After its beholding
Light as light,
and light to its movement are two things. For
that which travels through vast distances namely, the waves or packages of
energy, which we have come to call "light" - is not really light in
the sense of "beholding".
we make a distinction between light to its nature and light as the entity that
passes through all media.
And when I think back along history I recall but once how light was called after its own, which was when Moses wrote as God said; "Let there be light". For that which we conceive as light is for all its reality only a network of machinery.
Consider how light cannot be one and the same with that which comes from the sun, since it was on the first day of creation that God created light, or rather that He said; "Let there be light. While it was on the fourth day of creation that the stars were formed as lights in the sky to produce the light we have come to call "light".
So then we say; "Did God again create light?" No! He did not
so again and yes there is light born of light.
But as for "light" we must come to understand that light as
such is not anything physical, but that it is within us, and within each of us.
We behold, for light is a faculty of our spirit, much the same way as warmth and smell are faculties of ourselves. For man is a spirit living in a body for a home.
Our physical nature therefore is not our living nature, since once again; life is not in the flesh. If it were all machinery it could be called to be alive. Other than by a figure of speech only spirits live.
The brain likewise is nothing more than a piece of machinery, a masterly
created piece of machinery, while illumination to man and beast is "The conception thereof to
as mechanical parts
The waves of light's spectrum on the other hand are mechanical movements brought to the back of the eye where they must be transposed into other types of mechanical movements. Several transformations must take place before the machinery of light comes to serve us to our beholding. (Figure 4-1)
(Clicking on the link will bring the larger illustration)
Once the waves have entered the transparent lenses, which are our windows on the world, the rest of our body becomes opaque to them.
And thus of necessity they must be converted into what for all reality are "electrical" impulses. These then travel to the cells of our brain. We however as spiritual entities were not made to decode from electrical impulses wherefore again a conversion must take place, which is best understood as "resonance".
resonance, which first brought the wavelengths of light to bear, and it is again
resonance by which we decode the mechanics into vision.
Resonance is nothing more than a motion, a back and forth movement of parts while a wave is a linear flow in which there are turns, the length of the turn being the wavelength. The brain is essentially a structure of cells that receives as well as sends mechanical codes, all of which belong to the nature we call "physical being".
"We" on the
other hand are of a different nature, a nature above and beyond that lower
physical nature. And we impress
upon the interior of our brain cells the multitude of resonance in order to move
our arms, our legs, and every part of our body, inclusive the tongue.
Thus we behold how marvelous our bodies are constructed to respond to our every desire. Additionally, it also keeps itself in check. activation's which we ourselves do not impress upon, these being done mechanically like an automated machine. Sleeping, weariness, and body temperature are examples thereof.
not in the flesh
Life is not in the flesh, nor in any part of that nature. But not everyone has that understanding. Those which had themselves frozen to presumably come back in some future time, have already learned how foolish they were, that they are not coming back.
They learned this the instant they died, while those that remained, the foolish ones to keep the freezers going, are indeed that - the foolish ones.
What they do not understand is that whatever is made of God remains forever. Death - in this world is our bodies returning to dust, to a state of simple elements.
The spirit however is taken to its destination, be it the chambers in which it is incarcerated to await the day of judgment, or the heavenly realm in which the righteous depart to their Redeemer.
In its mechanical nature, light is one octave of a whole spectrum of waves ranging in length and frequency from the very longest as wide as a solar system to something as small as the size of an atom. This spectrum is divided in two parts.
Electrical and magnetic waves are placed in an order apart from the rest of the spectrum since these are stationary waves as compared to light or radio waves which are moving coordinates.
basis upon which all these waves are formed and/or transposed is a medium, the
one and only medium which we know so well, namely "our nature of atoms and
The sun sets forth an enormous network of wave-like lines known as magnetic lines of force. It is by these and the various motions of the earth and the sun that the earth becomes a gravitational body, and that an electrical flux media comes to associate with it.
This magnetic flux in the whole
thereof is however not essential for light to be born, or for light to travel
upon it yet the very movement of that media does impair light in its line of
Nor is the velocity of light something of its own momentum, but rather it is placed unto it by what I call "a constant of the media". It is for that reason that light and radio waves are called "rider" waves, while magnetic and electrical waves can be called "carrier" waves, although better terminology would be to call them "stationary" waves.
The difference is; that
electrical and magnetic waves are always bound to their source, be it a core or
a generator, while light and radio-waves once having left their source travel as
an entity apart from what gave them birth.
Color, so it is said, is due to the "length" of a wave. This may of course be a figure of speech more than a reality, since a movement of 10 centimeters is no more red or green than a movement of 8 cm. No doubt color is a faculty of our spirit, for again in nature there is no such thing as color.
There are no green leaves, nor green grass or red rock or a blue sky, nor is there white nor black, nor is anything transparent, but rather we interpret all these variation upon everything the instant we behold their form.
We then might come to a query if we interpret color from the "length" or from the "frequency" of the waves as they pass upon us? Or if not from either of these, what mechanical feature do we decode for color?
How may light be traveling? And what media does it use for its mode of travel?
The answer is that it does not really have a media, since only waves require a media, light itself as such is but a spiritual innovation, something we interpret from movement.
In this last century man has been quite busy to attempt to define light (the waves termed for it) for its nature and for its mode of travel. His experiments however were to no avail, not because there was something wrong with his experiments, but rather with man's interpretation, man was unable to interpret experimental evidence.
And now agreed that it is not a simple task to discover the secrets of God, but man's error was in - that he thought he was able on his own to wrestle such secrets from his Creator.
Back in the previous century, two men; Michelson and Morley, made a device known as "the interference-meter," an experimental tool where-with to substantiate the presence of an all pervading media which they proposed to call "ether."
This ether was proposed as some elastic media whereupon light could travel, for since light was understood as waves, how could waves be transposed through a void?
The experiment was to time a beam of light in parallel motion with the
earth comparable to one at right angle. (Figure 4-2).
If by comparison the two
beams showed interference fringes it would mean they arrived out of time and
would thus constitute an impairment of the parallel beam, which in turn would
have been accepted as evidence for the presence of the so called
The well-known result of this experiment showed no variation in the
timing of the two beams. And thus
the same experiment was done time and again with better equipment all to the
same end, to a null result. Light
so as they thought, was determined to travel with a constant velocity regardless
of any movement of the earth.
But let us question the notion of man if indeed this "null result" was all that the experiment showed. My predecessors saw nothing more in the experiment, while in fact it taught a great deal more .
It for one clearly demonstrated that light as waves cannot possibly travel "independently."
Since if so, the device
would conclusively have given us a "positive" result.
That point should be as clear as a bell, as simple as 2 and 2 adding to
But this did not seem so to their mind for which reason I am appalled at man. For is this not a fact that - if a truck is traveling down the road at 55 mph and a person walks sideways upon the bed of that truck - that his forward velocity shall be equal to the velocity of the truck namely; 55 mph?
when however the same person walks from the rear to the front of the bed at 1
mph - his true forward velocity is the compound velocity of the two.
And so as I said, this is clear as a bell, and beyond question.
What we should have conjectured was; that since the experiment refused to show a timing difference, the light could in no way be traveling independently, but rather dependent.
This in turn would have pronounced a media, which as a matter of
consequence would be traveling equally with us.
And that this media - could be none other than our own media, the nature
of the elements in which we abide.
For again, is not light susceptible to our media? A mere piece of tin foil will deflect the light, and a mere change in temperature will turn the path of light to show as if there were water on the road. The problem of course that was to conceive space as anything other than a "void".
Or perhaps we are still unaware that space is filled with more of our
nature than we give it credit for. A
quick mathematical check in the velocity of light to air at 1.0003 variation,
computing the density of our atmosphere with the speed of light will give us the density of space.
When therefore we say "free space," we mean space devoid of pressure which is by gravity, space devoid of gravitational force. Then of course we can ask if there really is any space devoid of gravity, for even far from our solar system the space is subject to galactic embrace.
And if or when no gravity may be detected, it may very well an equilibrium in which we are taking our readings.
The notion that we had concerning the M&M device and its null result only suggests that the device did not show what we wished it to show, since quite indeed it had a "positive" result in showing that light did "not" travel independently. And thus what was it to say "null result"?
It showed light to ride dependent on a media. And wishing this media to be something other than our own media to call it "ether," may just be wishful thinking and not in line with scientific oath's to look at things objectively.
thus served us with evidence that light
in its motion is fixed with ourselves and fully dependent thereon.
These conclusions as I have just stated are quite correct, but human frailty is often unable to conjecture multiple factors to a single view for its evidence so logically displayed. A man named Fidsgerald saw a contraction in the null result.
For as much as he figured it must show what it did not show,
the bars of one half of the frame must be contracting the instant when the light
passed in parallel motion with the earth. This
mind you is quite a fancy observation for a simple piece of machinery just to
suit the outcome of one's own determination.
And what are we to give such an observation? For what I mean to say concerning this business of systems to operate slower and all - are we perhaps taken for children?
And if indeed systems did go slower at the speed of light, should the
same not be true for light in all other experiment and for the beam of reference
as well? All this business of
getting younger and all, to have time advance upon velocity is clearly vain
Who would even want to follow upon the illogic of Fidsgerald? Yet it is well known that Einstein took to this folly like a bear to honey. Einstein did not regard mankind, nor truth.
Or was it just his ignorance in the things of men and of science? No doubt he was a very ignorant person seeing how he never got anything right in all his life.
He stated that light moved with a constant velocity everywhere in space, while that notion was clearly disproved by Michelson in his experiment measuring the velocity of two stars diametrically opposed. (Figure 4-3). And from all this grew what is known as "relativity".
What I however do not understand is, how so many can be deceived so easily for so long?
And so here I am writing down both fundamentals and historic events which many generations of peoples will read and hear, since these fundamentals as revealed by me will be taught in every place of learning in every land the world over for centuries to come.
Thus the Lord gave me a name greater than many in that field. The men of the future will look upon the past, and more than any other period, their judgment will be upon the men of the 20th century. And would it not be false of me to say anything in the nature and works of man that is not factually so?
labors that are not done in trust will vanish.
Nor shall men move me to white-wash the record.
And how might it be that the forest is not seen?
By standing in it perhaps?
The facts are simple. If something does not move independent, it must be dependent. If a thing does not move at variance, it must be fixed. And thus what is wrong with that reasoning?
I have no objection if we call the media an ether or pork-bones, a media after all is a media, and we know of but one media, the physical one in which we abide, in which we breathe.
The velocity of light appears to have changing values; it appears to
move slower on passing through a dense substance while it also appears to have a
constant therein. This was measured
from the two stars in one direction on opposite ends of Mr. Michelson. (Figure
4-3). And so - how do we explain the identical velocities, which he
The answer should be simple, namely - that light rides "dependent" on the media, - and that the "media" in its propulsion factor provides a momentum on a constant basis relevant to the density thereof.
Thus, regardless at whatever velocity the light might have been before it came upon the media of our solar system, it conformed to the media at hand.
Take for example an airplane in the sky, it is traveling dependent upon the media of the earth, (its air). And while it may be traveling at 500 MPH, that is only relevant to the media upon which it depends for its movement, since again simultaneously it is moving at a speed of 15-km second along with the earth in an orbital track around the sun.
What therefore may the velocity of that airplane be? The relative movement of that airplane relates not only to our media but to all the movements which that media is subjected to relevant to the sun and the galactic movement.
Michelson in performing his experiment stood on one spot of the earth, and both
he and the earth were moving in space. When
therefore he read the velocities of the two stars to be identical he had
evidence that light
does not move with a single constant in space, since obviously his own
velocity was additive or diminutive to the two velocities he read.
It is therefore very foolish or at best unscientific of Einstein or anyone to state that light moves with a constant velocity in space, the experiment is conclusive evidence to that fact.
Experiments simply do not lie, machinery is incapable of such injustice, they simply act according to the laws of nature. But man is quite prone to deceptions, and that mostly to the eye.
But then again, knowledge must be acquired, and lest it be in the gift
thereof, man remains naked. One
need not say; he was not given to understand rightly, for the Almighty Lord does
not grand what is improper, but our sins prevent us from understanding
there are at least three velocities of light.
A "velocity of constant",
(the speed at which the media transposes all waves).
2) A "relative velocity", (the speed at which light moves measured distance in time).
And a "space
velocity", (the speed at which light travels through space).
The "relative" velocity is not as such a real velocity, yet up to this day, this velocity of light has been held as "the velocity of light". ôSpace velocity" then is light in its speed passing through space, the speed as compared to some reference point in space, or the void of space as such.
That space velocity then is anything but a constant velocity, and light as it moves through space, travels at anything "but" the speed of light. This may be a strong statement in view of all that men have labored for, yet it is so.
It is by this unreliable velocity by which astronomers presume to have
obtained all those different speeds at which the stars and galaxies are to move.
Neither the relative, nor the space velocity, are actual velocities, but merely the distance which the light was measured to pass in a frame of time.
Our astronomers are thus back at square one so far as it concerns distance as well as velocities beyond the confines of their own backyard, our solar system.
It is imperative that one first understands the nature of the
tools where-with he works so he might know whether or not he is indeed
interpreting the results properly.