CHAPTER 38 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
"It is an unhappy thing that God has given man to search out His secrets", so Solomon spoke. And while I thought I was finished, I was wrong for here I am again. This time for light in its velocity.
In time before I made an assumption setting the speed of light in its constant at 300.000 km per second, and calculated everything to that basis. Experiment showed the speed of light to travel through space at 299,792 km/sec, which is of course only the relative velocity of the octave of light in general.
And going by that figure and the assumption of the constant that it left - the amplitude of the wave came out as something very thin, like nearly a straight line, and that in my mind did not fit well with the results of other experiments.
What we really need is some basic fundamental answers that could easily be established by experiment, But my days are nearly at end and my means insufficient I can only surmise on what could or could not be correct.
The one thing I can do, is to list the things that we should check into and obtain, and that those after me in time will gather that data, from which to determine what is factual and not factual in the nature and propagation of light.
I wrote a number of chapters debating the issues attempting to come to a final conclusion, and while we did come to some conclusion, that final one seems to remain distant, while that is the one we really need to modify and correct everything else. I am grateful for the sum of knowledge which God has given me in the fundamentals of His physical creation.
Indeed I am, still I lament that I know so very little. When I knew nothing I knew everything, but when I gained understanding it grew smaller. And the more I seem to gather the less I seem to know.
Light is not an easy subject, to know its nature and propagation to the full thereof. To know it would be to know much more, since all this rests on a single foundations, one piece of the puzzle to fit all those around it.
And so to know one is to know more. If only I could comprehend what space really is, room so to say, area, distance, the fact that it is, and what nothingness is, the how so, that it is void, or nothing, and how a passing is, the very nomenclature thereof.
Funny thing, I am a spirit, living in a body, Yet I do not know what "spirit" is, nor how to define it, If only I could see a spirit, but see what - how? Or what is seeing in the first place?
Light itself is not the entity or the cause nor reality by which we see to have our beholding. To behold is strictly a faculty of the spirit, even as color is, and as thought, and emotions are, this much we can be sure of.
I know of dimensions that there is more than one nature, but we all know that, like spiritual and physical, our very own selves. But that is not really what I was referring to by stating dimensions, but rather one realm upon the other. But here my hands are tied. But then I lament of what purpose knowledge is when one cannot share it?
It is marvelous to me, but I am alone, and this is not good, for man since man is in need of companions, in need of a sharing of himself. Being alone is as to say lonely, and loneliness is painful.
And yet however painful I bring myself to search for ever more answers. It is like you are almost there but you can't get a hold of it. As I move towards it, it seems to move away, frustrating as it is called.
What is space? What is material, that which we call matter? And what is this train of things we call a wave in the nature of light, material or immaterial? But then what is material? And what is immaterial? Or what is motion that something should be displaced to from where it is not?
You think to have answers? Your answers may be no more than silence to me, like giving me the story of the stork. I do not want to know what we all know, that it is just that, and that we cannot know better.
For in some things I do know better, and I know that there are real answers to all such quests. But they are in God’s hand, while I am but a man, and my vessel is not such to comprehend beyond.
And knowing this why then do I still strife for them, why this hunger, and why cant I be satisfied? Who am I that I should know such things that are infinitely beyond my nature? And so I plow forth, I rejoice and I lament, and rejoice again, and lament again.
Why do we eat bread and not rock or metal or wood? The atoms of all these are all the same, it is only in coordinates that they vary. Elephants eat wood, and alligators swallow bone and all. And the fire consumes all, that is to say, movement will make or break anything. And why did I not retain the in-depth of Pololoid?
Take another look at nature and its fundamentals, and you will see the marvelous wisdom it took to construct the same. What pitiful creature are these therefore that are hung up on evolution. Stupid yes, beyond compare, abominable, and devoid of knowledge. No wonder it was spoken of a sevenfold knowledge. As I behold myself it is but a grain of something.
But what purpose has it to compare that which is - with that which is not? Anything no matter how small it is always greater than what is not. And so I am a man, nor have I left this world not to be man. What then are my aspirations to be unlike man, or other than what is engraved on me?
I am indeed a creature of this world and there is no way around it. I may search to understand what the angels understand, or behold what they behold, but I was not made as such.
Rehearsing some of the facts in the nature of light, the length thereof is read by the angle of refraction, in the dispersion thereof. And velocity likewise is by the angle of refraction in the change or shift thereof, which affirms that there must be an angular formation, a waveform.
Our earth then travels in orbit at about 15 km/sec, and our sun may be traveling 100 more or less km/sec if somehow that velocity may be deducted from the shockwave upon the sun or our solar system, or from our movement relative to the center of the milky way.
And if our galaxy has again a movement I do not conceive in speculating concerning it that to be at any high rate of velocity, to exceed the velocity of the stars in the outer arms of the various galaxies
From this point of view the amplitude in the light as we proposed in previous chapters would be sufficient. But we are getting some readings into the red that are far beyond that measure. And though they may not be a factual measure of velocity, they are nonetheless a shifting that cannot be ignored.
This brings us back to the same question that we already once or twice discussed in some detail, how does a 3000a shift show up on a waveform with no more than (for example) a 500a angular component?
And in debating the issue we must bind ourselves to these facts namely, that for one the waveforms are very susceptible to the media, in particular the density thereof, which may also be stated as the relative spacing of the atoms and or molecules, and how light in its relative velocity varies therein. For not only in passing from one density to another will the waveform expand or contract but change speed accordingly.
And of course this is logical to us when a blue wave must pass by a greater angular moment to that of the red to be proportionally slower in relative velocity, (the measure of speed for distance in time).
But the same not only suggests but demands that there is another velocity in the nature of light whereby the blue as also the red are driven at a constant. For again we say to ourselves in reference to that term “Constant” – how else are these relative velocities so proportional to the angular component of the waveform?
In need of data
We are in need of data, factual measures, what we have is a measure in the relative velocity of light, such as in space at 299,720 km/sec. This leaves us with two unknowns, the amplitude of that wave, and the velocity by which it is factually propelled (the velocity of constant).
If we had an accurate amplitude, we would have two knows and could find the third, or if we knew the constant, we could find the amplitude.
Let us take the bull by the horns, and perhaps learn a few other things as well. By figure 38-1, what is the actual relative velocity of the electrical wave as it passes through a 3odd conductor, and a number 14 conductor? The illustration is roughly to scale for the circular diameter of these conductors. And why do I want to know that?
Very simple- if the velocity through the # 14 conductor is proportionally higher to that of the 3odd conductor than the waveform passes by the circular diameter of these conductors, and presto I have my amplitude, from which to find the constant.
Then to be sure we are not making an error somewhere, you might also record for me the speed at which the magnetic wave travels (figure 38-1) Don’t ask me how to do so, I thought perhaps you might know.
That magnetic wave, or line as it may be looked upon emanating from the earth is one that travels at the velocity of constant, it being a line, virtually straight, wherefore its relative velocity should nearly be, or precisely be as the same as the constant.
If I may give a hint, one person standing at the earth grabs a hold of one of these lines, and puts a dent in it, then the next person out in space, preferable between the moon and the earth records the time lapse for that dent to arrive at his location.
Only don’t forget to furnish me with the amplitude of that dent as well, or else I am back in the same boat with two unknowns verses one known. This is not as difficult as it seems, we put dents in
these lines all the time with radio and TV transmission, but I question the factual amplitude’s that are ascribed to them, if they are for real or arbitrary.
What if we made an estimate. By figure 38-2, light entering upon a refractive surface by an angle of 14 degree will of course refract in approximately that degree, which does not declare that the waveforms contain a 14 degree angular moment.
But if we look at the dispersion in the degree separation between 3000a to 7000a – a 12 degree is not unwarranted. Thus there could be 12 degree or more angular moment in these waveforms.
If then we scale this on paper, utilizing 7 inches for the length of 7000a and we draw the angular formation by figure 38-2, A to B, by 14 degrees – the two dimensional plane would come to a width of 1-1/4inch, or 1250a. The amplitude in the circular diameter CDB would then be 625a.
What therefore would be the factual length of the wave as it passes around the tube? I tried it out and that does come to length plus circumference. And so to multiply 625 by 3.14 comes to 1962.5 for the circumference plus 7000 for length comes to 8962.5 for the real length or wave identity (Wid). If then the constant (Vc) were 383,750km/sec the Vr would be 299.721km/sec.
But perhaps we should take the wave diameter of 1250a as the true circumference (the rolled out tube) and divide this by 3.14 to a circular diameter of 398a (CDB compassing 398a) then to recalculate. The constant (Vc) would be 353,250km/sec : 7000 +1250 = 8250 x 7000 = 299,727 km/sec
This would place our constant, the velocity at which all movement in the wave spectrum is transposed at some 53,250 km/sec more than we previously envisioned or assumed, and our dent in the magnetic line should bear that out.
This further means that in this red line (the longest in the visible part) there are but 1250 angstroms to take out or expand upon before it becomes a straight line (a regular magnetic line for that matter, no longer a wave)
A red-shift then of only 7 degrees would make the wave twice as long as before, 1400a. This for a 3000a blue wave would put it 3000a past the red in a shift thereof, to record at our spectra at 6500a. And there is still another 7 degrees to go before the wave becomes a line by which the reading would come proportionally greater and greater.
And so this much seems clear that one is not likely to pull all the angular out of the wave to bring it to a straight line. We could make it a foot long and still have some angle left. But, and I say again, but it also implies that the wave must be stretched, a true expansion of its collateral, its so called id (Wid).
Look at the facts, we put a larger than real amplitude on the wave, a circumference to the tune of 1250a, while we lengthened it by 1400a, and it is still not even half way to becoming a straight line.
Consequently, its collateral along with its angular moment must change, in a manner as I spoke of before in the coiled spring. And what else does this imply? Did you hear that loud thump a moment ago? It was the expanding universe again coming to a halt.
And as for wave identity - it also went down the tube, meaning what does the element of Sodium look at to find its identity?
Thus even if the constant (Vc) is closer to that which we, or at I presumed at first (near 300,000 km/sec) bringing the amplitude of the wave down to a narrow margin - that margin is not likely pulled out. And it also shows how finely tuned the whole of nature is that such minute changes in angle of degree show for the whole scheme of colors.
If then I marvel at the wisdom and the finesse placed into this mechanical innovation, how much the more for our spirits to interpret these minute fractions.
By figure 38-3 the general format for most waves is the typical crest to crest measure, (AB format X in the illustration). But why need that be so? Is it factual, or for our convenience to visualize?
Just because our scopes show the up and down in a continues formation does not mean that it is displaying the form of the light passing. Otherwise it would have to show trillions of these formats end to end each and every second in time, and who is to photograph a trillion frames per second, to slow it down to one per second?
Light in its wave format need not be continues nor in full length to show us for its color, nor for its place upon the spectra. What makes for the location on the spectra if not the angle, or the separation thereof between wavelengths as depicted by format A, and B of figure 38-3?
Both of these will strike at 7000a for length, yet wave format B is only 1000a long while format A is closer to 2000a in Wid. The blue wave then (format X, broken line) that spans only 3000a shows a different angle by which it will strike the spectral plate.
This is something to keep in mind – so as not to let appearances, or human convenience deceive us. Wavelets 1, 2, and 3 in the illustration are all of the same angle and will show up on the same spot on the spectra, and be interpreted by our spirits for the same color.
And while number 3 appears to be in an opposite angle this is merely because it is behind the tube, and not therefore any different in angular confrontation.
I stand to be corrected. Sight deception has brought a great many of us into error, and while I take care so as not to be caught therein, I still walked into this one.
The reference is to a previous chapter, figure 32-18 and the like, where I beheld a full measure in expansion by a half measure registry thereof, which I now realize is in error. And to provide us with the how and why the reference will be to illustration figure 38-4.
The angle of the first incidence is the same (5000a for the example) whether or not it is taken from the top or the bottom. And the same is true for the expanded incidence even though from the top in the first half the distance shows 50% with 100% at the bottom. All because we illustrated our three dimensional wave on a two dimensional plane
How easy it is to speak of a "universe", that is to say, to speak of something which we cannot comprehend. We may behold myriads of stars and galaxies, and we may let our imagination run wild as to how that expanse came about in terms of events, and in what state of movement it may currently be.
But such is no more than speculation. We do not have any evidence as to the speed, the dimension, and the distance of these many objects. We may claim to have, but claiming and having a reasonable sum of evidence are different things.
I have not seen nor found any evidence that the universe is expanding, nor do I have any evidence that it is not expanding, wherefore I will not place either on a pedestal. The fact that the light from space is mostly found toward the expanded end, the red shift, cannot as such be used to acclaim in a factual tone that the expanse is in a state of expansion.
This claim I make upon man, that without a proper knowledge of the nature and propagation of that innovation known as light, you do not have anything to take to the bank. Your predominantly red shift as such lacks monetary value.
Before all else, even though you may think to know how light operates, we should first come to understand the nature thereof, together with its mode of operation in all aspects, then we may raise a pedestal. Look how wrong you were in the cause to the tides, and how contradictory your aspirations were.
Ever since Newton you have been teaching your very own children a lie, a preposterous lie. And your conceptions on gravity were even worse, to acclaim its force in a direction that you should very well have known was not the direction thereof. Light then being even more difficult to comprehend, you are not likely to make right standards.
I made a statement once that we were going to search out things so that at end we would know less than in the beginning. And so I managed to prove more in what was not, than what was.
And yes there is more in the nature of light than what I came to place into words, but before I shall come forth claiming - so and so it is, I will simply be searching, speaking by way of trial and experiment as I have done in these last chapters.
Once therefore the Lord does grant me the understanding of this marvelous work of His hand I will be endowed to state that so and so it is, but whether or not I will do so depends on what I shall have learned, if it be for man or not in his keeping.
And should it be, I will do as I did with most everything else, look for the evidence to present the same by way of reason and logic. And should that logic make current theories appear childish than so it be.