LIGHT TO DENSITY

LIGHT TO DENSITY

CHAPTER 104 Link to other pages

Abstract

This essay comes to a more comprehensive view into the velocities of light as they pass through the densities of air and space. And where the atmosphere of the earth leaves off for what is called space. And how waves travel, as well as how they vary in their red and blue shift in and by the lengths thereof.
Moreover that for any velocity a length must be specified for that velocity to have any meaning. And evidence that space is never devoid of substance for light to travel upon.

ESSAY

And so I took up to speak on “Light Verses Density” to reveal what is factual for any wave traveling through any media. To start out by figure 1, the main part of our atmosphere lies within 16 miles, with its norm at about 80 to 90 miles.
The atmosphere around earth stays because it is drawn by gravity. And gravity for its distance from earth where it comes to zero is a little over 3000 miles. On the surface of the earth we fall at rate of 32.174ft/sec/sec, at some 3000 miles out that factor is zero. (Ref-1)
This was unknown, nor understood even though the calculations to that fact has been around for three centuries. And why then in all that time has no one placed himself behind a calculator to discover just how far that gravity reaches away from mother earth?
Sir Isaac Newton gave us the law to go by, and we still have it as law, but no one seems to know how to go about it. It reads: “The gravitational force of a particle in uniform motion is proportional to the square of its speed and inversely proportional to the radius of its path.”
For that calculation we must have data, and for that let us use the specs on the Hubble space telescope. Its gross weight was 24.500 lb. Its orbital altitude 353 miles. Its velocity at 17,500 mph. The radius thus will be 4000 plus the 353 miles from the center of the earth. And that times 5280 comes to 22.983.840 ft.
Its velocity at 17,500 : 60 : 60 x 5280 comes to 25.666 ft/sec. And for our sakes to do this in whole numbers: 24.500 x 25.666 = 628,817.000 x 25,666 = 16,139,217,122.000 divided by 22,983,840 = 702,198.46 lb, divided by 24.500 = 28.66

Figure 1 Atmosphere verses gravity

That orbiting telescope thus has a factor of g/force on it at 28.66 since 702.198.46 divided by its scale weight comes to 28.66. The factor of gravity 353 miles above the earth therefore is 28.66 and its acceleration if it were to fall would be 28.66 ft/sec/sec.
I then asked this question on the forum; "What the factor of g would be some 3200 miles up, utilizing the data on the Hubble space telescope." Sadly I got no answer other than telling me that such cannot be done. But why not, for if we know the factor at 353 miles out, it is a simple matter to calculate it for any altitude.
And so here we go: We deduct the 28.66 from the 32.174 (at sea level) coming to a decrease of 3.514 in those 353 miles, and this divided by the 353 comes to 0.009.954.674 per mile. Then by dividing the sea level factor of 32.174 by the decrease per mile, comes to 3.232 miles, at which point the factor of gravity is zero, and the acceleration would be zero ft/sec/sec.
Simple is it not? Mathematics now being the same for everyone, why are we still claiming our moon to be held by gravity when it is better than 200,000 miles removed from where our gravity comes to zero?
Gravity then since it is but a local force cannot be holding our moon, nor the Sun the earth. Nor even are we held to mother earth by any force called gravity, it in reality being an “inclination to downward movement,” with the earth's magnetic force supplying the power to that movement. The full data to this may be found at (Ref- 1 through 3)
As then our main subject here is “Light Verses Density” I added this much in the way of gravity since the velocity of light as it enters into our atmosphere gradually slows down from that distance whereby it is gravitationally held.
As then Oxygen as well as Nitrogen are the heavier elements these will sink down deeper leaving the upper regions with the lightest of all, to consists mainly of hydrogen. Where then it is said that light slows by 90-km/s from space into our atmosphere, where might the reading of that reduction be if not rather close to the surface of the earth?
And so what is the real velocity of light at any one region of the universe?
For that let’s do some simple mathematics, when in space the speed of light is 299.792-km/s over how many atoms is that wavelength to be spaced there and in air?
That would tell us what the real density in space comes to verses our erroneous assumption of empty space. But in order to come to that let us first discover by what lengths these waves might be traveling. 90-km in 299.792 comes to a percentage of 3331.
As thus a wave of 7000A travels at 299.792-km/s what must its length be to travel 90-km less down to 299.702-km/s? It mind you must be blue shifted to 4880A, since only the 4880A length will travel at 299.702/km/s.
And yes only that wavelength since each and every different length has its own different velocity to travel for distance in time. When therefore we speak of light to travel in air at this one unique velocity, we are not doing our homework, seeing we failed to specify at what length that was.
Our statement as such therefore is quite wrong - there always being other vehicles on the road than only Dodge Caravans - if one gets my drift.
We however may not have read my other essays on such matters wherefore at this point we might be wondering how I came to these velocities. Accordingly I must show this once again. Any and all waves up from 100-nm to 1500-nm operate on the atomic scale.
Waves greater than that come to a molecular scale. On the atomic scale by our reading of light at 299,792-km/s utilizing the 700-nm length I came to a diameter of about 1.54A that for the circumference comes to 4.84A.
As therefore any single wavelet must turn around the atoms in its path by these dimensions - we have the needed factors by which to calculate its relative velocity. Relative in this that such is its velocity for distance in time. The full 300.000-km/s being the factual velocity of movement for any and all waves, termed the "Constant."
That formula then is very simple, when the wave has a crest to crest measure of 7000A, as the “Nominal length” we are to add the angular distance for the “Full length” that is then divided into the constant, with the result multiplied by the nominal length. Example: 7000 plus 4.84 = 7004.84 into 300.000 = 42.8etc times 7000 = 299.792-km/s.

Figure 2. Wave length shifted to the blue (compressed)

So comes the quest as to what really happens to a wave coming from space into the density of our atmosphere where it is compressed to the tune of 90-km/s? That new velocity will be 299,702-km/s, and no wave but the 4880A will come to that velocity.
Accordingly it will have a reduction in length by 2120A. The broken line in figure 2 illustrates that blue shift, with the solid line the former length. And what would that appear to our senses if not more blue than red?
In order thus for us to see the wave as red for color - it not just in space but in the air must travel at a velocity of 299.792-km/s. In other words in order for us to “see red” that wave in our air must have - according to our teaching - a velocity that we attribute only to a space velocity. And how can that be when everyone is convinced that we are able to see the color red.
We may be confused, for we take it as a fact that red light is by 7000A, and also that in air the maximum velocity is 299,702-km/s. Since then mathematics does not lie, and is the same for everyone, we are very much in the wrong.
It is like I said: "If one will specify a velocity, specify the length - or get out of business for one will not have the competence to run a business." Light for its mode of travel, as well as for its nature - was and is still by most of us not understood, therein we fail.
No measuring tool will be of any use if we do not know how to apply it. Our astronomers for their radial velocities are completely wrong. And so is Hubble with his formula’s.
Nor were our astronomers too happy when I showed them how to use light correctly for a tool to their radial findings. These attempted to find fault with me, in writing seconds as sec instead of just the s. (Ref 4 and 5).
We however do indeed see red, and blue and all its mixtures, even as light for its velocity in air comes to what we hold as only a space velocity, and higher still. Figure 2 here cannot be disputed, 90 from 792 can only be 702.
Nor can the amplitude of those waves for their circumference come to much difference from what I obtained by our own readings. A little more or less in circumference will change the outcome also by very little, the principle of it remaining the same.
And so let us see just how long a wave must be to be compressed down to 7000A so that we may observe the red sky in the evening as well as red in the morning, and what its relative velocity will come to?
Relative indeed, in that any wave calculated for its velocity for distance in time is called “Its Relative Velocity.” (Must be called Relative Velocity) The factual or real velocity by which all waves travel is at all times to the tune of 300.000-km/s, and called “The Constant.”
A crest to crest measure is always the “Nominal length of the wave. As then a wave is never a straight line but a line containing angular moments, that wavy line (for distance in time) will always be longer than any nominal length.
And so we attribute “two velocities” to the movement of light. Its real velocity as the wave at the constant, and its relative velocity in the nominal. Accordingly there is Vc and Rv, and c to be abandoned since it does not exist. (Truly not exist)
As then we have our axiom of “Figures of Speech,” the waves of light so called is a figure of speech, light itself being our interpretation of and by these waves. As then by conversation we are almost exclusively speaking of velocities for distance in time, we cut things short by utilizing figures of speech, instead of constantly saying, Relative velocity we cut it short to simply Velocity.
And for most of my speech here I do employ those figures of speech. In one way we must do so, for to say; “The velocity of waves in air” can be for any wave, and not necessarily those pertaining to light.
Therefore the figure of speech to, waves of light, or simply light. Proper communication is imperative when speaking of nearly anything and most certainly so in the sciences.
By figure 3 extending our scale to 14,000A, our red 7000A length extends from "0" to 7. Then as we add 90-km to that red velocity of 299.792-km/s it comes to a new velocity of 299,882-km/s.
It must have that velocity so that its reduction into our air by 90-km it may come to 7000A, and travel at 299.792-km/s as the only means by and at which red light is seen. That new length then for its new velocity must have a length of 12,400A as the only length that will travel at that R/velocity.

Figure 3.7000 wave to 12400

This of course makes hogwash out of our readings and assumptions to have light in space travel at greater velocities than what man has established. Nor am I in error, mathematics being the same for everyone.
I for me would say; "Serves us right for not specifying the length along with the velocity, and, for that preposterous acclamation as if all lengths travel at the same velocity in space, all evidence everywhere in everything showing that to be a hoax, a preposterous hoax." So I am ashamed of man.
Then for the punch line, and education - note how the reduction by 90-km came to a blue shift of 2120A, (figure 2) while the expansion, the red shift came to 5400A in figure 3. And how may that be when the change in velocity was the same for both?
It my dear reader is not any error. Nor were we aware of that wisdom because we – in the first place had no idea as to what light was, nor how it traveled, nor how any wave of the spectrum was generated.
All of which the Lord by His Counselor taught me wherefore He enabled me to teach what has never been heard before, serving me with all the fundamentals of nature.
The secret to this difference lies in the way waves are generated, how they come about as angular moments taken away by the constant at the full velocity of 300.000-km/s. For this our reference will be to figure 4, where I illustrated the principle of wave production upon what is called the “Protractor.”
For a start the line from Y to R depicts the constant, the ever fundamental movements at its unwavering velocity of 300.000-km/s. Then from X to Y, is our impulse, our momentary pulses or vibrations if you will by which waves are formed.
As then these are always in the circular, because atoms rotate the net result of these impulses come to travel in the circular around atoms and greater circumferences for the greater lengths like radio etc. That is also why by figures 2 and 3, the lines depicting the waves are slanted, as one rotation around the circumference, one crest-to-crest measure.

Figure 4 Wave production as they are set in motion linearly and angularly.

So here we go, from point X at a certain speed we drive an impulse straight towards Y, that is - into the fundamental movement always residing at that fixed velocity of 300.000-km/s.
To be more precise we in so doing are “imposing” upon that fundamental movement whereby it becomes - to put it that way - entangled with it. (At least 4 pages just to confirm that, not too much different by which gravity comes to its inclination)
As therefore the movement from X to Y takes place upon that line from Y to R, the net result comes to an angular line from X to W that for our demonstration here will be a distance of 2000A as the half-length of the wave, with its full length to 4000A. From X to W is half way around the circumference, something I call the “Angular moment” of it.
This may be likened to a moving transport belt of some width at which we cast a marble to roll across its width - that of course will be taken down the line by the speed of the belt.
At any time when we produce waves, or they are produced, it is always in this manner, always by cutting off and on - producing segments, or as it may be called dents in a line. And that always like shown by the protractor, at right angles.
How therefore is it for our compression in figure 1 to be at 2120A, while its expansion at figure 3 came to 5400A? Look at the distance from 60-degree to 50-degree verses the distance from 60-degree to 70-degree.
Notice how when a wavelet slants at the 40-degree line of the protractor verses a wave coming down at the 30-degree mark the expansion verses the velocity to cause that expansion would be less than if it were to slant down at the 50-degree mark.
For as shown the net expansion increases for every 10-degrees towards the 90-degree mark From 20 to 30 it (for the example only) is at 5, from 40 to 50 it is already at 9. And from 60 to 70 all of 40.
So it is that the longer waves will present a greater expansion by any fixed velocity compared to the shorter ones. A more comprehensive explanation with clear evidence to that effect is detailed by another essay entitled, “Light to radial velocity, (Ref 6 and 7).
This is how all waves are formed and travel, and how and by what these for length come to their compression and expansion. This for its reality pretty well destroys our current means by which we utilize light as a measuring tool.
Each different length will always have a different rate of velocity for the shift in that wave, even as each different velocity will come to shift a wave to different length. The protractor for its change in degrees from zero to 90 does not make things easier but not impossible.
There really is no straight way to go by unless one figures out a means to do so. The better way is simply to utilize the three dimensional means that I have illustrated whereby to accurately find the correct relative velocity of any wave by the length thereof.

Figure 5 The blue wave compressed and expanded.

Then for comparison sake by figure 5, let us do the blue wave known as the 4000A wave. The solid line is the original, with the broken line the compression and dotted line the expansion. The velocity by which the 4000A waves moves is always at 299.637-km/s. that by an decrease of 90-km comes to a new velocity at 299.547-km/s.
And what wave for length will travel at that exact velocity? It is the 3205A. Then for the expansion 637 plus 90 is 299.727-km/s, and only a wave at 5330A will move at that velocity. As thus by compression there is a reduction in wavelength by 795A, the expansion comes to 1330A.
Its expansion thus is greater than its compression by the same change in velocity. And that of course is by virtue of the protractor, in the way all waves are formed. Note how it is less for the shorter waves compared to the longer ones.

FOR A LAW

Any and all waves of the spectrum will always travel at one and the same R/velocity for the length thereof. It can never at all vary for speed. And when shifted either way it comes to a new length that will then at all times travel with a new velocity.
The identity of a wave is its angular deviation that multiplied by 2 always reveals its nominal length. Frequency as such is but for curiosity sake, never anything to go by, nor will events at any time reveal length nor velocity. To utilize frequencies is our guarantee to failure.

Back to our essay.

Do we not teach that the reason for the refraction in a prism comes to different velocities for each different length of a wave? Certainly we do, how then can we attribute a velocity like 299,702-km/s as the velocity of light in air?
It comes to a lie, since that velocity will only fit one wave-length and one wavelength only, namely the one at 488-nm. And so how about all the rest of them, all 3000 plus of them? Something to think about is it not?
As then we wish to scrutinize my words and findings, for we too have knowledge, let us do so. Let’s see where my faults may be. I specify a diameter at 1.54A by which light is found to travel. But am I correct?
In my judgment I cannot be far off, if any, and/or how much of a change would that make? It has to be large enough to pass the atoms in air, and small enough to still make contact upon each one of them as they pass around the perimeter of their fields.
If then that is different from 1.54A, I stand corrected. Not that it changes anything in the principle by which velocities are found. For anything that travels linearly as well as angularly must be calculated by all of its three factors, not any straight line calculation as Hubble has it.
But are all these lengths and velocities herein noted absolutely correct? They are if I am correct in the base whereupon everything rests. We say that we recorded light's velocity in space at 299.792.458-km/sec.
But that is but a single velocity for one single wave-length, while there are many thousands of them. Since thus we failed to specify the length thereof – we are very much in the wrong, and how with that lack of information am I supposed to do my job?
Here then I give due notice that all my calculations are based on our own reading of that so called speed of light in space. If that is incorrect for the length assumed I shall be wrong. But by how much shall I be in error?
When in fact we at last come to an absolute correct velocity for a single specific length at its amplitude then we will have our base from which all others may be found.
I then assumed a length at 700-nm, it being the fastest, by which the amplitude came to its figure. If then this is in error, it is not my error, but that of our men in the sciences, that never seem to do their homework, who plot down things in error and/or without sufficient data.
I know that I am within the ballpark but I prefer to be fully accurate. And since I am too old, and with no means to measure light as it should be done, it must be by those that do have the means.
If I would be more accurate to add the fractions of 458 in the velocity, it would update the circumference to 4.846A, the outcome of which will then be 299.792.457-km/s a mere 1/1000 fraction of a difference.
Normally we omit the fractions, and why not seeing how the whole figure as such is lacking in dignity. If we are at all to have a correct science, something useful to our offspring, start by trashing that ridicules notion as if all waves in space travel at the same velocity.
For that is contrary to all evidence, and as such a lie to ourselves and our children. And take a reading with a single wavelength so that all of our figures may be based upon a truthful statement.
Is not mathematics the same for all? And while correlation may be child's play to me this is not so with our men in the sciences. Those that investigate crimes seem to be very good at it,
And so I surmise that it is of the Lord to intentionally withhold such wisdom from man's scientists - because these love to play with the term of "evolution", a disgrace to all men, and punishable by death.
Our people in the sciences should foremost know and realize how all things have come forth by a Creator whose wisdom and ability is inestimable, and inconceivable. It is not only sheer ignorance to behold nature in any other way, but punishable as well.
Be realistic, - here we are claiming the 7000A wave to count for red, a wave that can only travel at the velocity of 299.792-km/s in order to be at 7000A. And that mind you must be in our air, yet we claim it as only the space velocity.
How then is red to be seen if that must first slow down by 90-km down to 299.702? For this 299.702 velocity will only fit a wave at 4880A. And 4880 is closer to blue than to red. So what are we brewing?
Think about it, with only a single velocity slowing by a single reduction how do we justify all those many different velocities we observe by a prism? Is there not a contradiction here?
Is there no logic with us? Claim the space velocity as we have it, but do not tell us that it will slow down by entering our atmosphere, or else nothing will be red, nor green nor yellow.
And if we do - we make liars of ourselves with our claims, none of which fit anything. Our educators in the sciences got themselves into this deep trouble, all because they failed to provide the length of a wave for its velocity so stated.
And that is anything but professional, it rather boils down to ignorance. And that by itself is but the smaller part of our unprofessional attitude. Don't ever claim light to slow down from space into air while we continue to hold on to that single space velocity that we have concocted.
The two never go together. Or in how many other ways must I make it plain that 2 plus 2 does add up to 4, and only four?
The velocity of light in space is by thousands of different outcomes, as it is in air and everywhere else. There is no such thing as a single relative velocity of light, other than for each specific length.
For it is by the length in its angular moment that light is regulated for velocity. Claim the constant at a fixed unwavering velocity and in that we will be correct.

Figure 6 The 5500A wave compressed expanded.

Next let us take a look at a mid length the one at 5500A, by figure 6. Bringing the scale to 9000, the original 5500A is shown in the solid line, the reduced in the broken line, with the expanded in the dotted line.
Accordingly there is 2,850A expansion in the wave for the 90-km, with 1400A in the compression. By common sense thinking we would normally give an equal amount of compression to expansion for one and the same change in velocity.
But that is not so for any wave of the spectrum all because they are not formed as we might perceive. And while the protractor is as common as anything is common, it is altogether logical in how, and why, by it, the longer waves come to a greater expansion or contraction for a set velocity.
Little wonder that our astronomers were on the wrong track taking shifts straight into radial velocities, Not only that waves proceed by three dimensions, but each different length comes to each their own different expansions, and still different compressions.
A set velocity will not blue shift as much as it will red shift. Without that factor incorporated in our Doppler spectroscopy we will never come to anything accurate.
Our radar guns work reasonably well because there are no shifts, only reflections, while the velocities of stars read by spectral shifts are subject to it.

THE PRISM

There is good reason as to why I took it upon myself to speak of the prism here. Fact number 1, we by the rainbow of colors not only know but observe every different length of those waves to flare out.
Fact number 2, we wrongly attribute that to come about by a change in velocity, while it is by angles, with the change in velocity as a byproduct.
Fact number 3, we very well knowing that each single wave travels at a different velocity - still have the gall to state but a single velocity for light in air as well as in space.
We may be wrong about velocity being the cause - but it does show that we DO KNOW about the many velocities.
What then shall we call that ignorance of us, when I have to repeat the same thing over and over – and we still don’t get it? How dare we teach our children in that way very well knowing that it is not truth? Does that prism, as also the rainbow teach us that little?
With light traveling at thousands of different velocities how did we put them all into one? I know that I am repeating myself, but for our sake I must.
A prism refracts the waves of light by "Angular Deviation" also known as the XYZ, the angle of the wave at which it strikes the prism. (Ref- 9)
As then we look at the inside of that prism the red appears red, and blue, appears blue. But that cannot possibly be correct, for in passing into that prism these lengths are compressed to something smaller than what they appear outside of that prism.
The only reason why they appear for their exterior color is because our eyes are not inside of that prism. And as they come out of the prism these revert back to their original.

Figure 7. How do we see?

And so here comes a quest that can hardly be answered. What are the colors inside any prism, with the second quest, how - when these are compressed within our windows to the world, the lenses of our eyes, what do these new lengths present at the back of our eyes that we come to interpret for color?
If 700-nm is held for red, and that changes to lets say 500-nm, how is 500-nm red? Or the 400-nm held for blue and compressed within our lenses these may not present any color, to fall outside of the optic circle. And so what is the real measure in the optics?
We rate it from 400 to 700-nm, but with a 20% reduction it would come from 320 to 560-nm. Or is there another answer? I favor angular deviation from which we interpret colors, just like the prism separates them by angular deviation. But I have no real evidence wherefore I cannot state it for a fact.
No one can claim that the waves retain their identity as they pass through the lenses of our eyes, since these always blue shift by entering a denser media, even that minor expansion in the air above a hot roadbed comes to a red shift.
And as they enter into earth's media starting at some 3000 miles out these gradually slow down all the way to sea level.
And so there is no single velocity of light through the entire depth of our atmosphere. When stating a velocity in air we must do like we do with air pressure, specify the altitude at which that is factual. If not we are clumsy and unprofessional.
My figures of velocity as they increase or decrease are not listed with altitudes, since I rate them at sea level, and for space more than 3000 miles out.
It is fine to acclaim that light from space slows down in air by a factor of 90-km.s, but at 80 miles up where our atmosphere seems to end that light has only graduated by a part of those 90-km, the full will not be until they reach sea level. Or are we even correct, meaning accurate, with our 90-km reduction?
This much I will say - if indeed my suspicion is correct that we interpret color by angular deviation, I am astounded at the perfection in it, to determine all that from such minute angles so close together at such a small span.
How very much I would like to know what a spirit is - so well able to digest and transpose huge amounts of data at the speed of light, something all of us do daily.
For while we do all that merely for vision, we at the same time are speaking. And that in itself is a marvel of creation, to move our jaws and our tongue as we rattle our vocal cords, and out comes sounds that are understood for words.
These in addition to picking up the vibrations in the air for sounds into words, and with our mind to meaning. And at that we can even tell if the voice is male or female.
What an absolute marvelous creation the human person is to live in a home from and by which he interprets so many things simultaneously. And I have not spoken of even the half of it.
But we have yet to determine how many atoms there are in any fixed measure in air verses those in space or anywhere else. Most measures in the bonding of atoms is given from 1.5A to 4A.
But we must determine how far the atoms in air may be spaced. The atom itself may have one measure while that becomes larger counting in the span of the magnetic field around it, or them. The higher the rate of their movement so much the larger their fields extend outwards.
The waves for light then cannot travel through any atom but they can and are conducted through the perimeters of their fields.
If then we presume that the spacing of the atoms in air near the surface of the earth comes to about 3A, the number of atoms by which a 7000A length progresses would be 2,333. If at the upper atmosphere that spacing comes to 4A, the tally would be 1,750, with the length as yet a bit longer than 7000A, since that figure must be considered factual at sea level.
And so from space a length of 12,400A, at the speed of 299,882-km/s reduced down to 299,792-km/s became blue shifted down to 7000A. A mere 90-km from a total of near 300.000, the percentage at 3,332. Very minor really velocity wise, but nothing to sneeze at for its compression or expansion at 5400A.
The quest then becomes how many atoms there must be in space not within a length of 7000, but 12,400A? If we reduce the number of atoms by the reduction in length we will come to something like 210 atoms, if by speed it could be as much as 700.
And 700 from 2333 leaves us with 1,633 atoms in space. But space where? Shall it be within our solar system where the substance is more dense than outside of our solar system?
Space cannot be empty or we would see no light at all. It for example is recorded that the sun is at a distance of 150 million kilometers from earth. And that it takes the light 500 seconds (8m/20s) to reach us. What is wrong here?
Think about it, use logic use a calculator, multiply 500 by the constant of 300.000, the result is 150.million. And what does that tell us? It tells us that by those figures we would not ever see any light from the sun, no wave of any kind.
That we have darkened the sun. For that mind you in these figures would be a straight line. It can be a magnetic line of the sun's magnetic field but not any kind of wave, since a wave incorporates angular moments.
And angular moments must always add their distance to the nominal length of a wave whereby it comes to a velocity less than the constant, a velocity measured for distance in time rather than by what they are factually transported.
If there are no atoms in space the angular moments that we behold as waves have nothing at all to connect upon, no base, no track upon which to come to any destination. Show me a train with boxcars to pass from New York to Los Angeles without a track to ride upon, and still I will not accept our folly.
If by example we come to something more accurate where it states that our distance to the sun is at 149.6 million-km (assuming it the average) and we utilize our infamous space velocity of 299.792.458-km/s, that times 500 comes to 149,896,229-km.
That then of course in no uncertain way destroys our space velocity to the tune of 103.771-km/s. If on the other hand we with our 500 seconds wish to come to those 149.6 million km, the light cannot travel any faster than 299.204-km/s, by a wavelength no larger than 1820A,
Something that is 588.4-km/s slower, and not even within our optic range. And so who am I to believe? Man - or the morning sun as I step outside? Obviously it will not be man. Has it not become obvious here that our education and teachings of light is in dire need of a complete overhaul?
At the speed of 299.882-km/s whereby the 12,400A wave travels, that times 500 comes to 149,941,000-km, almost the straight line that is never a wave.
We of course know that there is no fixed distance from the sun to the earth but that it varies from 147 million to 152 million kilometers (so recorded) whereby it is extremely difficult to obtain any proper velocity whereby the angular moments come to us from the sun.
But then why should we when in fact each different wavelength comes at its own unique velocity for distance in time? And there being thousands of them, it is only useful when we concentrate on a single wavelength.
I then surmise that the minimum light wave velocity in space is somewhere near 299,650 to a maximum of 299,950-km/sec, a range of about 300-km. For even at a near constant velocity the longer waves are well formed.
The point here is that a straight line is never a wave, it is like the night, dark with no angular moments arriving, For that is the difference between light and darkness, day and night. With the sun's ray blocked from reaching us, there are no codes, no angular moments on the magnetic media.
We cannot interpret straight lines, we may be held to the earth by them, but these are lacking in codes to be interpreted, be it warmth or illumination. This is what darkness is - the absence of codes, just as when a radio transmitter is turned off, so the music or the voice of it is gone, as in lacking the codes.
Is not sound found to be similar, when we with our vocal cords produce the particular codes by vibrations upon the media sound is heard, or rather - interpreted by us in our spiritual being from those vibrational codes.
Stop speaking and there will be silence even as the codes themselves are silent, sound finding its existence only by interpretation.
If in any way at all we could find the distance between earth and sun, down to the meter, and a single wavelength to cross that distance accurate down to a fraction of a second, we could establish the real velocity that shall be less than a straight line, less than the constant.
Or perhaps our constant at 300.000 in km is not accurate. It seems to be, or was it taken arbitrarily?
I thought about it to use our earth/sun measures for time and distance by which to discover if I could be more accurate, but no reliable data is available. In my judgment we will always come to something no more than estimates as long as we cannot for an absolute fact find a firm base from which establish everything.
And my figures for velocity here in the Rv rests upon that space velocity by which I determined the amplitude. I do not doubt that we really did obtain that velocity as such, but then without a specific length how does one expect me to get a better base?
Perhaps in the future someone may get enterprising enough to obtain light's relative velocity by a single fixed length.
We might look at a few quotations what is to be learned from them. If by example we hear what the most dense among us are saying quote:
"Light does NOT travel through SPACE at all, light travels through TIME, and time alone. In the same way your state of health is a time phenomenon, not a spatial one. Light is the excitation state of something, and that something is clearly not vacuum, which is defined as pure nothing.
Sad is it not that one's mind can be so corrupted, or brain-washed, and most of that in some way comes from that nonsense promoted by one called Einstein.
Like as man puts up images of the most brutal among man to glorify those that murder the most, so in our ignorance we glorify the most ignorant among us. All this thanks to Satan who likes nothing better than to destroy us as he fears that we will come to take in his places in the heavens.
But he does not have full power over everyone, for when we consult our physicists and quote them, it reads:
"Light has two meanings. In physics light means an electromagnetic wave that leads to vision. The study of light in physics is known as optics. Light is also the appearance of illumination. The brain makes things visible. Light-waves is optics. The appearance of light is vision."
Refreshing to hear something well spoken, and very near the truth, it would be all truth if it were not for that term of electromagnetic, since that bird has yet to be found.. By a next quotation we discover what they visualize for it, quote:
"A light wave is an electromagnetic wave that travels through the vacuum of outer space. Light waves are produced by vibrating electric charges. The nature of such electromagnetic waves is beyond the scope of The Physics."
Shall it then really be so that the whole universe in all of it vacuum inclusive is filled with electric charges? Should we not first determine what an electric charge is? Would not that be handy before we start giving the people wrong information?
Or are we like a kangaroo court, we condemn people without even hearing them out, as they did to me on more than at least three occasions?
For here if the nature of such electromagnetic waves is beyond the scope of the physics, why are we calling them electromagnetic? And why vibrating charges when they never at all vibrate?
The vacuum of space so we say, and in what way is that full of electric, and/or magnetic? And if I am not mistaken is it not so that in space no sound can be transmitted because the atoms are too far apart? How then vibrations, and of what?
Magnetic we can comprehend by all the many so called lines of magnetic from the stars and planets, but electric - come now lets use a little common sense. The only time or place when electric is found is when we generate it, when we twist magnetic lines around one another to have a string of magnetic erroneously called electric.
And that string must at all times rotate, for the instant that we stop our rotation so the electric disappears. And how with these so called transverse movement does the media by its density regulate the relative velocity of light and all waves? Or in space with our ideal of no media how is transverse to come about?
That the above is factual is claimed even by our own science experts reproving us that transverse for the waves of the spectrum is completely impossible. Why then do we not pay attention to such men in our sciences that do know what they are doing and speaking of?
Will everyone insist on being right educated or not? Our motto would be; "Present logical evidence or hush.".
There is no electric in the air or in space unless first of all there are clouds upon which a rotating magnetic movement is procured that for their high velocity comes to a high voltage - voltage being speed of rotation, (Ref-10) then because they are mostly isolated these look for a way to equalize themselves upon other such movements, or the earth.
That is how the lightning comes about. And when it does it is but a momentary flash through the air rattling the atoms as it twists itself down that then is know for the thunder of it. And so there are no electric charges in air nor space to be of any service to our angular moments called waves.
How horrible for light-waves to travel by vibration, the sound of it in the air would be unbearable. Since then they travel by no vibration at all they can at least come to the speed of light, or is that too much for us to swallow? At least Albert Michelson was enterprising quote:
"Prussian-born Albert Michelson, who grew up in the United States, attempted to replicate Foucault's method in 1879, but used a longer distance, as well as extremely high-quality mirrors and lenses. His result of 186,355 miles per second (299,910 km/s) was accepted as the most accurate measurement of the speed of light for 40 years, when Michelson re-measured it."
And quote: "An interesting footnote to Michelson's experiment was that he was trying to detect the medium that light traveled through, referred to as luminiferous aether. Instead, his experiment revealed the aether didn't exist."
Too bad for him that he was not educated of the Almighty Creator as I was blessed to receive, for while several of his experiment were seen as a failure, it was in no way a failure. It showed light to ride dependent upon the media.
But for most people to interpret their experiment while lacking in fundamentals they are bound to failure. So it was, and so it has been. The foremost part to any building is its foundation, wherefore first and foremost the very fundamentals of nature are to be understood, before we can start building.
And this we lacked since that can come from God alone by revelation, or His Spirit dwelling with us teaching us. And that of course the Lord does by individuals such as He chooses that are born of him, rather than by the will of man or of blood.
And there being also those that are born of neither but having come forth of the devil, these are truly ignorant, and truly evil, such as Hitler, and Himler, and currently Trump, and Barr, etc.
In a comment to Michelson's work one wrote, quote: "The experiment and Michelson's body of work - was so revolutionary that he became the only person in history to have won a Nobel Prize for a very precise non-discovery of anything," wrote astrophysicist Ethan Siegal in the Forbes science blog, Starts With a Bang.
"The experiment itself may have been a complete failure, but what we learned from it was a greater boon to humanity and our understanding of the universe than any success would have been!"
How much now we really did learn is still a question, since we still seem to be unaware of what light is nor how it rides dependent upon the media, (confirmed by Michelson's experiment) other than by my lessons in the nature of nature.
But I am not one to be accepted, am I? I am an alien here placed in exile to get acquainted with a people that will be my people. I teach contrary to the ruler of the earth, like my Lord said: "This world and its works belong to the devil." He does not want the truth to be known, but there is One more powerful than him whose power he cannot resist.

SPEED OF LIGHT

How does education work? If I place our reasoning before us to comment thereon perhaps we may come to realize our failures, as well as our good points.
Quote: "Another way to measure the speed of light is to independently measure the frequency f and wavelength λ of an electromagnetic wave in vacuum. The value of c can then be found by using the relation c = fλ. One option is to measure the resonance frequency of a cavity resonator. Aug 1 2019"
And how would one go about to measure frequencies like of blue light by man's standard of continues waves that comes to a tally of 1.8 trillion? Do we have a device to count that fast in one second? Even if we did it would never ever show that tally since all waves in being generated come mostly to no more than a fraction of what any one distance is able to contain.
Frequencies is a Mr. Dunsel, meaning part of something that serves no useful purpose. Pronounce to us 800 million letters in one second. If one cannot do so have the FCC committed to the asylum for the insane. If on the other hand they tell you to transmit your voice commands on a wavelength of 37.6-MHz, then let them out of the asylum.
Forget about frequencies, even the atomic bomb when it melts one in a second of time does not produce the full amount of frequencies that we can illustrate "mathematically" within any span of distance per unit of time. The key word here is "Mathematics."
Are we not as yet convinced that I have shown a much better way to obtain true velocities? All we need is a length and amplitude, the rest is mathematics.
For another quotation: "The National Bureau of Standards in Boulder Colorado used helium-neon lasers and meticulously accurate cesium clocks to measure the speed of light. They defined the meter as the distance light traveled in vacuum for 1/299,792,458 of a second, such that the speed of light in a vacuum is *drum roll* 299,792,458 m/s or 299,792.458 km/s. Not instantaneous, but yes, extremely rapid!"
And still another: "One of the key insights that Albert Einstein used to develop his theory of relativity was that light in a vacuum always moves at the same speed. The particles of light, or photons, therefore move at the speed of light. This is the only speed at which photons can move. They can't ever speed up or slow down."
Here is a word; "Instantaneous", indeed not correct for light, but then to the waves of light when these are formed, their speed is in fact instantaneous, with no acceleration. If this is difficult to swallow, ask me, or consult my other pages.
Look at his statements, for light to move always at the same speed? ?? And that they can never be sped up or down? ?? That man never did see a prism did he? Nor did he complete elementary school to learn about our fallacy how it was by and of velocity that waves compress and/or expand, how in fact they do speed up and slow down.
And since none of us ever went into the vacuum of space with a prism to prove Einstein in the wrong - so we allow ourselves to be deceived by such nonsense?
Take any prism into a vacuum - space or elsewhere - where all waves travel at the same speed and that prism will make hogwash of our ill accepted theories. You will have my absolute guarantee to that effect.
Next quotation: "Today the speed of light, or c as it's commonly known, is considered the cornerstone of special relativity – unlike space and time, the speed of light is constant, independent of the observer."
Independent of the observer? What is that supposed to mean that time and space depends upon our observation of it? Perhaps so. And light for its movement does not depend upon our observation of it? ?? Not likely.
What might time be? We have it, and are passing through it, everlasting as it may be, and so we wish to take a part of time that is like a line without end. And as we place our finger upon that line it instantly became a dot under our finger.
How then is there for us to take any part of time, since it is ageless and untouchable? And the same can be said for space. Cease even to speak of it, for there will be no end to our rattling without ever coming to a conclusion. As for that beast called relativity it will never be found, nor does any sane person pay the least attention to it.
Then for the remainder of it quote: What's more, this constant underpins much of what we understand about the Universe. It matches the speed of a gravitational wave, and yes, it's the same c that's in the famous equation E=mc2."
"Gravitational wave", so it states, as if there were any such thing. The power by which we are drawn to the earth is indeed by a speed that is equal to the constant, but never "at" the speed thereof, and that even by our own law that states, 32ft/sec/sec. rated at sea level that outwards from earth at some 3000 miles plus comes to 0-ft/sec/sec.
And so how is 32-ft/sec equal to 300.000-km/s? And is not that E=mc2 the most infamous nonsense that has ever crept into the sciences, totally absurd? (Ref-11)
Shall a nut turning on a long threaded bolt be considered a wave or not rather a rotation? And how come all objects of any weight fall at the same rate? How fast will a nut turn on a 8/32-bolt, verses one on a 8/16-bolt?
Would not the nut on the 16 thread per inch move down faster at any fixed speed of rotation? Or a 10-lb nut move down any faster than a 1-lb nut on the same thread? Need I say more?
Gravity as such is a mere inclination towards precession, by the torque of a moving object containing parts in rotations, like atoms. (Ref-1.2, and 3) Here the magnetic lines of stars and planets come to entwine with that precession - by which it draws all substance - under that duress of movement - towards its center of being.
That is gravity, not therefore anything like unto waves, with its speed reduced just as a nut turns on a bolt, by the factor of it. God forbid that gravity should be anything that man has concocted, we would all be dead before we were born.
I know that it was not for man to discover the foundations of the earth, (Jeremiah 31:37) but since by God's own word (Esdras 6:10) they would be understood, that mind you can only come from God Himself, by revelation to a man of His choosing.
As a nut turns on a bolt for its linear speed so all things at any altitude must fall at the same velocity, or same factor of acceleration. Wherever the factor of g is down to 22 all substance in rotational movement will accelerate at 22-ft/sec/sec.
Rotational movement then entails our movement with mother earth for its 24 hour rotation, as well as our 15-km/s orbital movement, and our galactic movement, and/or our ventures into space, since that type of movement presents the torque.
Therefore also not a single atom can be free of gravity, or how else will a raindrop fall? And my words here reveal but a first grade lesson.
There is no such thing as to escape from gravity, but we can come equal to its effect upon us by moving faster and faster to acquire more and more inertia upon ourselves that of course will counteract it.
Therefore at some 17,000-plus miles/h we come equal to it, that as such is termed, being weightless. Not that we really are, as in fact the weight upon a person of about 170-lb will come to more than 5000-lb, our inertial weight having come equal to the pull of gravity. Since then that weight bears upon the atoms as a whole we do not feel any of it.
Then for a contradiction, quote: "Quantum field theory says that a vacuum is never really empty: it's filled with elementary particles, rapidly popping in and out of existence. These particles create electromagnetic ripples along the way, the hypothesis goes, and could potentially cause variations in the speed of light."
Can't we ever keep our story straight? First empty space and now filled with particles? These no doubt came from David Copperfield to make them appear and disappear, only why do we have to fill in on their stories of the stork?
No sane person will even comment on that nonsense, so I better quit before I am seen for insane. But there is that vacuum, a term no one seems to understand. Pressure comes by gravity, as also by placing more substance within a sealed container than that which is outside of that container.
And by removing it from a sealed container so a vacuum comes about, as nothing more than substance at less pressure than what it is outside of that container.
And so what does space have in common with vacuum? None whatsoever! Space is space, it is neither empty, nor any vacuum of any kind. If it were not for the fact that I am obligated to teach, that I have no choice in the matter, I would keep my mouth shut, and leave man in the misery that he is in.
But the Lord our Creator had other ideas, He made me for the sake of man, or rather the other way around. And since He is the stronger to me I cannot resist Him. And so I am bound to open my lips for which also I am bound to be killed. So then let it be as the Lord has ordained it for me as well as everyone.

CONCLUSION

What now shall the conclusion be if not that our science for light as well as magnetic and electric, and all of nature for its many parts is in need of a complete overhaul. And for that we might as well trash most of our theories, like putting in a whole new transmission rather than fixing it.
I rather hope that this is the last of my essays, but that may prove to be a vain hope.

Next page

REFERENCES

Ref-1 Limit to gravity

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5863

Ref-2 Law of gravity

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/articl (JAP)e/view/8164

Ref-3 By a law of motion

https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v16i1.8184

Ref-4 Red shift into radial velocity

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

Ref-5 Magnetic Electric Fundamentals

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