COORDINATES
INDEX
TO OTHER PAGES
In
our effort towards the identity of a wave we could make a change in the division
of the spectrum to divide it into “em” and “atomic”, illustrated
by figure 36-1.
The
reason is from our discussion illustrated by figure
35-6, wherein
the light-wave differs from those of the remainder of the spectrum
Every wavelength that utilizes and/or is a modulation of the magnetic wave, or the flux as such is to remain by the term magnetic or electro magnetic. But coming beyond that innovation, which is somewhere near the spectra of visible light, a new type comes about, one that in effect is not a wave but more a line of.
These should fall in with such, as we are wont to call “rays” such as gamma and x-rays. And speaking of rays, is it not so that when speaking of radio or of magnetic waves we do not classify them as rays, yet we do refer to light as rays,
The term coordinate now can be applied in many ways, as figure 36-2 is to illustrate. The electrical and magnetic coordinates can be called of force, while those of the Magnetic and atomic spectrum are more of movement. But then so are the planetary systems be they great or small.
Then there are structural coordinates, and those of equilibrium, to maintain the clouds at their level, or to draw a planet to a sphere. The writing in a book is also a coordinate that of communication. And no less is our sense of smell and taste by coordinates or the DNA with its many individual coordinates.
These are a few of the many by which matter
in motion, and movement to movement draws forth all of that which we
call physical nature.
Then
there are “orders” of. Most
fundamentally it is matter in motion, from where it becomes movement to
movement, and in a still greater order it is movement to a still greater movement.
One such of that greater order is the magnetic wave, driven to its form by
the movement of the second order, which in turn are procured by those of the
first order. As therefore most
everything in nature is twofold, it is by orders or magnitudes in threefold
When the pattern of a coordinate is obvious to the eye we can illustrate the same. One such, the pattern of the magnetic coordinate is easily determined from steel filings around a magnet. And the pattern of the electric wave is determined from the manner in which it is generated, and from the inductance around it.
But not all, as in fact most of them we have not as yet been able to determine. Every single element along with its number of parts has its own coordinate, its own pattern of “internal” movement as we might say. And how are we to determine just what that pattern is by which it engages, and/or disengages from one another.
What pattern of coordinate for example holds the
atom to the atom and the molecule to the molecule so well in steel or in
diamond? And by what
coordinate does hydrogen bond with oxygen with such explosive force and become a
mere liquid?
We seem to know the coordinate of the atom very well to call it a planetary system. But are we sure, or are we making an assumption? We observe the planets to move around our sun, but who has observed electrons to move about a nucleus?
No doubt we are correct in establishing that there is a core, a nucleus, and that the spacing around this core is virtually nil of substance. But how is that to prove the atom in explicit terms as a planetary system?
I named the atoms the
wheels of nature, and concur that there must be clusters or parts as we are wont
to call electrons. The inertia of all physical substance clearly indicated that
the atom is and/or promotes angular momentum.
And so what am I sure of? Shall I call it planetary, or shall I call it a wheel? I prefer to call it a wheel, but is it as simple as a wheel, or as sophisticated as a planetary system? And to dwell on this by reference to illustration figure 36-3, figure 36-3, the term “indivisible” given to the atom a long time ago is as we know is in error.
The atom is
divisible since it contains a core with an apparent circular area around with
something much lighter than the core that appears to be moving in a circular
fashion around it. And from our
atom bombs and atom smashers it is quite apparent that even this core can be
invaded.
We have the core all figured out as protons and neutrons. But just as our forebears were in error regarding the indivisibility of the atom, so in these we are in error. The core (nucleus) is either a singular mass or one of multiple parts to a single whole. And whichever one it is, this much is absolute that these are neither positive nor neutral, nor negative, or any such ideal.
The quest however remains as to what it may be, and to call it matter; what is matter? Or, what is substance or material if we resort to such answers? We may call it something hard that takes up space, but then – what is hard, and what is space that it should be taken up by anything?
I
know of a few that passes through all space yet do not take up space, and so
then why should “it” take up space? For
by taking up space we mean that nothing else can simultaneously reside in that
area.
We are not going to come to an answer at our quest are we? Some of us may say, that this is just the way it is, that this is matter and that’s the end of it. So all right you may not be all that intellectual inclined, but some among us are, and we crave an answer.
We may look at the wood of our desk, and at the bricks of a building, or upon the metal of which our vehicles are built, and state that all these things are matter, as in substance, the material of things. But now you are in error, for these things that we look upon with the naked eye are anything but real substance, as in the actual material of things.
The things that our
eyes behold are like unto the light of the eye no more than formulations by and
of the coordinates in nature. They
may look very real to us, but our beholding is by an innovation in which
coordinates and mathematics play a dominant role. And equally so - the family
car to our touch - is as the light to our eye.
That which we see as material in a tree by comparison to that which makes for the core of the atom are two different things. Or if I shall be wrong that even the nucleus for all reality is a coordinate of something much finer? If so, all good and well and I shall be wrong. But how am I to know? It does not seem so does it, not with logic nor with reason or experiment.
Thus like the men of old who conceived the atom as indivisible what choice do we have but to look upon the core of the atom as the final straw to the actual substance in and of nature. But then to find a word or definition by which to classify the nature thereof we come to a loss, not having anything for comparison.
It may also be said or thought of that atomic particles have weight, as in various measures of weight by the volume thereof. And we come to separate them by a mass spectrometer illustrated by figure 36-4.
The weight however is an erroneous or figurative term, since there is no true weight associated with it, weight being a measure of gravitational force and nothing else.
The correct term is “inertia” since in fact the device utilizes the inertia of and/or upon the mass and that in twofold, both the angular and the linear.
The
substance is first driven by an electric wave through a curvaceous track, and when
the curvaceous inducement is left off the substance with the greater combination
of inertia will strike the photographic plate by a slower turn. The same is done
by a cyclotron to separate the so-called heavier elements from the lighter ones.
The inertia of the atomic cores - if we are passing only particles, or of the whole atom or molecules in passing, is not only by the angular moment of all such parts, but their movement in the linear fashion adds, as by figure of speech, weight unto them. Since of course the linear inertia is the same for all parts traveling at the same velocity we do arrive with a correct outcome.
And if we desire to record only the inertia – as the weight
of the substance at rest, we simply, in a reverse process, subtract the linear
inertia, found by mass into velocity and radius.
Thus we should come to train our minds that though there is evidently a material substance, we have no conception as to the nature thereof, and that to think of it as material in the normal sense is an error on our part.
And that there is no such thing as heavy or light, or weight in any substance, but that all such things come about by coordinates. Coordinates then is to say “matter in motion”. For since, like as with the core of the atom – the whatever it is rotates (spins) it takes on stability which in turn becomes force and/or resistance.
Any application of force and/or movement therefore is in these terms - in the nature of inertia. But when we come to the term “weight” we imply a movement and/or force of gravity.
If therefore we
are taking a measure against or with a force of gravity the term weight becomes
appropriate. If however we apply
the force of an electrical wave such as with the spectrometer then the term
inertia is more appropriate.
And to backtrack to our atom in figure 36-3 what may it be that surrounds the core, and that evidently encircles it at great speed? To date our answer has been “electrons”, particles with an intrinsic spin of their own.
I now will not contest that this is not so since it certainly appears that way. But are they really electrons as we visualize them or not rather chunks or clusters of various size and mass moving about the nucleus?
Either way there is as it seems to me in addition to such parts a cloud, and that such particles as we call electrons are congregates of the substance of that cloud. I then call it a cloud for lack of a better term, for it is not like unto a fluid, nor like unto wind in the essence of these terms.
If therefore a cloud, our question becomes – a cloud of what? But here
again we come at a loss not knowing what material is, or if what we visualize is
in every respect so. And thus to
find a term for that which we can neither visualize nor comprehend, with some
material reference I called it “finite dust”.
I do not in the least however find it appropriate to ascribe wavelengths such as those of light to the electrons or chunks as they may be of any single atom. In my judgment in the education of the fundamentals of things it takes more than one atom, let alone a single electron to make for a coordinate, such as a line in the nature of light.
If now we were speaking of gamma rays, the very small, and very
short rays there may be something to be said for it.
But a line of light is much too large, and showing a potential that is
well beyond that of a single, or even multiple electrons.
Representations figure 36-3A, and 3B therefore are out of the range of
speculation.
No doubt it was by what we beheld in the sky, namely the planets to circle a sun for which we constructed the atom as a planetary system. But appearances by observation have led us into many errors, and for the atom as such we may have one more to tally to our list.
These subjects here at hand are not the average things that we can lay our finger upon. Reason, logic, and experimental findings may show or point us to some facts, but for the balance thereof we are speculating.
Personally, and to give an example, I don’t want to be accused of having made it absolute that the atom is indivisible when I do not have any proof or basis that it is indeed so, wherefore in such things I acclaim myself to be speculating.
It shall not be wise for anyone to claim the substance of nature for its material, nor the movement thereof in such terms as we are won’t to present. One can work out or speculate on patterns of coordinates, but as to the former he shall be found in error.
And why should one take upon the folly of changing the material part of
nature which he does not comprehend - into something called energy – the
nature of which he does not comprehend either?
It is in such things that we discredit ourselves - when we lack understanding in the things that we speak of. And again when we give ourselves to illogical or irrational presentations, that usually come about for lack of knowledge, it will show us lacking in understanding.
Does it not seem quite logical and within reason that just because a bullet is in motion – it does not therefore loose its substance into a form of energy which is its own motion?
The energy of the
bullet is the quantity of its mass verses the velocity of its movement.
If therefore the quantity of its mass depletes –so its energy will
deplete – rather than increase. If
Einstein were correct in his mass to energy conversion the atomic bomb would go
down upon itself rather than to cause the turmoil that it does present.
There is of course more to the fundamentals here at hand than what I elect to present, but I am trying to prove a point, and to present a direction upon which to travel. I wish to quote something:
“When atoms are brought as close together as those in crystal, they interact with one another to such an extent that their outer electron shells constitute a single system of electrons common to the entire array of atoms.
The Pauli exclusion
principle prohibits more than two electrons in any energy level of a system.
This principle is obeyed in a crystal because the energy levels of the outer
electron shells of the various atoms are all slightly altered by their mutual
interaction.”
There
is a truth in these words, but elementary at best. We are on the right
track, and where “they are altered by
their mutual interaction”, we should go into coordinates, movement to
movement, and forget about energy levels or shells.
It is not the electrons, nor in the electrons to bind atoms into a
crystal, but – for one thing - in the coordinate that proceeds over and upon
them.
And to direct us upon the right path in as far as nuclear binding force is concerned, or that of the electron to stay in orbit, we have been approaching it from an erroneous direction. When we take a corner at a speed greater than we should we are driven into an impact of centrifugal. We then equate that same principle with the nucleus of the atom.
But why do we do so? What is there to equate a vehicle that in its essence is two magnitudes removed from any nucleus to the same set of standards? Inertia does not start until a nucleus is formed.
I can understand why we wish to equate the electron by those standards, but how does that apply to the nucleus? A shaft will have centrifugal impact upon it, and why not therefore the nucleus so we reason. Unless therefore I am to give a better reason I shall not debate this.
If then we equate the nucleus to the sun, or any other star, how
does the sun stay together? The
answer is of course by its magnetic force in the same manner that all spheres
are held together. But here we are
again two magnitudes removed from the nucleus.
Frankly speaking I do not have an answer that I can put to you in words, nor even in principle except perhaps as I once did with the electron in a previous chapter. There is something I know in this first stage towards inertia that appears faintly as through a mist, but I can’t quite make it out.
I then may have a hunch as to how or why, but that to me is stepping out
of my bounds. This much then I can
say, we should not equate the binding energy of the nucleus to the standards by
which the sun is bound, or a vehicle taking a turn. We could however compare the
shedding of material from unstable atoms to those principles – if that is to
give us a hint.
Evidence shows the coordinates of the elements each one unique to itself and that of the compound elements likewise. For these being the “greater then” movements of the parts in their movement – such are movements of movements, or coordinates of coordinates. Direct observation would be the simplest means to establish their patterns, but how shall we do that?
The only pattern that I do know is that of the linear magnetic force, the
3M component as I called it in chapter eleven.
But even that is only in principle, for as to how the internal movement
proceeds within that component in detail I do not know. And then again there is the angular
component, the M7000 by which all substance is drawn down to a center of
gravity.
These are all coordinates by which an action takes place be it for movement or for structuring. And to reiterate once what is understood thereby we refer to figure 36-5. A substance is never just a material something but a coordinate of parts to an order of. Then there is “change”, a change by means of either density, pressure, or temperature, which in turn among other things incorporates velocity.
The structure therefore
and its coordinate movement may be modified. The internal movement in the rate
and/or velocity thereof produces what we call the various degrees in
temperature, which in turn brings a change upon the structure. This may be to a
hardening of the compound, or cause it to be more flexible, or change into
another state of matter
All of these changes play upon the coordinate in some modification thereof, but I do not reckon that they shall undo its specific fundamental format. A fresh strawberry will have a specific coordinate that is a coordinate of the whole compound wherefore it has the smell or taste accordingly.
But if the same were
rotten the smell or taste is no longer the same since the coordinate is no
longer quite the same. And water from its liquid state to the vapor thereof must
produce some change yet adhere to its fundamentals to maintain it for the
element that it is.
And speaking of dimensions, by figure 36-5, the magnetic lines of force straddle a larger area or diameter than the light-waves would, and yet it also passes by any atomic level. This is something that should be defined further at some other time. The electric wave then is like unto the magnetic wave for size and amplitude. And while one of the light-waves is shown to pass through, this is for most of the lighter elements.
And for those through which it does not pass, such as when the rays of the sun make contact upon the surface of the earth, they are what we may call captivated, except for the specifics that are passed through to grant us our beholding in color.
These therefore
are what we might say terminated leaving their mark by raising the average
movement of the coordinate, which by the illustration I noted as “velocity,”
another term being temperature.
If now we were to speculate on how the overall internal movement of the elements proceeds, which is to say the coordinate thereof, then your guess may be as good as mine. Looking at figure 36-6 we could say; that there is all circular motion, that of the planetary order of each atom. This then being correct it is also a fact that they are bonded together, and by what may that be?
There is a movement
passing by and through that configuration at the speed of light.
And while light itself may be reflected or refracted from it, a radio
wave may or will pass right through it. This all depends on what the compound
is, and for the illustration we may assume any compound.
The structure then being a specific coordinate of specific atoms in their specific order to make for the very compound, that which binds them in that order is one or more specific movements in and of that greater and all pervading movement by which atoms become what they are, and by which the radio wave passes yet the light is not allowed to pass on.
This is what we may call one or more overall patterns of movement that are specific to the structure as such. The whole scheme then as such is called “its coordinate.”
I then for the example drew a few lines in it, but as to how these factually proceed I can only speculate. I do know however that the coordinate of any one molecule joins in with those of others for still a greater coordinate of. One example would be two magnets when separated present two independent systems, but when brought near to each other they become essentially a single system with two centers.
It is such coordinates that when heated or otherwise excited will produce any one or a number of certain specific wavelengths or scheme of wavelengths in the order of the atomic segment of the spectrum. And these wavelengths in turn when brought upon other coordinates can and will perform anyone or a number of things.
To summarize them, we begin with temperature, since temperature in
itself being a change in general velocity and/or rate of, it effects other
changes. These other changes
enumerate to expansion, contraction, restructuring, and general or special
modifications to the moving coordinates.
When light is brought to bear upon the face of the earth it produces warmth. Which is thus a wavelength or line of the atomic order to – as we might say – rattle the cage. Infrared or microwaves on the other hand are of a greater order, and with them we can really rattle the cage. This is well known from our microwave ovens.
We should however not discount the potential of the lines of light, for if we bring more and more light to bear upon any one area it will also burn the substance to a crisp. This we know from magnifying lenses how as children we used to burn holes into leaves in that manner.
This shows that anything used in
the right proportion may be beneficial, while excessive use, or insufficient use
may be harmful.
We could for example say that, microwaves are more potent to produce heat than light-waves. But the same is a deceptive notion unless we understand the how or why. With microwaves we are poking the fire from a distance, or as through an intermediate, whereas with light-waves we are coming right to the heart of the matter. The idea here is the same as with gunpowder verses the atomic explosive, One is molecular, the other is at the core of things.
And the same can be said in generating electricity. If we visualize three orders of things, our standard generators belong to the middle order that in other terms is spoken of as the molecular order. And on the order of the first order light can be utilized to generate the electric wave, such as photocells.
And in an order
that is greater to the first two we list such phenomena as thunderstorms, where
large areas of mass produce a potential difference in a manner similar to the
principle of the electric wave.
Photoelectric effect.
The photoelectric effect is when certain wavelengths as they enter upon what is called a photo sensitive material, usually a substance of the third order that is able to conduct and formulate the angular magnetic wave.
This in principle may be demonstrated by figure 36-7, The light as it enters upon the coordinate - with its coordinate produces a rotational (angular) magnetic line or wave, which in all respects is electricity.
To enhance this I overlaid the semblance of a standard electrical
generator. The light thus is the force that turns the armature.
The armature than being the magnetic lines are twisted (like, as one
would do with a rubber band) into multiples, which are and can only be after the
figure of eight.
Some may call it puzzling that the effect is by certain wavelengths or frequencies rather than across the board. But that is just how the effect comes about by the right coordinate, one that enumerates the right velocity along with a or the rate of, or angular moment as we might say.
How for example does a tornado come about?
When speed and movement comes to the right order (coordinate) a whirlwind
may be born that devastates the works of man.
Or how do thunderstorms come about that also inhibits an angular movement
and yet their mass is not seen to be rotating as with the tornado? They instead show forth a coordinate that we classify as a
moving or overall coordinate.
All forms of electricity in the way it comes about is by the
same single principle that can present itself in various ways and by various
means. And we should not let ourselves be led astray by the illogic of moving
particles, nor by the illogic of mono-polarities, which do not and cannot exist.
LIGHT OF THE EYE
Light
of the eye, O what a marvelous innovation.
If only I could understand the full how and why thereof my knowledge
would be a thousand fold. But all
we can do is hint at it and take to surmise what is obvious to the eye, or to
the mind.
And so here am I, and at some distance from me I observe a young lady and a dog in a grassy field, (Reference figure 36-8). I then surmise that the form of that lovely creature comes to me by a multitude of connecting strings called light-waves. But what is so curious to me is that she appears to me at a distance, and how or why is that?
Because as I look along these connecting strings, I reason as to why does she not appear right in front of me, or within me? Or for that matter why not further away into infinity, since these strings will go into infinity?
And then those ruby red lips how are these so marvelously distinguished from the green of the grass? The dog now may not be interested not having received the rational to search out things like man is given to therewith pain himself. But I am in trouble not only for the beauty of that young lady in the example, but to search out the how and why of everything.
For this is another marvelous thing how I find it within myself that I
could look upon her endlessly and derive pleasure from it. That is certainly not
something born out of the dust. Thus I need not look among the atoms or in the
coordinates of the dust to find the how and why thereof.
Yet I must reduce these pains within me that crave for the understanding as to how and why she is so at a distance from me. With the help of a magnifying lens we of course attribute it to focal point separation, the wider the focal point separation the closer the object appears unto us as illustrated by figure 36-7.
This seems all very simple, but in reality it means that we not only come
to a beholding by a mere sine formation along the parts of nature, and in
measure for color, but we have to correlate a multitude of separate wavelengths
in their distance, their focal point distance from one another.
It sounds easy to say focal point separation, and we are so used to it that we take it for granted. But now attempt to define how the brain takes to measure millions of minute distances between individual lines that arrive at the back of the eye and to correlate each of them to give us a perfect picture.
We might say, O yes and additionally the brain measures all these
millions of lines for their angular component to furnish us with color, aside of
the fact that it causes us to behold millions of different coordinates right
through billions of others coordinates upon which the wave-like lines find no
terminal.
We can, and indeed do call it simple when for a fact we have no understanding into the real how and why thereof. When a automobile goes down the road we acclaim, O you see there is matter in motion, an object moving down a linear path. And that is just about the extend as to what we know of the light of the eye.
We then may be able to define the how and why of the vehicle, showing the
pistons, and the gears along with the wheels connected thereto, but how shall we
do so for the light of the eye?
If nothing else I am conveying that there is far more to the eye than whatever meets the eye. Which is not merely in the mechanical innovation all the way from the ruby red lips to the very resonance or impulses into the brain.
For this is far greater namely how we as spirits in that very nature interpret all these mechanical movements into a picture, to with one nature behold that of another nature.
We
can take that mechanical innovation of the light of the eye all the way from the
object down to the back of the eye and by conversion into the brain. But that is
as far as our understanding goes, or as physical nature goes.
From that point on we do not have a clue as to how we in our spiritual
nature interpret such physical innovations
I have spoken many words on the subject of light, and with all that we have yet to hear the true nature thereof. And as to that point this will not change. And while I could say more or go into speculation this much I will say – that there is a twofold nature of light.
And for simplicity sake we could divide them into primary and secondary waves keeping in mind that the term “wave” is an attribute to the line of light, the rays as such.
And as to the identity of the line of light, the true
identity thereof to remain fixed for each and every element I am open to
suggestions. The line of light then is neither material nor immaterial, and yet
it is both. And while it is a subject of this nature it is also of another
nature.
The red pigment of a paint is determined to show or return to us only the longer wavelengths that fall upon it. If then a blue paint is of the same chemical structure how is it that the reds are captivated?
There must be an obvious difference in the coordinate however slight to instead allow only somewhat shorter lengths to pass. It shall be obvious from the fact that a substance such as air which allows all wavelengths to pass, that when exited it will likewise produce all wavelengths.
We therefore can suggest two scenarios. In one that it is inherent in the coordinates of the elements to generate every length. Or we could attribute it to a factor of acceleration. And what I mean by this may be illustrated by figure 36-9.
Taking the elements of oxygen and nitrogen, of which the air is made up, let a bolt of lightning strike upon it. The bolt of lightning then being none other than an electric wave, and the electric wave being a rotating magnetic line of force we can present its motive force by a rate of revolutions per unit of time (rpm).
Assuming therefore the electric wave to have a rpm equal to 10,000, and striking the molecules in its path it will accelerate (excite) these to its rate in rpm. Acceleration then is coming from a zero on up, which is contrary to the line of light itself which when generated moves outward instantaneously without any factor of acceleration to the speed known as that of light.
The molecules of the air however in the instant before the electric wave came upon it were in a so called state of rest, or zero rpm as we might say. Accordingly, when the electric wave does strike there is a factor of acceleration.
And in a factor of acceleration from zero to 10,000 there is a rpm of everyone in between. However short then that duration may be from zero to 10,000 rpm it nevertheless does exist and is not as with the light-wave leaving the molecule instantaneous. This is one means to look at it, the better version is RAM.
If therefore by illustration figure 36-9, we take the one and very same molecule in four counts, we proceed as follows. In the first instant to raise it to 2000 rpm a wavelength to the tune of 10,000a is produced. In the second when the rpm becomes 5000 a shorter 7000a wavelength is produced. And as it reaches the full 10,000-rpm a still shorter wavelength to the tune of 3000a is produced.
In this fashion, if it is indeed so, the substance is brought to generate a vast amount of waves in different lengths by the inducement (lightning bolt), the rpm (electric wave) brought upon it. The reason therefore that a lightning bolt presents a bright white light is in the nature of the elements through which it passes.
The element sodium
in contrast thereto when a, or the same electric wave is passes through it
produces an orange color, meaning not all, or not the full array of wavelengths.
As then all elements when excited will produce wavelengths in some specific fashion, it will also be selective in which wavelengths it shall capture and or terminate within its coordinate, and which it shall pass on through and or reflect or refract.
Nor shall it be correct that our beholding is by reflected
waves only, since quite obviously the color of all that we observe is by
wavelengths that have passed through the coordinate rather than being reflected
from it. Reflected waves may be the least desirable since it is mostly by them
that glare and hazy situations come about.
Another example may be found with the red taillights of an automobile. When you are driving on a dark road at night with no lights anywhere in sight, except a vehicle in front of you, you behold it for its red taillights. How therefore do these red wavelengths come to your beholding?
Will we become technical to say that from the filament of the lamp they
are reflected by the reflector in the back thereof? All good and well, and the
construction of the plastic multiplies the light, but take away the plastic, and
anything to reflect the light and we will still see the light just as we see the
light of the stars that are not reflected waves.
Matter & motion to coordinates.
Granted now that we do not have a clue as to what our spiritual nature might be or how it works, we are not going to do much better in determining what the reality of our physical nature is, not in matter nor in motion. But we are able to surmise principle procedure.
The faculties we call smell and taste do not come to us by wavelengths nor by particles shot out from a source, for if so we would smell everything from miles around. But like smoke or water vapor diffuses itself through the air, the whole component, the molecules or atoms as such, so also smell is passed on.
Both taste and
smell therefore require physical contact with us, which is in the coordinate
thereof since we in these faculties are not able to connect unto the depth of
the atom. And even if we did connect upon the depth of the atom we would find
the basics of every single element to be one and the same.
In
the coordinates, in the overall scheme of parts in motion we distinguish between
them in the case of smell, as well as of taste, and no less in sight. In the case of warmth however there is a difference. Warmth
as temperature passes through the air or any substance by what may be said as a
chain reaction to an increase in the average movement or velocity of the
coordinates.
It is not altogether correct to say velocity, nor altogether correct to say average movement in terms to describe the nature of warmth. I have spoken on it before and we might for simplicity sake relate warmth or heat to a rate of, like unto rpm.
For it is in that
fashion that warmth passes on – with the rpm of the one molecule increase that
of those next to it and in contact therewith.
As then sound cannot be transmitted when there is no contact between
parts (coordinates) so heat cannot be transmitted. This comes to some advantage
in certain substances such as asbestos and the shielding on the space shuttle to
prevent the heat from passing through.
The increase and/or decrease in temperature may thus be likened to wheels one in contact with the other to raise or lower the rpm of the one with the least potential. Taking the example of an automobile upon the road, as long as the potential, the engine places a torque upon the wheels the rpm thereof will continue.
Or in other terms, the temperature will remain the same. When therefore the torque is removed we state that by the resistance of the road, or the vehicle through the air the wheels will lose their rpm, and it will become cold, as in the heat having been lowered.
This is
all very true and one can apply a law of conservation of energy here.
But that law is not quite all that we have made it out to be. Take for
example the light of the sun by which the earth receives her warmth, how will
the earth retain all that energy which it receives every single day?
As long as the light from the sun maintains a constant rpm upon the substance of the earth’s surface, and this is passed along to the air above it, the temperature remains the same. But when the light is withheld the rpm in the earth’s surface decreases for the lack of the potential that drove them, and consequential thereto the rpm in the air above it will decrease.
Where
then shall we say the heat or the energy has gone?
Shall we say it radiated out into space, into the thin air thereof?
But did we not just previously discuss how parts when they do not make
close contact that neither heat nor sound is transferred by them?
If it were into space the earth would cool down from the top on down to
the surface, whereas I see it from both directions.
Yet aside of this, if by the first hour of the day the sun has delivered a ton of energy per given area it does not seem to be retained. For if we argue that in the second hour of the day that same area is definitely warmer, it shall not be by cause of any retention of the energy of the first hour.
For the sun as it rises by the angle at which the light strikes the surface projects more of its rays per given area, which as we well know in quantity accounts for the increase in temperature. Nor is that one ton plus of the second hour additive to that of the first hour, nor will any hour thereafter be additive to reflect a conservation of the energy.
As it is a natural state for light and all magnetic phenomena to pass at the speed of light, so it is a natural state for all coordinates to – let us say - remain at rest, as in not an excited state. It is therefore a natural consequence for any coordinate to return to their state of rest once the potential driving them has left off.
Here is where the law of the conservation of energy (motion) comes to fail. If then I am asked “how or why” it is a natural state for the movement of magnetic at the speed of light, and for coordinates at rest, this I must leave to inhibitions.
