If the reader would like to learn more about this very reliable scientific measuring technique, go to “Bob, the Science Guy”:
Distance to the Moon, Sun, and Stars
Trigonometry becomes less reliable the farther away and the smaller the object is, so much so, that another method was desirable to scientists. The Hubble “constant” was devised to make up the slack.
The problem is that now we have discovered a different cause for the red-shift phenomenon – the IEDRS.
In opposition to this “Doppler shift” type interpretation, the IEDRS hypothesis requires a reexamination of light itself. I’m quoting now Mark H. Gaffney’s summation of McCanney’s views:
It is well-known in physics that light photons have wavelike properties but can also behave like particles. High energy photons, e.g. Gamma rays, are especially particle-like. At the other end of the spectrum, lower energy infrared and radio photons tend to be more wavelike. Ultra-low frequency photons are the most wavelike photons of all.
It is also well-known in physics that under certain conditions a Gamma ray will divide, transforming itself into two equal but opposite particles: an electron and a positron that have opposite charge and spin characteristics. McCanney argues that because charge is always conserved, the positron and electron must have existed within the Gamma ray photon “even before the division.” He is saying, in other words, that charge is an inherent property of light.
McCanney argues that the inherent property of charge refutes the standard interpretation of the red-shift. Because the inherent dual charge will be expressed whenever a photon passes through a star’s electrical field, or that of a comet. If McCanney is correct, it is not the mass of a star (or a comet) that bends light but the star’s intense electrical field, which, he says, causes the photon’s inherent positive and negative charges to separate slightly. The photon behaves like a dipole in the field. The negatively charged star attracts the positive end of the dipole. The photon moves slightly toward the star. As it does, it loses energy and its wavelength shifts to the red. The photon bends around the star. And the bending is powerful evidence of an electrical field, “not an expanding universe.” Neither stars nor comet tails are moving away from us.
Mark H. Gaffney, Deep History and The Ages of Man, 2022 Second Edition, p. 251 (emphasis added)
Hence, the notion of “tired light” as cited above proves that light is relative and cannot be used as an astronomical constant. While even Einstein had doubts about General Relativity, Special Relativity seems to stand on solid ground. We are not necessarily arguing against relativity here – we are trying to explain why it cannot be used for the Hubble Red-Shift Constant.
Restating the Proposition in Layman’s Terms
Imagine that light is made up of photons and that these photons are microscopic bar magnets. Photons have polarity: one end is positive (the positron) and the other end is negative (the electron). Photons are not really magnets, but their electrical charge works the same as magnets. That is what is meant by “electric dipole.”
When these photons pass a star, comet or other celestial body that have a net negative charge, these bodies pull on the positrons which have the positive charge and try to absorb the light. But because light is traveling at “relativistic speeds” the light photons are not captured. They are merely bent and slowed down (the red shift). Instead of being absorbed by the respective celestial body, the light photons pass on into the vacuum of space until they meet up with another star, etc. Eventually, the light either diffuses or is slowed until it is permanently absorbed.
Gravity has nothing to do with it. It is an electrical phenomenon with the giving and receiving of charge. There is no “constant.” If we want to measure astronomical distances using the speed of light, we must learn the science of this hypothesis to adjust or compensate for the true cause of the red shift.
Until then, we should just simply reduce the size of the universe back to the scale in which Newtonian physics can accommodate without the invention of mythical “dark matter” concepts. Knocking off a few zeroes from our distances and allowing for smaller stellar bodies would probably bring some sanity back to astronomical science.
Conclusion
The IEDRS hypothesis returns us to a science in which the cosmos is much closer and smaller – maybe not reduced to the size of cartoonish geocentric or Flat Earth models, but enough to make a Newtonian physics which is combined with plasma physics workable again. McCanney is a central figure in that quest for a unified field theory.
The universe is not expanding but is rather oscillating. Throw out the Big Bang Theory.
For 21st Century catastrophists, the IEDRS restores credibility to the ancient legends in which there were close encounters with the planets and large comets. It also vindicates the nova science of Donald Patten and an Earth past in which Mars was a second moon. We are now free to explore a new dimension in cometary science and close-Earth encounters in which ancient mythology has become authentic geophysical history.
JWS, 12/21/25
