LIGHT'S PASSINGAlso on this page: Lights odds and ends
(Evidence that light refracts by incidence rather than velocity, and that light is not transverse)
CHAPTER 31
CHAPTER 31
INDEX
TO OTHER PAGES
I do not agree with Maxwell that in the absence of a material medium a wave such as of light can be understood in fluctuations of an electric field and magnetic induction.
The reason is, that the induction of a magnetic field verses electrical charges holds true for the initiation of waves in virtually every size and frequency thereof, but the same holds not true in the propagation thereof after the initiation.
And for a second, that no such wave can be initiated or propagated in the absence of a material medium. Nor should we be concerned for the absence of a material medium since however void of material we may consider space to be, it is not so devoid of material to prohibit the passage of certain waves in conducting the same, the passage of light-waves being confirmation thereto. Nor as I may
reveal is conductance primary in the transmission of light.
In the case of sound however to travel by 1000 meters a second where each atom is required to move by one angstrom, the physical speed of each atom is at that same rate wherein each atom must move 1a before the next atom in line is induced to move in like distance.
If then the spacing of the atoms comes to a condition where the first atom comes short of making contact upon its next in line - no transmission of the sound will be accomplished.
The same then is not true for magnetic waves. Nonetheless, while experiment proved sound for its propagation to be directly bound to the material media - experimental evidence also proved magnetic waves bound to the material media.
And whether we play with words like electric fields and magnetic induction, we shall not thereby disprove nor disqualify the evidence which experience and experiments so clearly
demonstrates.
In consolation hereto we should consider the difference in velocity how electro-magnetic waves travel by a margin that is 300,000 times as great to that of sound. If then by example an excess spacing of 1a brings sound at its 1km/sec to a halt - what may be the distance for something 300,000 times greater?
And while there is no substance on the move with the transmission of sound
other than the vibration of atoms remaining in place transmitting a compression along a fixed string,
it seems plausible that (at least on the order of) light-waves there
may be more than just a coordinate (a sine formation) on the move.
"Plausible" as I said, but how will I explain the same more realistically other than to say; it need not necessarily be so, for at this point I have come to a boundary not to be passed. This my heart forced me to say lest I accuse myself of error.
The criteria from which we usually proceed is that by a normal all things are symmetric or at equilibrium. If therefore we are to see a particle in flight which by size or speed is invisible we account for it by some difference that is relevant thereto.
A wave is known simply because it is a variant factor within what is otherwise a straight line. And a charge comes to pass and is known by a “potential difference" (Figure 31-1 A/B), which can be the wind, as in air passing from a high pressure area to a low pressure area. Or Niagara Falls, the water of a river from a higher to a lower level.
Or it can be an electrical potential, lightning striking from a cloud down to the ground, where the cloud in its movement may be likened to an armature within the magnetic flux of the earth to present a potential difference between itself and the ground below it - which in respect thereto is at rest. (H)
Or where several clouds in opposite angular potential of one another release their difference into one another. (K) Or a capacitor having acquired sufficient potential to cross the semi conductive barrier. (L)
All the power in nature that serves us to our needs is by a difference of existing potentials. Electricity for example can never be depleted, nor is it ever consumed.
The whole of the potential in electrical power coming from the area of the magnetic flux wherein the armature rotates - is the only small space serving us with that power in an endless un-depleting and none consummating fashion.
That very same power is used over and over again, and never ceases. Only to prove this to the power companies would rob them of their funds to contend with them that you are paying for the same electricity over and over year after year, decade after decade.
Similarly we can speak of water to bathe in it, and having run off, or being evaporated by the sun, it returns again by way of rain. Since then the second shower after the first is with a different batch of water, this is not so with electricity.
Since the electricity in the wiring of our homes can be looked at as a great number of wheels affixed in place turning at 120 to 277 revolutions per minute.
They are thus affixed wheels in motion the rpm of which is maintained by the power company. And whether or not you utilize the motion of these wheels to your purpose or not, the movement is always there and the use of it is always at your disposal.
The Power Company therefore is not supplying us with new movement nor with new wheels, but as long as the generator keeps turning - our wheels will turn by the string existing between them and the armature of the generator.
This is important to remember, and to realize how in the powers of nature there is no supply and demand, but simply a potential difference. We are the only ones looking for supply and demand, and as long as that exist we must labor. For should that cease - our labors would cease and we would grow fat as pigs.
We have already done away with the hand-cranking coffee grinder, and the water bucket, to merely turn a faucet and the day we replace the faucet, or take a shower with our clothing still upon us, we will recede back into the dust from which we were formed.
God made mankind that he must eat and maintain himself in order that he may remain occupied, and not become idle. For it is just as simple for the
Almighty Lord to make man so that he would never have to eat.
We can speak of power consumption with internal combustion engines, but the electric power companies are quite in error to bill us for “consumption” of power, that should read “utilization” of power.
And should they argue that they are providing us with a flow of power, they are taking it back (reversing it) 360 times each minute. But what would they do if we did not need them? For they in coming home also have mouths to feed.
Tapping that little area of space for the inexhaustible use thereof is what may be called perpetual motion (tapping from it). That to which our eyes are not tuned is always of power, always on the move, always turning, and always at potential ready for use. For the sum of nature is matter in motion by coordination.
And in speaking of matter, what is matter if not a coordinate of parts. For while we think of wood as wood, and of steel, as steel, and the grains of sand as silica conceiving such things as being matter.
Our conception comes far short of reality when we look upon the atom as matter, or a part of matter in the understanding of substance like unto the former.
If we look upon the nucleus of an atom to conceive it as substance we may be more correct than in calling wood or steel a substance. Or we might be incorrect depending on what our conception of matter or substance is.
And so to conceive what is factually material in the deepest sense of the word we are at a loss to comprehend the same since all that we know for a material being is essentially a coordinate of things.
A good likeness hereto may be given with language, or these very words written on paper. For how will I convey to you to conceive a color red in appearance if not by forming the word “red” which we both understand for the same meaning.
And yet what am I doing, I have no physical connection with you, at least not such as the eye may behold. But taking a number of dots placed in a coordinate to represent an “R" and two more such coordinates to denote an “E” and a “D" together they become what may be said the molecule having the flavor of a specific color.
And so while nothing physically transpired between us, yet my meaning is perfectly reiterated.
In a similar manner the smell of things comes to our interpretation for being pleasant or not - by coordinates not unlike the word “red” which we formulated from a number of dots, or, as we might say - from a number of atoms or elements into a compound element.
Nature therefore is marvelous to understand - to come to the understanding how by way of coordinates - things become so real unto us.
And somewhat further into
this my final chapter I will touch upon what is yet more marvelous and greater to anything so physical, the realm of which is not for man to comprehend, and where his waves are stayed to go no further.
In general the whole of the spectrum is rooted in that one force of nature we call magnetic whose lines or strings of movement are paired (Figure 31-1-F) within the body by which the force is set forth.
This grants the force its wave formation into a figure of eight. While on the exterior where the media is not suitable for component factors, the lines of magnetic force are merely extended, the media conducting the same.
And turning these magnetic string into ever tighter twists is of course the electrical current so common to us. And not that this is the only means to electricity, which I previously illustration by a potential difference between movements. And so the whole of the wave spectrum is to take C and convert it to E, variants into a line.
We have it on assumption that the speed of light known as the velocity of constant (Vc) is a velocity equal to 300.000 km/sec. We have never actually recorded that velocity, but we did record the velocity of light in a vacuum (meaning as in space) at 299,792 km/sec.
And the index of retardation for air being 1.0003 that would give light a velocity of 299,702 km/sec in air. The question then becomes what wavelength of light were we reading, and what might the amplitude thereof be?
Since the longer lengths travel faster, let us assume that our recording was for the wavelength of 6800 angstroms, which divided by 1.0003 comes to a reduced wavelength in air at 6798a.
If then we take the frequency thereof and divide it into Vc the result at 6805a, meaning the angular component of the wave, is 6805 minus 6798 = 7 angstroms. And this by the triangle comes to a circumference of 309a: 3.14 and a diameter of 98 angstroms.
If then this wave were shifted to the red by a radial velocity of 1000 km/sec between the points of reference, what becomes of the wave when its relative velocity is already at 299,702 km/sec, and its maximum velocity by which the wave becomes a straight line is only 298 km/sec more?
Let us place the wave upon a spectrographic plate reference to figure 31-2 and let us assume that first - in the normal - the wave in air having a length of 6798a shows up on the spectra at point A, (its normal location for a 6800a wave in air).
Then placing an expanding velocity upon it to the tune of 298-km/sec to pull it into a straight line, its location on the spectra will shift to point B. Then to add 500 extra km/sec into what is into the expansion of the wave, there is however no longer any sine formation to expand upon.
So thus what happens to the wave if nonetheless it comes to show itself further on into the red at point C? My declaration here showing it stretched may very well be correct, but reversed in its angular direction from the normal is speculation. For while that possibility may exist, that alone does not present it acceptable, much less factual.
In my thoughts for the wave to stretch, I am thinking of that which was presented by figure 31-3 how the wave follows the atoms in their greater spacing upon its (so called) predetermined point whereby the wave is expanded shifting to the red side of the spectrum.
This is not illogic since we know that the wave or line is quite flexible. But how is that to show up on the spectral plate as a greater than B shift - unless the line before all else is compressed back into a sinuous formation to show the angle thereof?
But then we are simply debating things, having a conversation beholding what may transpire, and why not attempt every avenue in sight, since we, or at least I, am still at a loss to explain this wave nature
I had another thought, while sitting here listening to the music of the Phantom of the opera and in my mind beholding that lovely young lady with that beautiful voice signing the song.
How, with the atoms carrying the Vc, and the Vc propelling the wave, while the atoms recede at that greater velocity, the wave is carried forward through space at a velocity that is greater than Vc, a velocity we would call a space velocity.
For we do know one thing for a fact, that light is quite able to travel through space at a velocity exceeding the velocity of light (velocity of constant).
This may be illustrated by figure 31-3. Each of atoms A and B carry or possess upon them that velocity of constant. If then B recedes at a velocity greater than 298-km/sec, for the example assuming atom A to move by 10 while atom B moves by 12, and wave x by atom A has a length of 10, which by atom B is stretched into a length of 12.
And assuming that after atom B the next in line do not recede but maintain a constant. Then our wave x whose signature was 10, will now continue at a new length of 12.
For again the line can or will only be stretched during such periods wherein the wave (line) passes from one density to the other, be it in density or by way of a receding object. As long as A and B continue at the same velocity there will be no expansion in the line however much that line may already be expanded.
We must understand that the expansion of wavelengths is not as such by velocity, but velocity effected by density - the change is by density. And thus as the previously 6800a wave has now become a wave that for our example has become a 7200a length, what happens in an encounter with a denser media?
Will the wave be compressed upon itself into its previous length at which it was initiated, or will it maintain the 7200a length
and become a greater wavelength that on the spectra will record itself a proportional greater distance into the red?
If so that might explain the excessive shift to the red, and it would also explain how and why the more distant galaxies show a greater shift to the red. Which then is not on account of a greater radial velocity as the distance from our home planet earth increases.
But the more distant a light-wave is required to travel the greater the number of occasions that it may be stretched or expanded to bring 12 to 14, and 14 to 16, and consequently 7200a to a greater than 7200a.
For it is also to be remembered that once a wave is a line, and has been stretched, and accepting the logic that it is not made of rubber, it would be stretched further and further by any occasion wherein atoms A and B come to a greater spacing.
If by example the line has been reverted back into a wave, then of course a radial velocity, or density in excess of its angular component will be required to stretch it to a line longer than before.
Perhaps we should take a look at our device whereby we read the spectra and the shift. In order to see the spectra we must first separate the wavelengths one from the other, and by a comparison determine if there is a shift and how great of a shift.
As thus
by figure 31-4 we cause the waves to diverge by a solid line showing the two ends of the octave, a blue and a red wave by each their own specific incidence to each their own specific angle in refraction. And given a full radial velocity whereby at least the red wave becomes a line, the dotted lines point to the new shifted positions.
Then comes the question how a line is to refract different from a wave? For why is it that a wave refracts into a direction that is different from its angle of incidence?
The answer illustrated by figure 31-5 is quite simple, both wave A, and wave B arrive at the surface out of equilibrium, their equilibrium being arrow X the center of their sine formation.
And thus wave B arriving at the surface as shown should by all means penetrate itself into the denser media into the direction Z, which is the directive of its wave angle. And it should go into direction X, its direction of movement in the linear component, the result of which is somewhere into the direction S.
This would be considered the normal approach of a wave arriving out of the normal the refraction of which closely corresponds to what Huygens described by wave-fronts.
But the very opposite comes to be true for wave A, where the far end instead comes first in contact with the surface. And how should it penetrate the denser media if not into direction Y? For the rule is for the wave to bend towards the point of first resistance as it did with wave B.
The usual vocabulary for the rule is for the wave to bend towards or away from the normal depending on whether it is going from a lighter to a denser media or visa versa.
The same rule with fewer words can be said, to bend towards the direction of first resistance. And by that same rule wave A must now refract in a direction that is opposite (direction Y) to what experience shows not to occur.
At this point however, I beg to differ with experience, for if the law and experience is good for one, it must be good for the other. Wherefore wave A has no choice but to refract into a direction that is somewhere between X and Y. X being the linear component, with Y the angular component, and point area Y is first to contact resistance.
Therefore if experience or experiment does not show this to occur, while it must occur, then something else is wrong.
And that something else is what is noted below in the word “transverse", since our assumption here is based upon a transverse version of the waves. And as I have said - these to be circular and not transverse in nature.
And a circular wave, as was demonstrated in our previous chapter by figure 31-9, will always refract by the rule towards the normal at entering a denser media, and not necessarily into the first point of resistance.
Because it is a circular wave, it rotates having three simultaneous directions as illustrated by figure 31-6 the typical hand-rule that applies for all electro-magnetic phenomena.
With electrical current X is the direction of motion, Y the direction of magnetic flux, and Z the direction of electro-motive force. To the wave it applies where X is the linear, with Y the angular component (which in fact is the magnetic line, or flux), and Z to the wave as the electro-motive force in the sine formation, the wave.
It seems kind of logical that if the greater
magnetic waves behave by this hand-rule why should not its smaller cousins, seeing how they all come from the same family, and having the same rule into their birth?
The rule for turning into a direction of first contact therefore applies only to none rotating waves or projectiles. Wherefore by the same token if a projectile as in figure 31-5 arrives with a sharp point located directly at the center, or equilibrium, it should continue into (direction R) the direction of incidence.
And a wavelength of light being very thin (pointed), what shall a red wave be when it has become nothing more than a line - if not a projectile to pierce straight on through our prism in figure 31-4 to show up as the “greater red shift 2” on our spectra?
Or if not that far into the red, as a straight line with some of the nature of a wave, come to record itself at “greater red shift 1”.
Accordingly, having looked at how far a wave may be expanded, and by what fashion we come to read that expansion. And having looked into the rules of refraction or diffraction to discover the nature of the wave, it is time to collect ourselves to see what conclusion if any may be drawn.
When I was envisioning that lovely young lady singing the Phantom of the Opera, we realized that in contrast of, or in addition to the wave being ripped apart it is simply taken to a higher velocity along with the media.
That being called space velocity which occurs when the media and the light are moving in like direction, or at a lower velocity when the direction of movement of media and light are opposite to one another.
But it warrants us to experimentally and mathematically go into these things after I shall no longer be with you - to see how much of what I have said is correct, and what the ultimate answer may be.
A shift upon the spectral plate is not a reading of velocity, but of the angular component of the wave, and/or the change therein. Figure 31-4 illustrates our reading in the angular component, for we are separating the waves at some distance whereby we may observe the individuals.
The distance from point of impact and the facial of the spectra must of course be a fixed distance for any reading to any comparison. Accordingly, for a red wave (Figure 31-2) a 1-% shift in the angular component amounts to 0.98a. And a 50% shift would increase the relative velocity of the wave by 149-km/sec.
How therefore in the transverse version do we arrive at a velocity greater than the sum total of the angular component - our reading being the angle of the angular component and nothing else?
Moreover, with the quantum theory assuming light-waves as a train of substance however minute on the move, there was talk of the parts spreading out (Figure 31-7-A) to account for the less lumens of the distant object.
Our explanation was that the parts, or wave, lost energy in its long journey, and the longer the journey the greater the loss. All fine and well except for the fact that energy is motion, if therefore the wave is to lose energy it must slow down.
Facts however show that the wave cannot slow down, its velocity or its propellant being a factor of itself, and this goes for the angular momentum as well as for the linear. (The angular being the frequency for each single turn around the circumference, or amplitude).
Less lumens therefore has nothing to do with energy, but is simply a matter of quantity, the more distant an object the smaller the quantity of light to reach us, and the greater the opportunity for light to be dispersed or arrested.
And comparing a distant body at rest verses that same distant body receding. In my judgment there is no reason nor should there be a difference in the lumens, the receding one will simple show a red shift not shown on the one at rest.
And so my question to you in your transverse theory is; how do you read line A from line B in figure 31-7, to read one straight line from the other? We can read C and D by lengths and or frequencies, but A or B on a spectral plate are both the same.
Line A might be read if we had anything fast enough to count the packages. But what good is it to count the packages when that is not necessarily an interpretation into velocity?
I of course realize that once a wave has been drawn straight and a greater radial velocity merely changes the relative velocity of the wave that the same remains a line to be read once it comes into our spectroscope
disallowing the greater velocities. Why therefore did you not go into these particulars to explain yourself?
Before leaving our red shift debate I would like to trace a few light-beams by illustration figure 31-8. The light from star A initiated at normal length and heading into the same direction to which star A is moving at 50-km/sec should be blue shifted by a degree equal to 50-km/sec. This is assuming the space between star A and our solar system to be at rest.
And yes, it does shift to the blue, but also to the red at point B, since at that point the light is passing from a greater density into a lower density. And coming at the border of our solar system, (or galaxy) point C, the red that was shifted into it - will now be shifted out of it having to enter a somewhat denser media.
And the 50-km/sec blue will be shifted out of it by a 50-km/sec shift to the red - in that our galaxy also moves in like direction with a like velocity. Thus the wave passes normal through our space and all that was done at C will now be corrected at point E
(Reverted back).
Then from star x to our solar system there is a 50-km/sec red shift for the receding velocity, but also a greater red shift for the change in density. And arriving at our solar system another 50-km/sec red shift is added along with a blue for entering our solar density.
We might thus say that the leaving and entering upon the change in density cancels each other out, leaving us with a red shift all of which can be counted into radial velocity.
These things then should be correct provided the densities of one and the other are alike. And whether or not out in the cosmos stars and galaxies have greater densities than ours, I do know this much, that for a light-wave to pass through a galaxy is a journey full of variants.
Which is not only in shifts by velocity and density but no less in re-direction by refraction and relevant movement of the media.
Let us attempt to settle how the magnetic wave may be propagated. We know that space is full of strings, magnetic strings. And wave-pulses will travel upon strings for what appears to be all by itself - that once set in motion stays in motion, just as water waves will travel thousands of miles to break upon the shores as what is called tsunamis.
The manner in which these waves or wave-pulses travel is illustrated by figure 31-9, wave-pulse D with amplitude X, traveling direction Y. The wave itself here is a potential difference upon a symmetric media.
We could also say, the wave is a movement adhering to the laws of motion continuing to move and losing energy only by the degree of resistance posed to it.
This is actually a marvelous phenomenon since the pulse, or power of the disturbance forces the media directly in front of its path into the height of its amplitude out of its way, similar to an airplane in the sky or an automobile on the road.
Each of the atoms or molecules in our illustration by the force of the approaching wave is driven up and over. It is thus not in the movement of the molecules to create the waveform
- as depicted with the theory of transverse waves.
Considering wave-pulse D a potential forcing itself through a body of water, the media within the wave pulse is brought to a rotation as the wave passes, the physical rotation of the media restricting its velocity.
Or considering this wave as a pulse upon a magnetic string, its velocity restricted by the perpendicular movement of the substance of the string. And also considering this substance to be the atoms and or molecules of the air, since these conduct the string.
And again considering how sound as nothing more than a vibration of atoms in place travels at some 1- km/sec. Accordingly, the velocity (Y) of this wave must be considerably less in that the atoms are to move distance X in order to let the wave pass, or conduct the same.
In velocity alone therefore we know that magnetic waves do not travel by this means. The media does not move aside for the wave to pass, nor therefore can the media oscillate to the amplitude of the wave since that in itself is a movement of the media restricting the wave to a velocity that is far below the speed of light.
A vibration, figure 31-9-V, is less distance than an oscillation (figure 31-9-O). An oscillation must be equal to the amplitude of a wave, how therefore in transmission by an oscillation shall a wave come to the speed of light?
It is not unwarranted to find an oscillation the frequency of which is into the speed of light. But we shall also find the media within which that oscillation is taking place - to be red hot, or white-hot as the saying may go
Our next assumption would be a sine formation moving transversely. But what do we mean by transversely? Does it mean for the wave to move by direction arrows P of figure 31-9, the linear path of which is R? Or does it mean for the entire sine formation to move direction R and S, with no angular (P) movement in the wave?
In the first, to follow the bobbing path P, it is not only that the atoms Z will propel that movement at the velocity of constant, obtaining our speed of light, finding no obstruction, passing neatly along the perimeters of the atoms.
Or we might also say, the atoms propelling the wave by their momentum along their perimeters. For again, at no time can a wave, any wave, except sound-waves pass head on through an atom, it would be arrested (stopped) the instant that occurred.
In the second, the wave to move SR, would not the media (Z) be an obstruction to its path? Or if we consider the string to be so lose upon the atoms of the media that it easily rolls around the atoms, then it also seems to be disassociated from the propellant thereof.
Moreover, that does not quite agree with experience - the proof of which
is in the tides that occur upon the earth, showing how - though not absolutely rigid - the
magnetic lines are sufficiently attached to the media to lift the waters for a tide.
Consequently it comes down to either transverse by figure 31-9 having P and R for angular and linear directions. Or, to the circular wave by figure 31-6 having all three of the directions of movement that are found so common with magnetic waves.
And if I were to choose between them I would choose the circular, not only because it fits in with the nature of the magnetic phenomena, but it also obeys the laws of motion.
Something I can not quite conclude for the transverse wave, how at point G (Figure 31-9) at a speed of 300,000 km/sec there is to be a change in direction with no apparent force or action to effect that change.
Nor am I going to consider wave-particles, since it is either one or the other, neither one can be both. And as for particle-waves, if we change the term to material-wave, to rid it of particles as such, I will not contest it.
But particles like boxcars on a train is not acceptable, since that is the same as particles, and these most certainly will not abide by any
transverse version.
Since therefore the circular formation is the end result, and the same being an
magnetic wave with all the trimmings thereof, it should likewise be affected by magnetic induction. If not in the factor that preempts its direction of travel, it should in the other factor so dependent on the media.
What I visualize is; assuming a single light-wave is passing through a strong magnetic field, and we plot it on a spectra, the figure eight of the magnetic wave may deposit the one single wave upon three or more points near one another as illustrated by figure 31-10.
The magnetic field is not as such refracting the wave but depositing it along the various equal points of its own waveform. Like as when there are 75 trillion wavelets coming each second, and the magnetic wave has a rotation wherein 75 million pass by each rotation and it deposits them by a factor of five there will be 15 million wavelets deposited at each of five locations.
This is but a general description of it to convey how all the waves of the spectrum are relative to one another, from the small x-ray to the large magnetic line of movement.
If the light-wave were not
susceptible to the hand-rule
(Figure 31-6) how or why should it be thus-way affected by a magnetic or electric field?
For as much as I cannot conceive a light-wave to travel by any other format than a circular fashion, I am as yet questioning radio waves if per chance their format may be different.
I am thinking out loud how these waves utilizing the greater overall magnetic lines of force, if their means is more mechanical like unto the pulse upon a string.
I would like to see some experimental data illustrated by figure 31-11. Sending out a radio-signal at point A, - will it be carried at equal radius around itself, or more to B, rather than N.
If more to B, it would mean that radio-waves do not follow the straight-line trajectory that is so common with light - to instead by in large follow the curvature of the magnetic lines. Or if we direct them out more towards a polar cap, if the wave would be carried more to the upper reaches.
We do know that the “greater then” waves, the magnetic lines in the third magnitude will pass through any media. And radio waves being next in line find themselves being semi-conducted, passing through walls and buildings, but not through the more dense media.
Radar waves on the other hand are easily reflected from most substances. Then coming into the first magnitude, only a few substances are found by which light-waves do not find themselves arrested.
And while x-rays pass through more substances than light this is on account of size and magnitude, if at all they are waves, and not more properly named rays.
SPEED AND INTERACTION.
Velocity of constant figure 31-12. And yes it is a velocity, and appears to be constant, but what is it? And where is it from? It drives magnetic force at its full value, and wave disturbances at its value minus their angular component.
But where within the whole of the atom may such a momentum be found? The fact that there is a driver of that constant in velocity emanating from the atoms around their perimeters, or appearing to emanate from there, is obvious. But to understand the how and why remains elusive.
But this velocity of constant is not the only item that remains elusive, there is this thing called, action at a distance, the interaction between atoms and molecules, and their bonding in a variety of ways and means that rival the stars for number. Pololoid is a factor in all this, but we shall not go into that.
By figure 31-13 let us have a look at one of the many different structures found in nature. This one is of Methane, four Hydrogen atoms with one of Carbon, highly flammable in its gaseous state, one spark and the structure will dislodge seeking room.
But here is a curious thing to say “seeking room” seeing how much room there is already within this structure. For if we propose that atoms bond to one another by inter-spacing, or inter-movement of their electrons, I foresee a problem seeing how the size of a Hydrogen atom is about 1 angstrom, and there must be at least 10 or 15 angstroms of room between H2 and H3.
How therefore are these to interact, or how are any of the five atoms in this structure to interact with any other atom by any of the movements that are
unique to themselves?
We know of the velocity of constant, and the light-wave has no problem spanning itself from H4 to H3, even if they were ten times as far removed from one another. Nor is there any problem in letting sound pass by them - which also tells us that the lines connecting core to core are real.
And if violently shaken, such as a spark would do, the immediate rearrangement of the parts does not only produce heat, but visible light as well by either oscillation, or resonance. Or perhaps only certain waves are produced according to the coordinate of either the controlling atom or of the structure.
It does not take a great deal of force to pull the Hydrogen atoms away from an Oxygen atom, nor is there much commotion, but reuniting them is very rapid producing much motion, or force - as the same is.
Nor does it take much to cause them to do so, a mere spark which in essence is nothing more than a rapid movement, sets it off.
Yet to force Hydrogen into Helium requires a tremendous amount of power.
Thus there is much variation, and to come to understand it all is a marvelous task. But unless we first come to realize that our physical nature is matter in motion by coordination, and that energy, and charge is nothing other than motion we shall not enter upon the first step to gaining an understanding herein.
And so what shall I place as my ending words? That we are not likely to come to understand what it is that passes between all these atoms in this single structure termed CH4, or that of any other structure in what it is that interacts, and at what you hint as action at a distance? The answer as I placed it for us was "inhibition".
We ought to realize that there is more to “being” than merely this physical nature of which our flesh is turned. Or as I might coin to say, a nature within a nature, and each greater than the other, with ourselves at the low end.
And that “we” is meant physical, since we are not of a nature of this nature, which again is in a nature to a greater term. Color for example does not exist, yet by our spirits we interpret it nonetheless. But the understanding hereof is not for this age. And so I shall leave off.
LIGHT - ODDS and ENDS (2009)
Refraction, the colors of the rainbow seen when light is passed through a prism at some angle out of the normal. The dispersion of the individual waves is by their lengths, or angular momentum, yet man has himself convinced as were it by "velocity" since he found each different length to travel by a different velocity.
It did not however, so it seems to me, dawn on him to correlate that difference in velocity to the difference in the lengths, and consequent angular moment of the waves. If they had, they could have saved me the trouble here. (But then I am a child and need a toy to play with)
By the illustration above, if the dispersion of the light were by velocity, the light should pass through the prism as shown by "B". It will refract but not disperse the different lengths, no rainbow to be seen.
And why may that be so? It is because the index of retardation in the velocity is all the same for every different length.
And to prove the same we may do so mathematically. A 7000a wave given an angular moment of 9a comes to 7009a which by the constant of lights velocity comes to a relative velocity of 299.614 km/sec.
Then to input the index of retardation for glass at 1.5 slows the relative velocity down to 199.743 km/sec. The reduction thus is 99.871 km/sec, which divided by its original velocity comes to 3% for the 7000a wavelength.
When therefore we do the same thing for the shorter 4000a wavelength, as the figures above show, it also comes to the same 3% in reduction. What difference therefore is there in the varied velocities whereby the individual waves should disperse from one another?
There is none, since the index being the same for both likewise their retardation is the same. And though we may not as yet be convinced this is conclusive evidence that lights dispersion is "not" by velocity.
Let us consider that example of the rows of men walking obliquely into a bed of sand. (Figure 49-1) If the men walked with a normal pace they would bunch up on the first contact and so turn. If then the same men walked very briskly they would again bunch up in the same way taking a turn into the same direction.
But what is the difference between the two, for in the latter the ones with first contact, slowed down by the same degree as the former. While the ones on the far end for their greater speed also came more rapidly to reach the sand as compared to the first.
Consequently both of them will, as they must come to an equal turn in the one same retardation. But this is not so when we correlate this one and the same retardation to the separate wavelengths for their different lengths, (Illustration PR-1, "A").
It is not as such in the length of each wave (4000 to 7000a) nor in their angular moment, but in the "incidence" that the length together with its angular moment present.
As illustrated in some of my other pages here, the greater length presents a lesser angle of incidence compared to the shorter length. When these therefore encounter the bed of sand or in this case the prism there is a distinct difference between the face of the prism verses the angle of incidence of each separate wave.
The turn therefore will be directly proportional to that incidence, the wave-incidence. And to verify that this is correct, it is a simple matter to on paper scale the angle of a 4000 mm line with one of 7000 mm, by which to find the degree of dispersion between the two.
And when doing so we will find something on the order of about 14 degree separation by which red to blue must and will disperse. If now we find a 25 degree, or a 5 degree separation between those of 7000a to 4000 a, that then would not correspond to their wavelengths.
This therefore is very simple to verify as I did and found it to be correct, even as the same makes perfect sense.
In order to sort of familiarize ourselves with how a wavelet of light appears, the illustration above (PR-3), shows eleven atoms spaced apart by roughly 90a (something perhaps on the order of "so called" empty space).
That whole length at 1000a is thus but a quarter of the length of a blue wave known for 4000a. Accordingly, the line of light starting out on the left at the bottom can only graduate up by one/fourth to the diameter of the atoms.
It takes that many atoms and more four times over to "power" and "complete" a single wavelet, one of the shortest to our beholding.
If then we will put on our thinking cap, to come to some reality, how can such a single entity be produced or upheld by mere (so called) electrons?
It takes the power, the energy, the momentum, the speed, the resources of all these many atoms in their whole to by their angular inertia, or moment if you will, to bring that coordinate of light to its fantastic velocity as well as to its yet greater fantastic angular momentum.
(And now considering electrons to jump in or out of levels, and knowing at what astronomical speed these rotate, do you really think they could jump even if they wanted to?
Try it with something at much lower speeds and see what will happen, but do not stand too close, I don't want you to get hurt on my account. (My only frank answer to this is; imagination, vain, foolish imagination).
Figure PR-3 of course describes the spinning line of light, the tubular, driven around the atoms by their angular moment, each atom lending itself for a fraction thereof unto the full and complete end.
But are we convinced? For man is a creature of habit and slow to change. And so alright, let us again have another look at our infamous transverse version with which we are so at ease, and see if I can change your mind.
By the above illustration (PR-2), there are six atoms set in a grid, be it fixed or pliable like the air is up to you, or more or less irrelevant. Now to introduce a transverse wave by looking at a cut-through view thereof, the wave going into the paper, or laptop as it may be.
It starts out at "A' going to "B" for its zig zag formation, back to "C" and again to "D". Now comes the question; "Is there any reality here?
What is pushing the wave from A to B? Is there a drive-shaft on the center atom below, like those on steam locomotives to pump the wave back and forth? If so that atom better be anchored very well, and don't even think of moving the least of a fraction for a sound to go by, or it will mess up the light.
There is nothing to push the line from A to B, or B to C. The outer atoms are not about to loan out an electron with which to push the line from A to B, or B to C. If they did they be out of balance themselves and at the astronomical angular speed at which they turn each one would be ripped apart like that devastation we behold with an atomic bomb.
Moreover, a transverse wave must be securely fastened at both ends in order to work at all, and I do not believe that the sun is first setting spikes into our earth with strings before it can send us the light.
This is of course besides the fact that no lone electron nor any number of them could move that line the smallest of fractions lest first they throw out some anchors well fastened, and crush themselves in their futile attempt.
And how awkward is it to have a wave of light pass flat on above or below atoms. Transverse light is clearly impossible, and absurd to set for a premise.
Does it not make better sense to allow the atoms to use their full potential to drive the wave around themselves, (as by arrows T) since in fact their potential is in the angular to drive the wave onward after their own natural being?
And their amplitude, (diameter) of the tubular wave fits the atoms for size, for if on the other hand the transverse has an amplitude three times as large, our recordings of the velocities of light would be way off, which therefore in itself proves the none existence of transverse wave formation.
It is a proven fact that the diameter, or amplitude of a light wave is no larger than that of an Oxygen atom, if we couple a Hydrogen atom to the Oxygen atom, the wavelength of light will be stopped on account of it.
The above then does make good sense, if not perfect sense, and in keeping with all the laws of nature. If then by all that I have said of light one is not as yet convinced, it is either not as yet understood, for I am often accused of being too fast for most, or, his accursed pride is preventing his eyelids from being opened.
I mentioned earlier something like; "so called empty space". For we believe it to be empty as devoid of material substance, while I know better. But now we opened a bucket of worms, for let us first question what is meant by "material substance".? What is material? Your laptop? It sure looks that way, as in fact we say it must be. But "what" must be?
Going down all the way to the tiny atom, it alone appears to be of something in the way of substance something factual material, with all the rest going upwards to the largest of galaxies -- that so called material is nothing but systems, moving systems by coordinates to form everything.
And so we are back at asking: "space devoid of what?" It may not be tightly packed with systematic coordinates like our Earth or our atmosphere is, yet is it not devoid of systematic coordinates, however invisible or un-detectable that may be to man's elementary tools.
It then you will not take my word for it that this light we measured in space at a relative velocity of 299.792 km/sec which we for lack of better knowledge came to denote as "c" while it is not c, but only an "r" as relative, the c being greater by the angular moment, and that it is traveling by systematic coordinates, upon what is systematic in space.
Then consider these experimental facts, how the light in our atmosphere being read at less than 299.792 km/sec which when computed with is diameter, (its amplitude) comes to at least 300.000 km/sec as a constant of velocity.
And in space for its less dense media it is found to travel at a somewhat greater velocity to wit the 299.792 km/sec and when we divide it by the constant of velocity, we come to either a smaller amplitude by which it must be traveling.
Or; and this is the real thing; that; that wavelength was somewhat expanded, as we know that they do when going from a denser media into a less dense media, the red shift, or visa versa the blue shift.
How therefore can empty space, as it is erroneously called, be devoid of all substance when our readings and our experiments conclusively show it to be otherwise?
And what might we think all those enormous clouds in the universe are made of that give us those beautiful colored pictures? Shall they be nothing, that is say consist of nothing at all?
If so from where are all these colors, and what produces them? I say be realistic, by all facts and experiment there does not appear to be any space that is devoid of all substance, nor therefore should we think there is.
The air in front of our nose appears to be empty space as well, yet it is tightly packed with nitrogen and oxygen atoms that pass on any and all wavelengths, (coordinates) and do so in perfect harmony, or else your model airplane would crash, and your telephone conversation would be garbled.
Since however by this I have reached as one would say the borderline which I am not to pass, I merely caution everyone to accept that light in space indeed travels no different than it does in our atmosphere, all in order to help us better conceive the rest of light for its nature of being.
