THE NATURE OF LIGHT
Chapter 18 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
There is much to be said in the nature of light, in the incidence that brings forth the form of things unto our beholding. The knowledge that light has a velocity all its own was discussed in a previous chapter, with this heading we are going to search out more of the fundamentals of this mechanical phenomena.
We could question just how beholding is unto us, if it be by the length of a wave or the frequency thereof, if our brain works with a tape measure or with a calculator.
But since I am not one to remove intrigue, let us leave this to question. We must however come back to light in its velocity and mode of travel.
Reference figure 18-1. A device to confirm this was originally made by Michelson and Morley. It featured a light source passing through a half-silvered mirror - part of it being reflected and part of it passing through, thus accounting for two separate beams.
If therefore the motion of the light was impaired along the parallel beam - going with the movement of the earth, there should be a difference relative to the rectilinear beam to arrive out of time.
It is experimentally and mathematically indisputable that a beam of light in parallel motion with the earth must show a timing difference relative to another beam at right angle. This of course is presumptuous upon the theory that an Ether does exist, or, if light moves as packages in an independent mode.
The device of course showed no such difference, which (supposedly) defeated the ether theory, and it should also have defeated any theory whereby light would have an "independent" mode of travel.
Man however was not so endowed with knowledge. For while he did scrap the ether theory and the experiment (with everything else in nature) clearly proved the dependent mode of travel - man nonetheless held on to the independent mode of travel for light. Mr. Michelson did not interpret the evidence correctly, nor was anyone else able to read that writing on the wall.
And yet it is so simple, so absolutely simple, and how or why then was man unable to add two and two to four? But that also is simple, yet almost unbelievable.
And given an example: I once stated; "That the light beams of both stars in the M&M experiment traveled at the same speed." Then a so called science expert replied: "You are wrong Leonard these beams traveled at the same speed."
What now am I to make of the physics experts, for is that not what I said? If then I have said that man was poor in correlation, of the experts in physics I must conclude to not have any correlation, nor logic, but that even the simplicity of language is beyond their means.
When therefore they are not competent to read simple English, how will such so called experts ever be taught in anything?
This much I will say to you in whom there is common sense, that these so called experts will not ever be correctly established, nor will anyone be able to teach them right from wrong, for they are an accursed seed.
And for their accursed pride God has fully closed their minds, and blinded their eyes so that in shame and regret they may fall headlong upon their deceit, and not rise again.
Do not bother therefore to educate these since they are beyond education, and you would be wasting your time and effort.
For those however that do know a number 2 or 4 for its meaning, and in whom there is common sense and reasoning, it is for these that I labor providing them with a rich treasure of knowledge and understanding in the sciences.
Simplicity demands that the M&M device moving with the Earth at even its 15 km/sec orbital velocity alone away from the direction of the light in its velocity of at least one of the two stars must be additive.
But this additive is in reference to space as a fixed point of reference, and not "our" reference since we ourselves, along with the two beams of the two stars, are traveling at the same speed into the same direction with the device.
Logically with everything fixed together on one and the same media upon which also the light depends for its movement as well as its velocity, there is no possible way to read a difference.
Or do we not realize that we in fact are orbiting our Sun, and at yet greater speed moving through space upon one of the arms of our Milky Way galaxy?
If now I had said: Here is the evidence, light's speed is less than its constant since in space it is recorded at 299.790 km/sec. And that the reason for this lower than constant speed of light lies in its angular momentum, in the fact that it is a wave, which in fact concludes it susceptible to the media.
And for as much as that velocity incorporates the angular moment of the wave, the real velocity must be proportionally greater. This obviously requires more realization and or education to behold as clear evidence.
Wherefore I first pointed to the M&M device, something easier to grasp. But still from the latter one should apprehend that the velocity of light is greater than what it is claimed to be in its speed through space, since it always travels by the angular as well as the linear.
And before one discounts this sentiment consider how light is by wave-lengths, or if not so how are blue or red shifts read? Wherefore there must be an angular.
If then a wave-length of 7000a were a straight line and traveled at a full 300.000 km/sec there would be no angular momentum, nor would it therefore be a wave. But since it is a wave, and the length of 7000a (angstroms) is from crest to crest, the factual full length of the wave is greater in its computation by the amplitude thereof.
Assuming therefore it has an amplitude of 1.56a, and that around the circumference multiplied by 3.14 comes to 4.8984a.
And we take the real velocity of light (assumed at 300.000 km/sec) and divide it by the total of length and amplitude (7004.8984a) and multiply it by the 7000a length, that comes to a velocity of light in free space of 299.790 km/sec. (figures for the example only)
The "relative" velocity therefore, the velocity of real distance in real time is 210 km/sec less than what it would have been if the wave had been a straight line.
Consequently it is quite obvious that the "real velocity" of light is greater, and yes always greater than what it shows by real distance in real time, all because it is a wave, it has angular momentum.
If then we argue, but O no Leonard, the entire wave angular form and all travels by the 299.790 km/sec that we measured. What then are you saying? Are you not saying the same thing that I said? For quite indeed the whole waveform went by that speed as measured distance in time.
The only difference that I made was that I made it real, I gave it a real coordinate passing though space with a real head and a real tail as well as a real body.
For if we insist upon this version, that the whole thing is nothing more than a stationary wave bobbing as it passes, it is so easy for me to prove us wrong.
For one thing light is not at all times coherent, as to say it may come in burst, which works perfect for the wave around the circumference, but for for a string setting up wave movement it must be tied off on both ends, or it, the so called transverse version, would cease to exist immediately.
Or if we franticly attempt to hold on to our erroneous theory, by inserting electrons all along the top and bottom so these may indent the line to a wavy form as it comes by, we not only are making ourselves into less than children to promote a story yet more childish than that of the Stork delivering babies.
But we would be in gross violation of Newton's laws of motion, not to mention the unavailability of the assumed electrons, or the fact that such things could not possibly present a fraction of the force needed to push a line into a wave.
Moreover, if light were indeed transverse, like the vibrating string -- all wave-lengths would have an identical linear velocity irrelevant of how far the crests may be spaced for lengths. And this as we know does not agree with the facts of nature.
Light therefore cannot have a transverse mode of travel, the evidence is stacked against it. For even in space, -- as it is in any media --- the shorter blue waves travel at a lower velocity to those of the longer red ones.
If then one thinks to be wiser - check it out, you will then find me to be the wiser.
Accordingly we must ask ourselves how different wave-lengths come to travel at different velocities when passed through the various densities of all media, (so called empty) space inclusive.
For if we find different velocities in all media and still contest that in free space all wavelengths travel at the same velocity, what then in fact we are saying is; "that we are too incompetent to add 2 and 2 to 4.
If now I am to deep to follow, or one simply refuses to believe me, just go out and measure it in any media. You do have the means you know. And it will be as I have said, even though myself I do not have to, -- nor do I need the means to experiment.
This difference in velocity then is due to the angular momentum, the tubular angular momentum, as per illustrations above.
TWO EXPERIMENTAL FACTS
Measure the velocity of red light in air, and that of blue light in air, you will find that the difference in velocity corresponds to their wavelengths verses amplitude, the time it takes for the angular moment of the wave to pass around the circumference, not to be confused with diameter.
Then again measure the degree separation of the separate waves as they pass through a prism, which just as their velocities will be dispersed according to their wavelengths.
Wherefore it is not by the retardation of the material but rather in the "incidence" of all waves. Does not nature in everything confirm that which I have said? Why then will you question me if I might be right?
The index of retardation then merely being a handy tool rather than the fundamental scope of the phenomena. One problem however, the index is set to the relative velocity of light in space rather than to c, the real velocity of light.
What now may be in that denser media to slow it down if not the compression upon its wave formation, to --- as we say --- to make more time in place? Yes, your wave goes on without any reduction in its basic constant of velocity.
And when measured for its distance in time, and amplitude, you will find that its reduction in velocity is according to its compression, its blue shift. Density as such has no effect upon the real velocity of light but only upon its relative velocity, its real distance in real time.
If anyone doubt my word go and check it out, all of it, with the means at your hand. But don't be like Michelson or Morley who could not see the forest for the trees, to be like unto those who while standing within the forest acclaimed; "There are no trees!"
Use your knowledge, apply common sense and logical reasoning, as well as correlating one factor from the other. Be a man, dare to oppose those that claim themselves elite yet are not worth the paper on which their names are written. And by all means get rid of Einstein, that poor fellow never got anything right.
But now let us go forward to a different grade of schooling to proceed from there. Reference figure 18-2. The interferometer as a timing device, in the way it was set up is self-defeating, compensatory. If however we had looked for a focal point separation it might have sufficed.
The PR (primary beam) reflects from the first mirror to the second mirror and cuts back through the first mirror to point A at the observer. The RB (Rectilinear beam) cuts through the first mirror and as it passes to and from its second mirror - it is shifted sideways under the duress of the drift.
This therefore can be an ether, or the movement of the earth (all on the
presumption of course that light has an independent mode of travel.)
On this basis the rectilinear beam must contact the first mirror at a
spot (X) below its original point and
thus arrive at the observer at point location B,
in what is called a focal point separation of the two beams.
Refraction and dispersion
There is more to light than what meets the eye. We behold light as it enters a denser substance to refract into its separate colors, and then allow ourselves to be deceived to assume that this dispersion is due to different velocities.
If instead we stated - that the cause lies in "incidence" and in the "sum retardation" to make for the greater turn, we shall be equally in trouble.
When for example - we come to Huygens and his principle of the refraction of light - which can be given as the classical example of a row of men walking obliquely into a bed of sand. That idea works fine for the sum retardation, and for just a single wave.
But when waves are taken to their individual lengths and coming
simultaneously, then in that event his presentation is unsatisfactory.
If thus not in velocity, then what may be in the composition that it should act so differently for different wavelengths? Or if not in the composition, what is in the sum retardation that it affects the angle at which a wave may turn more sharply, other than by velocity?
The answer is in the measure of the wave. It is in the different individual lengths of the waves that they disperse, and not in the velocity. For does not a different length also provide a different incidence?
Accordingly, it is incidence, which determines the dispersion of light irrelevant of the velocity in the sum retardation thereof.
Illustration figure 18-3, presents the correct principle of refraction. The cause is first of all divided into two factors, which are "velocity" and "incidence". Each of these then is twofold, velocity is coupled with the composition to make for a sum retardation.
once this is done, velocity no longer remains as velocity taken from a single
constant, like the speed of light in free space, but from the sum retardation
between the two media's - by which the computation applies.
Notice by figure 18-3 how A2 the blue length turns shorter to A-1, because the angle, or wave-length is shorter.
The second factor, "incidence", is twofold in the fact that there are always two incidences to be found, the incidence of the wave as a whole (Figure 18-3, BC), and the "wave-form" incidence (Figure 18-3, BD) for the red, and BE for the blue).
The angle of refraction is then proportional to the incidence, while dispersion is proportional to the sum difference in the wavelengths.
For now note how both the red and blue (BD and BE) came upon the composition as a single incidence BC. And while both arrive at the same speed and encounter the same composition it nonetheless in the final end is different for the two individual waves.
As then per
example the red wave AG passes into
the composition by the example of passing straight on, it marks a dispersion A
to A1, while the blue AF also
in a same straight line marks a dispersion A
to A2 noting a separation of the two
waves A1 to A2.
The illustration figure 18-3 shows 3000 Angstroms variation (tangent X), wherefore the dispersion A1 to A2 will likewise be in a degree corresponding to the 3000 Angstroms.
However much therefore the wavelength variation is in the un-coming waves
- the degree of dispersion will always be proportional since the dispersion is
linked directly to the sum variation of the wavelength.
Form of a wave
By figure 18-4, a single wavelet has its length as WL, while WXL is the form of the wave around a tubular width (tubular width being WM). Since then light is "carried" or transposed by and upon a media, - it are the engines of that media which gives the waveform its linear velocity. (so said)
This, in the nature in which we live - has shown itself to be of a constant value, a speed equal to 300.000-km/sec (c). (The c is more or less assumed until we determine the exact amplitude of the wave from which by its length and relative velocity, the factual constant can be established.)
If therefore we take any part of that wavelet, such as point Q, that particular part, as every other part, travels forward at a constant velocity which is the velocity of constant - noted c and/or (c4). ...
But how fast would this wavelet be transposed if we measured the same by distance in time, which is to say - by a linear length in a given unit of time? This velocity would then be called a "relative" velocity, (R).
For is it not conclusive that when the light has a constant velocity passing WXL, that said distance is greater than distance WL, wherefore the measured or relative (r) velocity - (WL) - is always less than the constant by the tubular width of the wave?
If line WXL were laid out in a
perfectly straight line, points (W), and (L) would have to
be further apart to accommodate that new longer length.
As then in the first instance the velocity (r) between (W) and (L) was less than 300.000 km/sec, here in the second instance, the velocity (on the longer length (WL) will increase to 300.000 km/sec, it will in fact be (c), the same as the constant, with the timing remaining the same for both instances. All this because light rides at a constant velocity of 300.000 km/sec.
If therefore the line is laid-out straight, or the light is able to travel straight on, - its velocity as a relative factor will be found at c. If on the other hand it must twist itself around a tubular width (as it always does) its velocity in the relative factor will be reduced by the tubular width.
However more dense then the composition is so much the greater the tubular width will be, and consequently so much the lower its relative velocity will be.
now may be an error here, in where I said; "however more dense the
composition so much the greater the tubular width."
For it could also be that as the wavelet passes not increasing it tubular
width, it simply compresses itself into more turns per given length, in which
case the wavelength (crest to crest measure) is less.
For it could also be that as the wavelet passes not increasing it tubular width, it simply compresses itself into more turns per given length, in which case the wavelength (crest to crest measure) is less.
And to determine which of these is the correct version, we cannot place a device inside a glass prism, but we can submerse it under water, to see if the crest to crest measure in and out of the water are the same. But before anyone embarks on this allow me to duly caution you on the identity of any and all wavelengths - if you gather what I mean.
We now cannot very well speak of a straight line as a waveform, and
since light to our probes is usually found by a waveform (length and amplitude)
- there are always two velocities associated with the movement of the waves of
The first is an unwavering velocity, called the
"constant" (c) passing WXL.
What now shall we expect of that part Q, or the whole train of the wavelet, (Figure 18-4) when from the density of air it comes upon the greater density of a glass prism as in figure 18-3? Shall we presume that it steps on the brakes?
If light is anything the likes of what quanta suggests (a speed of into
the trillions of miles per hour), it would bounce right through the glass prism
with its brakes still smoking before any real reduction in speed would be
No, on the contrary, for the wave-train of light
there exist no such
thing as - density - for which it should slow down. Nor can it invade the
interior of any atom, this is absolutely
impossible in any density, since, the wave-train can only follow upon a
track which is laid around the perimeter of all atoms.
To the train of the wave - there is thus no density for which it should slow down, but the form of the wave is susceptible to densities, in that densities present a more compact arrangement of the atoms and molecules along which it is to follow. (also evident from the appearance of water on a hot roadbed)
Or in other words, the tracks are more compressed. As therefore the form of the wave comes from (what we might call for our demonstration) a normal amplitude, and comes upon the density of a glass prism, - it is compressed (blue shifted).
Consequently, the train of the wave (part Q) is now forced to pass by a greater tubular width, as illustrated by figure 18-5, WXL into LYC, wherein the relative velocity is compared WL to LC, and LC will be comparably reduced.
Or, we might say the compression forces a tighter turn in the same tubular amplitude, something of which I will dig into at great lengths in some of my other pages.
We might thus say that it is forced to make more time in place, for indeed it does take more time to cover a distance WL in the prism as compared to passing that same distance in air. Distance LC in the prism is shortened by exactly the sum of retardation of the composition from which the prism is constructed.
The light therefore - in leaving from point W at the full velocity of constant - never slowed down in any way
whatsoever when it passed over X to L
to Y and to C, and so forth,
- but the instant it reached point L and
came upon a greater density, the compression forced it into a greater
amplitude, likewise found as a blue shift.
In measuring light for its "relative" velocity, WL and LZ are equal distances. When therefore the speed of light from W to L was measured at 299.000 km/sec, the LZ measure would show light to travel at some value below, something more like 240.000 km/sec.
And so we must remember that there are always two velocities of light, its real velocity, and a relative velocity. When therefore we speak of the speed of light, we must include what speed it refers to.
is a condensed substance, and for its grid there is ample open space. And
while air consist of nothing more than marbles (O and N) these have an even
greater spacing one from the other. Evidence of this is in the fact that air
Transverse waves are not the only ones that can pass through narrow slots. If we take the tubular width of a line of light and place two plates over it with a narrow slot each, one vertical, one horizontal (Figure 18-6, and 18-7), it will leave one small square (2) by which the train of the wave may pass. If the plates were centered on the wave's tubular width, no light would pass by points 1 through 6 blocking the train.
Technically, when two plates with their slots are so positioned that it leaves only the minute square, it is said that no light it all should come through, since up to date light was held as transverse waves, movements in waveform along a two dimensional plane.
Experiment however proves different since some light is seen to come through, which should be a confirmation to the tubular nature of the waves of light.
You wish to see some real polarization of light? Take water molecules as the polarizing material how these are passed and captured by the molecules depending on just how each wave strikes upon them.
Moreover the diameter of light in its waveform is not much larger than the lightest of elements, like for example; Nitrogen. How small of a slot thus are we to make for light to be fully blocked?
There really is no polarization of light, but simply a partial blocking and/or redirecting of it. A high speed drill-bit can be in clockwise, or counter clockwise direction of rotation, nor therefore is there any polarization of it.
Yet like as we do with electricity, when it is seen to rotate in one direction we call it positive, and when it reverses its rotation it is called negative. And so thus after all do call directions of movement by poles of.
How may we increase the intensity of light? Suppose we have a truck upon which we wish to place a load, the load being the intensity. Can we increase the load upon that truck by making its bed wider?
You will tell me; "Of course not, it requires more bricks to place
upon the bed of the truck, rather than just widening the bed."
If we supposed that amplitude was intensity, then by all means the light should increase in brightness when it was passed from air into a glass prism, for in the prism its amplitude -- may be --- increased.
So even though previously it was held scientifically correct that intensity was by "amplitude", (a wider bed) now we are saying that this is not scientifically correct.
is as volume or quantity, the load which is transposed.
Intensity is as to how many waves we are able to bring forth simultaneously,
and/or how much we
can cram within any given area as we do with lasers.
Or how many individual wavelets we can bring on a single line.
Or how many individual wavelets we can bring on a single line.
For this to me is a fact that light in its wavelets is not continues to locks ends on ends, but just as it was generated by spurs or frequencies even so it is by batches or singles.
A 60 cycle current used to produce light in our homes, is a light source that is cut off and on at 60 times per second, a revolution of 3600 rpm. The way we receive light therefore in our homes is intermittent as illustrated by figure 18-8 top line.
A full line of light then is - where the entire line of light is filled with wavelet's, one directly following the other, (bottom line in the illustration).
On the order of blue light, there is room for some 75 trillion wavelets. The principle of a laser is to "amplify" light, meaning, to place more and more wavelets on the same line of projection. This may be in question if light is viewed as continues wave formations, for they do or may appear in that way.
What therefore is fully packed cannot be packed more; our sources however are mostly intermittent - because of our electrical source being intermittent. Intensity thus (as it should be obvious to any mind of reason) is not in amplitude, but is based upon volume, the quantity of waves, or the energy thereof at any given line or area.
One more thing regarding wave intensity, that which is received from the Sun, or a like source as primary waves, are more intense than what I termed as secondary waves. And while secondary waves are fundamentally presumed to be continues, the same is not true for primary waves, nor therefore in the scheme of things can it be so in the secondary.
The waveform of sound is based on a two point principle, a simple back and forth vibration of cores. Electric and magnetic waves are three-dimensional following a tubular, or circular formation as they are transposed along the pathways of nature with a velocity of constant.
If then you ask me why all so constant? I must decline to answer here since that comes too close to that which is not in the keeping of those born in the earth.
The spectrum however, in order to properly understand
it, must be divided into two parts. The
magnetic and electrical waves must be set apart from the remainder.
The spectrum however, in order to properly understand it, must be divided into two parts. The magnetic and electrical waves must be set apart from the remainder.
This remainder is then further divided after the "magnitudes"
of nature, which gives radio-waves a place in the second magnitude and
light-waves a place in the first magnitude of nature.
The reason for this division lies in the nature and transmission of the waves. Electric and magnetic waves are always extended from a source, (and dual three dimensional) while radio and light waves (three dimensional in nature) are what we might call "rider" waves, who once having left their source continue with no further link to their source.
As per illustration figure 18-9, a continues wave formation is extended from the generator, which applies to magnetic cores as well. The instant that the generator stops, or the core of a magnet is removed, so are the waves, or the lines of force which cease to be.
and light waves however continue as they were once generated, until either they
are canceled by an absorbing frequency, or as we might say, used up in a process
which may or may not generate heat, depending on the type of wave.
By illustration figure 18-10 each magnitude of nature has its own dimension. Magnetic force and electrical current are founded in the "overall" or third magnitude of nature, the tubular width of these waves corresponding to that same dimension which is essentially along component factors.
Along with electrical and magnetic forces there is also gravity in its
inclination to downward force that proceeds along the dimension of component
In the second order, the diameter or tubular width along which the waves are transposed, (Figure 18-10 AB) is reduced. The dimension along which these pass is normally called, the molecular level, or molecular magnitude as it may also be called.
amplitude of light however is too small, and its wavelengths too short to be
suited to the second magnitude, wherefore it finds its realm within the first
magnitude coming one step closer to the atoms themselves, and in fact traveling
along the perimeter on the atomic level.
Birth of a wave
Reference figure 18-11: And now to see how a wave may be born, be transposed, and give the warmth we crave as it dies for us. We begin by drawing a picture of "general motion", which are atoms along which the electrons extend their velocity, or better said, along which movement is transposed.
In the illustration arrows S
and T define the two opposing directions. Q and
R define the planetary motion essentially set at right angles.
If light were merely a particle and cast upon the momentum of the
general motion, it would pass 1,4,5, A to
B. But a wave is transposed 1,2,3, A
to C, each atom adding a fraction to the angular direction of the wave at
full forward velocity.
But how in principle may such a waveform come to be? If we consider DZ of figure 18-12 as the continues momentum (c speed of light constant), and F a particular momentum from a certain atomic element generating the same at a certain set velocity after its atomic value.
And this is brought to bear upon DZ to - as were it sheer into the top of that circular form. It will strike it at point E and take it to point B, at which point it has passed the line and DZ will be taken DB relative to Z.
Meaning, B is now the same as W having brought an angular momentum in the linear path. The result therefore is EWZ our standard waveform once around the tube.
The momentum DZ therefore will continue to transpose EWZ at a relative velocity equal to EZ by tubular width KG, while the velocity of constant would be found at either of EW or WZ.
It is just that simple.
And if F had a velocity 1/10
the constant of light, the length of the wave would be ten times the tubular
width (2 cm).
Now we must watch it die and give us warmth in the process thereof. And this also is merely a principle fashion, not necessarily exactly as shown. As long as there is nothing in the path of a light wave whereby it may pass or be reflected - it does not serve us for warmth.
But when it encounters an element as a plane upon which it cannot pass - it may be likened to a moving train coming upon a wheel. The wheel turning at a nominal rpm is increased by that train of light that sheers into its perimeter - in which the action may be likened to a wire passing on one of the teeth of the wheel as by a gear.
In other words, the atomic wheel is susceptible to the train in being caught thereby. As thus the train engaged into the wheel striking along the edge thereof at great speed, it increases the rpm thereof, (fundamentally it is RAM).
But at the same time this strain took away the wave formation of the train, and it no longer is a wave, (having ceased to exist). RPM then in some fashion is warmth to the human senses. (a bit crude but sufficient for now)
Thus we watched (in principle) how light serves us to warm the earth. It is for that reason that the earth is heated from the surface on up, and why it is so cold upon the high mountains.
Remember however that I said this to be a "principle" fashion, not necessarily the precise manner, which I leave for another time and place.