Light in the mind of man

To medical journal

CHAPTER 103 Link to other pages

Abstract

It is a confirmed fact that the world of science does not have a clue as to what light or any wave of the spectrum is, nor how it travels, or by what it bring forth illumination. Yet everyone seems to think they do, wherefore we are having a concerned look in how much we can be wrong for eyesight and illogical reasoning.
A child on the breast has yet a way to go before he will come to his first lessons. We then may still be at the breast as shown by this essay.

Introduction

The idea was to speak of light in what it really looks like, and as I started to do so first having a look at what to date is said about it, I became sidetracked in vocabulary, how in so many ways we are poor in our speeches to use terms that lack meaning, or simply not utilizing the correct term for what we are speaking of.
Figures of speech are one thing, but in defining something for its nature we ought certainly come to what is factual in terms that do present its nature. And that part is first in this essay, after which we come to waves for their true nature.

Essay

To start with, how much do we know about the waves of the spectrum? That they are magnetic, or electric? It is neither one. Or that they are driven by, or transposed by magnetic or electric? No! That is not correct either, but in a manner of speaking we could say that in some way they are related to magnetic.
And therefore in part it is said of that spectrum to be the magnetic spectrum. I then said "in part," since these waves in all reality are neither magnetic, nor electric, nor driven by either, but belong in a class all their own, that we will learn later on. Not everything can be said at once wherefore having legs we must take one step at the time.
But then there are those many terms that we have adapted ourselves to, terms that do not really specify what we are speaking of. And how am I to take out that old engine within us to replace it with a whole new one? Sometimes that new one may not work as well as the old one.
Accordingly we are stuck with our erroneous terms that came forth primarily by sight deception, and secondly for ignorance. One example is with electricity, how it is none other than a magnetic field of force, one that in contrast to our stationary magnetic fields - instead rotates. (Ref-1)
It now is recorded quote: "Light has the properties of a wave and a particle. The intensity of the light varies depending on the number of particles. Bright light has many particles while dark light has fewer particles. These particles of light are called “photons”. (Ref-2)
This to the educated mind is like a child relating to us the story of the stork, but let us nonetheless ask what a "photon" is? Answer: Photons are a "Bundle of Energy". But that is no answer without at the same time telling us what Energy is?
It however - as I learned - will be in vain to ask any of man's scientists what energy is, none of them having a clue. Wherefore it rests on us to show them their right hand from their left. But there are dictionaries, and what do they say about it?
Those dictionaries now give us plenty of figures of speech, but not much in the way of truth since those dictionaries were likewise made up by them that had no clue, wherefore also it lists these many figures of speech.
But thank God not everyone is in that bad shape, in the Britannica it states, quote: "All forms of energy are associated with motion. For example, any given body has kinetic energy if it is in motion. A tensioned device such as a bow or spring though at rest, has the potential for creating motion; it contains potential energy because of its configuration."
Refreshing to hear something substantial, for so indeed is energy in all of its forms. Energy is motion, and never ever at all anything other than movement. No one in the whole world is able to name anything as energy that does not boil down to motion, be it in motion or the potential of it.
For so we may speak - I have the energy to climb that mountain; a figure of speech indeed, for it means that he has the potential to take that walk into the mountain. And so there are at least two ways to use that term of energy. The foremost one is motion, with the second as a, or the potential having the means to movement.
Are we then going to wake up, or rather sleep an eternal sleep? We began to ask about light, but we can't even get to it until first we are educated in vocabulary, to come to terms with ourselves in how to speak, how to utilize words to depict the meaning in the nature of things. That is how far we really are from adulthood, though some of us are nonetheless adults.
Can we therefore come back to light with hopefully some meaning in our words? As thus it states for photons to be a bundle of energy, we are saying that they are bundles of movement. And why then did we not say so in the first place, why the coy disguises?
Is it because we are as yet on the breast? I however grand us this much that this last term is not far from the truth as we will see later on. But how does motion come in bundles?
If we in our terms do not become realistic there will never be an end to the questions driving us further from our subject to at end no longer remember what we started with.
I can see motion in one step at the time forward, or an arrow from its bow to its goal, but a "bundle" of movement what might that be? And yet there is something to that, but let me ask this; Whatever happen to waves?
I could have sworn that we always speak of light in waves, like the waves of light. Is then a wave a bundle, or a bundle a wave? I suppose for each single wavelet we could call it that. But here again why do we prefer coy disguises in place of the truth?
Or is it because we do not know the truth, and attempt to work ourselves out of it by disguises?
We are all wet behind the ears you know, for when we start to inquire into that so called photon, to somehow learn what that light might be - we will get the most illogical answers ever, something not even a child at the breast would dare mention.
It says quote" "Behaves like a particle and a wave simultaneously, and have zero mass and rest energy."
I now for the benefit of all mankind must caution us stating; "Rely yourself upon Einstein and the likes and you are guaranteed to becomes most irrational" For most likely such kind of stupidity can only have come from his kind."
Many years ago the fellow that published my first book said; "If your head is filled with Einstein, this book is not for you, but Leonard explains nature with sound underpinnings." And my words are indeed sound, my Teacher the Almighty One made sure of that, and I dare not oppose Him.
How would a particle weave like a wave? We can understand for a particle to make waves, but never at all to be one. How is a bullet to weave itself to its target when we know that it rotates for stability and speed?
If our educated ones can demonstrate any wave in a particle, we will accept their phony teaching, not otherwise since we - as dummies in their eyes - know better. If a stork is able to deliver a baby, then particles can be waves or even behave like waves.
These so called wise among us however contradict themselves destroying their own theories, by saying that it is mass-less, in real words, that it does not exist. Something with no mass cannot ever be a particle of any kind, that mind you is absolute.
Then comes that silly statement that it has "rest motion." Can anyone tell us what motion at rest is? I never saw it sleep in my bed, nor resting on my sofa. And even when it was standing still having the potential to move, it was not moving.
How then was it at rest when it did not at that instant exist? Motion has to be moving before it can be called motion, or by our figure of speech - be energy. That term noted "energy" is more fitting for something either having or producing the power to do things.
Then however we are obligated to express what the nature of that energy might be, or else we need to go back to first grade schooling, to hopefully learn a few things. Or is it only for me to remain with truth? Power in everything is always by movement is it not?
Or else find us something that is power without movement that all of us may be the wiser. And do make a difference in what is moving verses what is a potential to that end.
Will we ever get to our subject of light when before all else we must learn how to converse with one another? How to speak, and by what terms, be they figures of speech or to reality?
I do not mind figures of speech, but coy disguises come from those that have something to hide, that are not honest, none of whom are to be trusted. I may be wasting my speech if indeed it is so with all scientists, of whom it was said by the editor of a major newspaper that; "Speaking with scientists is like commuting with a cow." Unquote.
Not very nice for our scientists to be likened to cows, to irrational animals. But then why do they not start being rational that they might be seen for human?
One must admit that the above quotations we commented on were anything but rational. And for us to come at least one step closer to defining light we might look at still another quotation that goes like:
“Light Basics. Light is a form of energy that can be released by an atom. It is made up of many small particle-like packets that have energy and momentum but no mass. These particles, called light photons, are the most basic units of light.”
Believe me as I tell you that I put these quotation in for good reason, because they are not completely wrong, as in fact they in part do strike the nail that fastens it. Only for their lack of knowledge they are irrational in their statements.
Where he states; "particle-like packets," he is not there confirming them as being particles. And that they have "energy and momentum," is as I will show later - striking the nail. But then why does he have to become irrational by contradicting himself, to say; "These particles"?
O if only that person had understanding, if only he were educated rightly, and perhaps in that respect I can be service to him. Recall your words where you said; "can be released by an atom" that energy, that motion of it?
For since you mentioned "momentum" you are speaking of movement. Take a good look at the length of waves, and another good look at how far the atoms in our air are spaced. Is it not obvious how even the shortest of all must be spaced over thousands of atoms?
And how in your mind is a baby chick to hurl an elephant a mile down the road? Come with an answer, or are you without answer, for I did make sense did I not?
Perhaps it is not fair of me to speak that way, seeing I had the Greatest of all Teachers for my education Who gave me insight into all the fundamentals of nature and then some. And He enabled me to see through all speeches, to instantly know by what spirit they were spoken.
He made it so that no-one can escape my scrutiny, for like Solomon also said: "She has knowledge of hidden words, and expounds riddles, signs and marvels she knows beforehand, and how it will be in certain seasons and hours." So also She taught me.

LIGHT AS IT APPEARS

Now at last to come to our questions the first of which was; How come we only see the surface of things? Would you my reader really like to know that, or is it irrelevant and of no interest? Perhaps you ought to consider what Solomon in that respect said of it, quote:
"With knowledge comes equally pain." If it be the latter - you better quit right here and never mind the answer to any other question. You will be like one of my employees who once said to me, "Sounds like torture to me."
If one does not have a thirst for knowledge it will never be of any treasure to him. The second question for an answer would be; How in fact we do see? For we know that light as such for its mechanical innovation comes in different lengths.
Wherefore our beholding must be by “interpretation”. Then comes as to “How” we interpret these waves? And fourthly By “what” do we interpret them?
I may not answer all of these questions, since I do not have an answer to all, but to the ones I do - I in one way or another will be specific. As to how we only see the surface of things, that statement is not quite correct, since we see more than just the surface of things, we in fact can see through things.
The air is not seen, yet it is as much opaque as our stucco walls. We see through glass and water, and other substances while these too are material. This comes down to something called; “size,” the measure of things.
In reference to figure 1, the wavelets of light as they come from point X first pass through the air. That air as a medium is made up of what is properly called molecules, mostly those of Nitrogen (N) and a fifth of them as Oxygen (O).
These come in pairs and as pairs they are so small in their diameter that the light as it comes upon them passes around them, the diameter by which the light has its circumference being larger than the parts of which the air is made up.
Then as it proceeds to point Y it strikes upon a cloud that is made up of water molecules. And these are somewhat different, the Oxygen atom is small enough to pass, and depending on how it actually strikes upon that molecule, it has a better than 90% change of circumventing it.
But there is that 10% percent when it comes to strike directly upon one of the two connecting points of those hydrogen atoms, at which instant that wave is terminated. The fact that light is able to pass many such molecules before it is terminated is seen in lakes and oceans where the shortest of all make it down some 600-ft after which all the waves are terminated.
That is how and why light enters water for but a limited distance, and that of glass still less, there being four of those obstructions in glass verses water. Only we never saw glass by that thickness.

Figure 1 Lights passing

Our wave is not a material something but no more than a coordinate, a formation on the move, whose rightful term comes to "Angular Momentum." A rotational segment in and by movement driven around the perimeter of the atoms, with the atoms themselves having angular momentum.
In that part our scientist and me agree together, only they did not have the full understanding of it. But we still need to define that angular momentum to its reality as indeed we will.
For now from point Y in the illustration the light heads for mother earth, and strikes upon a green leaf. Here the atoms of that substance being larger than the circumference by which the light traveled is unable to pass.
And while some are reflected from its surface, equally as many enter into the coordinate of the atoms in its molecular form by, which only certain lengths are emitted with the rest captured, or terminated as it might also be said.
Then to reveal the entire scope, it is not only for size that light is terminated upon leafs and all such on earth, but equally so molecular wise as a broad front upon which the light is unable to pass.
Different molecular forms present different coordinates of movements, the typical ones that are emitted present us with the color of it, or better said, not that it is really green, but we by its specific coordinate interpret it for green.
So it is that for “Size” and broad fronts things appear, or do not appear. Air does not appear since light is unable to terminate upon it. (Ref-3)

REALITY

At this point for reality sake I must illustrate what those "bundles of energy", "bundles of motion", normally called "waves" really are. By figure 2, something properly called “angular momentum” is shown by R to S, that for its continuation proceeds to T.
This is what we call “a single wavelet”, one single turn around the circumference. One turn of the nut around the bolt.

Figure 2 Pattern of waves on the move.

For as no nut can turn without its bolt to turn upon, so the waves of the spectrum - as no more than coordinates - can not pass through space without its medium to travel upon.
This of course defeats our theories of empty space, and our preposterous notion that all waves in space travel at the same velocity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Did we not specify light for its waves as discrete packages of movement?
In so many words as we have seen our scientists are likewise proclaiming it. Only they are in error in the "how so." When a wave is generated it is by an on/off procedure, as we perform it. That on/off upon the sun and any incandescent lamp is by resonance, or oscillation of the atomic parts one to the other producing momentary impulses. (Ref-4)
For clarity sake I ought to provide us with an illustration to that effect, reference figure 3. When an impulse is driven among the atoms of any element it is like passing from X to Y, that as such comes at right angle to the line of movement, to our constant (FM) at its high velocity.
If therefore X to Y is 2-cm, and that FM line has a velocity of 1000-cm/s, while our impulse was driven at the speed of 10-cm/s, the net result will come to 50-cm. (1000 : 10 = 100 : 2 = 50) Our wavelength would then be 100-cm long, Y to W as 50 for the half length.
This is the principle in how all waves are formed, and how each of them come to their lengths. Increasing the speed at which the impulse is driven will come to shorter wavelengths, decreasing it to longer lengths.
And since the degrees flare out as the waves are produced the compression, and/or reduction in length vary with the nominal length of the wave. This factor in waves having to date been unknown to the world plays havoc with our radial readings. Ref-4)

Figure 3, Wave production.

These impulses are always in the angular imposed upon the ever present movement in and of nature. Consequently, they are - or become - as such - an angular indent, better termed angular momentum that is automatically driven around the atoms whereby and wherein they are formed.
This is putting it as short as I can, reference 4 provides for a full disclosure, and the evidence to that effect.
So it is that all waves of the spectrum are not really waves, but segments in rotation at very high forward momentum. (speed of light). The illustration of a spring by figure 2 therefore does indeed show exactly how all waves travel.
I cut a segment into it so as not to have our minds corrupted as if these were to travel in any continues formation, like the remainder of the spring.
Conclusively, as well as obviously these waves are not at all waves, not in the least of it, but rotating entities. When drawn two dimensionally as in figure 4, they may appear as waves. And that is how they really are, their length verses their width, or circumference.
And that is also "why" these rotating entities as angular momentums come to their high speed in the linear. No wave of any kind can possibly come to the speed of light, or that of the constant, no way at all.

Figure 4. 7000A rotating entity by half length.

And if we exercise ourselves in some mathematics we will come to some surprises as well as a better understanding of those so called waves. The real velocity of the angular is different from its tally of revolutions each second.
The tally as to how fast a typical wave rotates in one second of time is about 400 trillion. But its speed by which it accomplishes that feat is much less all because its measure is in the range of angstroms, of which ten billion fit within one meter. And what would that come to in more conventional terms?
400 trillion rotations at 4.84A each in circumference comes to 1936 trillion and that divided by ten billion for meters comes to 193,600 meters, or 193.6-km/s.
The true velocity in the angular thus comes to less than 200 kilometer/second, while its forward velocity is all of 300.000-km/s, with the relative velocity of a 5500A indent at 299,736-km/s.
That wave thus came 264-km short in that one second on account of its angular dimension. That is how all waves (rotations) of the spectrum come to their decrease in velocity for distance in time.
For clarity sake there are 300 million meters in 300.000-km to pass in one second, that means a 1-meter wave must rotate at the rate of 300 million times each second, while for a 1-mm wave that comes to 300 billion.
And there being 10-million angstroms in a single millimeter, divided by 7000 for a red wave is 1428 as the number of these waves to fit within a single millimeter. How many of these could thus be stacked in the thickness of the lenses of our eyes? So minute are the angular moments of light.
As then these enter a media that is more dense - that angular momentum - greeting every atom in its path is forced to make more turns around the circumference that of course slows it down yet more relevant to the index of that media.
That my dear reader is light for its mechanical innovation, and how it travels throughout the universe and all media.
Realize therefore that the speed at which each angular moment around the circumference of its path is - at all times that fixed velocity of constant assumed at 300.000-km/s, and, that it is totally oblivious to any and all densities.
Only its velocity for distance in time is curtailed by the media, that velocity as such being an incidental factor, never at all the cause. Conclusively there are always "two" velocities to be stated of any wave.
For yes, I will continue to name them by our erroneous conception of waves, since that term is inbred with us. But we as rational beings should know the difference.
The constant is then expressed as Cv. with its relative velocity as Rv. The notation of c is abandoned seeing it does not exist, not now nor ever did it exist other than in the error of the mind of man. Whether or not man now is happy with it is completely irrelevant, he will have to change - or lie in pain for his ignorance.
It is a confirmed fact that not many among the sons of man will accept my wisdom sight unseen. Lies and fantasy are usually more tasty than the truth, since of course these lack the wisdom that comes from above. And that is my crime, to have been born of above.
For some consolation however to the many that are put on the wayside no longer having any empty space by which to transport their none existent mass-less particles, there are magnetic lines of movement that do not require a media to be transported by.
And as such pass through space irrelevant of its media. Not a total truth, but these are the magnetic lines of movement of the stars and the planets, since these have their base upon those spheres and are at all times connected to them.
As then that is indeed a fact, these many lines are not really free of such media that also contain identical movements such as our earth to the sun, and our moon to mother earth, all of which are at all times held magnetically.
To acclaim that the spheres are held gravitational is sheer ignorance. I am not one to accept any excuse for that ignorance of man since for more than 300 years already he has that law by which the factor of gravity can be calculated/ (Ref-5).
If then he is too dull to in all that time perform some simple mathematics, why should I forgive them? Did he not make computer chips, and was not the atomic bomb given him as well? How then shall simple mathematics be beyond him?
I will not look kindly upon that irrational behavior. In my book - man is without excuse. As now Solomon said; "A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool." My hope is on those with understanding., the remainder of the world will most assuredly be seen for fools, as the Lord Himself said they would.

FUNDAMENTAL MOVEMENT

We however would like to see more evidence into what I am teaching, how movement can be an entity in itself to have these bundles of motion pass through space, these as such not consisting of anything what we term material.
If then we accept that which enters our eyes as none material yet moves, and our text messages speed on their way, my revelation into the nature of "Matter in Motion by Coordination" should suit us well.
We may have come up with four fundamental forces, but we are prone to fantasize, while the Almighty One in creating the universe set motion as the prefix for all that was physical.
And it is the only fundamental force, no more difficult to understand than motion, as movement. A bit of a fib actually since that fundamental entity as simple motion entails more than what my words convey.
But granting us part of that secret; it by the Almighty One became a power of, as “the” power, and the only power whereby physical nature comes to its being, and is at all times maintained by it. Only the how will not be placed in words.
It therefore is real, an entity all in itself. Or how else shall any wave come to its destination, or any magnet pull or push itself from any other magnet? If that magnetic were not movement in all of its fundamental being, it could not - nor would - ever push nor pull. For simply said; without motion there is no movement or visa versa.
Think real hard, those two magnets on the table before you are not moving, but when positioned so that these may be near one another, they will move to or fro. And how can that be unless that power of movement was duly seated upon them?
It my dear people is by a specific coordinate of that movement named magnetic, a movement formed from and by that one and only fundamental movement that is twofold. That magnetic pattern then is the second part of that twofold being.
But what for reality is a wave-like pattern? To our beholding it is a moving line taking sidesteps. But who or what could possibly do so on its own? Even our laws prohibit it, since in the first place there is no such thing for anything to take sidesteps on its own.
Even water waves are push/pulled by a source, as is sound, none of which come about without the collateral media that is being push/pulled by what is known as again motion to activate the same.
So I confess without movement nothing physical could or would exist. Use your wits, think things through. Do like Solomon said; “Get wisdom, and whatever you get - get insight.” Labor for it, ask for it, and do not grow weary, for She will test you first if you are worthy of her precepts.
If you love ignorance you will remain ignorant. If you hate Her precepts you will never be wise. The reward for putting yourself into Her yoke will be astonishing, and most rewarding. I know for I went through all of it.
I of course know very well what wave patterns are and how they come about, but I choose to lead up to it in a way whereby together we are reasoning it out. My aim is education, to enhance our understanding rather than just to show myself.
That block of metal (magnet) on the table is material, while the motion that proceeds from it is none material, it is plain movement, nothing super natural. If then that which appears outside of the block is something other than what is inside of it, show me a picture of a magnet where its movement all around it also shows up on the picture.
Should it not be obvious that the field around a magnet is the extension of its typical coordinate of movement fastened in the block? So it is with electricity, but we invent ways to circumvent reality, as if the field around that conductor is magnetic, with the current something else, something preposterous as if it were none existent particles on the move, even classifying them as single sided coins.
But no-one has the guts to ever show us one of these single sided coins. We produce them, so we say, we accelerate them so we say, and O what liars we make of ourselves, when it is utterly impossible for any single sided coin to even exist.
When I was in my twenties I coined the words, Matter in Motion by Coordination. And that is how magnets move their fields being one of those coordinates of movement. And no less for our angular moments as waves, or bundles of, not just moving by a coordinate, a pattern of, but themselves being no less a coordinate of.
But did I not say; Matter in Motion by Coordination? Wherefore matter is as much involved by and into these coordinates as motion is.
Have we ever wondered how there are but two ways in movement, to have angular and linear, with all others a combination of the two? Or do we wish to invent other versions as some among us have, where orbital movement is a falling down, or gravity as centripetal?
Clear your mind of all that man has in store, and consider movement when it does not specify what movement, not any type nor direction. It's of little use unless we come to specify movement of what, and into what.
And when I specified that one and only fundamental movement as an entity in itself, it as such is without specification, for it must as we perceive it - have a direction of, or type of, as well speed of.
For speed that is simple, it is the ever constant at what we have arbitrarily taken at 300.000-km/s. It's type - cannot be visualized by the mind of man, nor will I attempt to illustrate it.
As for its direction, it is all directions, since direction does not come about until it is imposed upon, passing into the direction by which it is imposed relevant to the media by and in which it is imposed. That in itself would take me a few pages to enhance.
It sounds difficult is it not? Perhaps so, but there is only so much I am allowed to reveal of it, but I will attempt to more logically show that which it brings forth in and by patterns of.
To begin with the fundamental movement is neither angular nor linear, and yet is angular as well as linear in and by its imposition. A most marvelous innovation of the Almighty One by which to construct nature, and also by which to maintain it, as well as uphold it.
So you see how important that fundamental movement is, how without it, nothing would exist? Then we must come beyond it - how foremost it forms "angular" movement. And for this I entered an illustration figure 4. At "A" the angular is in full force.

Figure 5. Motion to coordinates.

If then we are good at correlation one might recall how I related matter to movement, and movement to matter, and how I spoke of coordinates. For here that circular is typical of all atoms is it not? And so we will have to put two plus two together in our own mind since my words must be limited, and no doubt speculation will come of it.
But with only an angular in existence how is any one atom to join with another? Or how are any grids to be formed of them unless they could join as well as keep aloof from one another? It is obvious here that we are in need of linear motion as well whereby nature may come to its many forms.
And this is how linear movement comes to its birth, the linear that is beyond the first of all things whereby it may serve physical nature. Any circle then when twisted over to resemble the pattern of an eight is what by us is know for magnetic.
At least for the educated among us, since it is never two circles, but the single circle in a coordinate of eight. And that single circular in eight as we now observe has its direction of movement from both apparent circles into one direction, no longer angular but linear, and equally so at the south heading inwards forming a linear movement from south to north.
So it is that linear movement is born forth. And that in a way I must omit comes to all atoms whereby these come to their molecular structures and all things fashioned. Is this informative? Or is it expected of me to illustrate how and in what way these all come to their formations? In part I have done so by other essays.

Backtracking

When we look at a nut turning on a long threaded bolt, it is not a wavy motion, but a rotating movement via a wavy thread. If then in our mind we conceive just the threads on a long bolt as they spiral around, it is like unto a coiled spring.
As therefore our segment follows the pattern of those coils - it may appear to move from side to side. But we knowing reality from appearances it is not for us to illustrate that illusion into reality.
I now said, that it is not for us to do so, yet we do it all the time with not a grain of conscience or consideration for the pupils that we teach.
We like to show ourselves as intelligent creatures as if we knew so much, while our teaching to the young comes down to nothing but lies and deception. The kind that we know very well to be lies and deception.
What therefore am I to think of man, or what credit should I furnish him with? And would you think me to be so rash that I should be like unto them? Not likely for by the next illustration I am presenting the evidence of our irrational behavior to our children.

Figure 6 Preposterous illustration

Is it not an absolute fact among all of us that we know and consequently acclaim all different waves to travel by a different velocity? Of course we do, our prism tells us so, for we in our ignorance even attribute the change in wavelengths to come by velocity, wrong as it might be.
And yet with that knowledge we have the unmitigated gall to make illustrations like here by figure 6? How deceptive, and how ignorant of us, so much so that I consider it a crime against humanity.
If then we have not as yet figured it out, look at "A" in the illustration verses "B' in the illustration. "A" is a much longer wavelength is it not? And what does that mean?
By our own word that wavelet must travel faster than the shorter one at "B". And why then do we have them fastened to each other? And this is not the only drawing, we do so with all our drawings, as if that to us is our taste treat.
When two vehicles on the road are coupled together they cannot each travel at the different speeds, that mind you is obvious as well as rational. But with our definition of waves we are factually claiming that vehicles at different speeds are coupled together.
And so is it not about time for us to wake up? To hopefully start teaching something of value to our children? We call ourselves scientists, but that above illustration as well as all those many others that we proudly display - do not in any way make us appear intelligent.
We have it that to send a code we first establish a carrier wave, and then superimpose our code wave. This sounds fine does it not? Yes but also very wrong. When you have a carrier wave of 1-cm, and you will send your code on a 10-cm band.
Your carrier wave is absolutely useless, for we cannot possibly put our package on a UPS truck that travels at 80-Mph, and expect our package to arrive at 50-Mph.
The 1-cm wave (utilizing a 0.484 circumference) travels at about 214.285-km/s, the 10-cm at 286.150-km/s. Our code thus travels 71,865-km/s faster. In other words our code will get there before the carrier wave gets to its destination.
If this cannot be understood where did we get our schooling? This of course is never done, but then we think we are doing what cannot possibly exist. Even as our single sided coins, our protons and electrons cannot possibly exist, nor do they exist.
Yet in our mind they are, for as a people we are as yet at the breast. Nor is it of me to make that claim, but ourselves we do so by our many errors.

Waves never continues

By figure 7 is an illustration of a number of atoms at resonance with one another, and that as such coming to wave production - how does that proceed at that atomic level? As any one or number of atoms are driven into the magnetic fields of others - wave segments are produced and that most usually in and by that combination of linear impacts upon the rotational.
And as they do so - it is not every instant at precisely the same angular direction, for these things rotate. Like as when we look at a bird in the sky, that bird can be seen from where you are standing and at every other place in a wide circle - meaning the wavelengths coming from that bird are in all directions.
Equally so with our antenna's waves going in all directions, like as were it putting them out by a circle.

Figure 7. Waves never continues.

By the illustration then as the impulse is driven forth at the rate of 100 thousand each second and that by rotation for the example comes into six directions of, how many of them would be found on any one line of direction? 100 thousand divided by six is 16,666 for each of these lines.
The frequency here would be 16,666 driven by an impulse at 100.000. If then the wavelength is 1-mm, of which there are 300 billion to pass in any one second by the constant (the Cv) and that divided by 16,666 comes to more than 18 million open spaces between each of these 16,666 wave segments
But we know that by its 180 degree dispersion it comes to more than only six directions, it can be as much as 60, or 600. As then 100.000 divided by 600 is no more than 17 wave-segments per second on each of 600 individual lines to direction.
Those 17 picked up by our receiver at every second is more than sufficient for our code to turn a switch off or on, or advance a servo to perform whatever action it was designed to perform. We therefore with our transmitter and receiver are operating on a frequency of 17 per second.
Yet our resonance stood at 100.000, and we in our ignorance of our own equipment are proudly acclaiming that we are transmitting on a frequency of 300 billion, the wavelength being 1-mm.
And so how did we come to be so blind in our mind? We gather to be generating 1-mm waves, and since 300 billion of these can fit within the length of 300.000-km, we take it on assumption to be operating at a frequency of 300 billion.
But not only that our assumptions are not worth a plug nickel, but even our mind is not worth much more. For how in our mind can we possibly rationalize to be driving an impulse at twice 300 billion times each second, or even once per second with that stone age equipment of ours, at voltages, that is - at rotations - only 10.000 volt?
And even when we do so, will we presume that we are sending all these many events on one single line into the atmosphere? For then the total number of events (frequencies) is to be divided by how many separate lines into separate directions?
Shall we not wake up to reality, or forever remain ignorant in ourselves? We may be proud of our equipment, like our computers and all, but I am here to tell all of us that our computers are still what we have the habit of calling - in the stone age. For so indeed as of yet are all our computers.
If when turning on these do not instantly, and do mean instantly show everything the page is supposed to show - they are horse and buggy computers, far behind where they can be.
And as to how - I will let man himself figure that out, for when I approached him to relieve him of his need for oils, he did nothing but scorn me.
Wherefore I in turn scorned him by swearing that I would not ever in this day and age reveal that which he desires most. (Chapter 25)
Man has my invention of the curved impeller currently used all over- and that on my part free of charge - since I told the patent office when they called me to issue me the patent, to put it where the sun does not shine.
They wanted it rewritten because I had some points and commas in the wrong place. And he has my words on the fundamentals of all the sciences gravity inclusive. But that is all this generation of mankind will have of me as far as anything physical is concerned. Do not expect that I shall break my oath, no matter how many tears man may shed.
A new world is coming where things will be different, with no oil companies to rob the nations of their wealth, nor any ruler to lift up his head against me, for in that respect I will rule with an iron hand,
And by the people (so it is recorded) I will be called "A king of peace." Here then in addition to a giant step forward in the fundamentals of the science is a small look into the future.
How do we learn about things? How do man’s scientists learn about things? Check the reference and it will be by experiment. Am I therefore not a man - not to learn from experiment? I utilize man’s findings of his experiments, but hardly ever his interpretation of it.
I have experimented, but very little and then only after I already knew the outcome. Here is the difference, I know from above, from Him who is all truth. But I think we have come to the end of today's lesson, time for me to take a rest.

CONCLUSION

It is expected that I come with an conclusion, but who is to hear what is on the tip of my tongue for a conclusion? My nature is to be compassionate, and not look at all the faults in man however much I am hurt or abused I must bear it.
And that not for my sake as it is for their sake, seeing they are but men, not as yet having come to age. We are here but for a moment in time what therefore should I pronounce for a conclusion? My silence will be the better answer.

Next page

References

Ref-1. electricity magnetic

http://recentscientific.com/magnetic-and-electric

Ref-2. https://photonterrace.net/en/photon/behavior/

Ref-3. Wave nature

https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/536

Ref-4. Radial velocity

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5847

Ref-5.power of magnetic

https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v16i1.8329