LIGHT’S FUNDAMENTALS
CHAPTER
47
INDEX
TO OTHER PAGES
Packages in motion seems an ideal solution for light to come across the great voids of space. The familiar law of "once in motion stays in motion” applies well to this theory. But it is also a fact that once such an entity has been slowed, how will it regain its original speed if it were not either assisted by another force, or recreated?
Newton advanced the theory that light was made up of elastic particles, "corpuscles" as they were called. But it being in the nature of man to discover principles from experiment, certain phenomena could not be fully explained on just particles alone.
Then, Huygens and Young became instrumental in establishing the wave theory.
This however again could not explain "black body radiation", nor the "photo-electric" effect. Max Planck therefore
introduced the quanta of light.
As
then all of these were wrong, that is besides the fact that the laws of nature are
also against Max Planck. A
particle at 300.000 km/sec would never at all reflect from a mirror but pass
right on through, while the coordinate of a wave is the perfect entity to
reflect (turn back) from a mirror.
Light in passing from air into glass (Figure 47-1) has an oncoming velocity of roughly 299.000 km/sec. In passing through the glass its velocity is reduced to 240.000 km/sec. But upon leaving, the light regains its original velocity.
How then may this be possible for a package subjugated by the law of "once in motion stays in motion?" It should have either its own locomotive to propel it, or be a pebble on a conveyer belt, both of which bypass that law of motion.
We have stated that atoms are nearly 90 percent open space, (not correct) what chance therefore shall a comet have in colliding upon one of the planets in our solar system?
Or by the same, what possible reason could there be for corpuscles (or quanta) to have its velocity impaired by anything as trivial as a specific index for the composition such as glass?
A wave on the other hand is something altogether
different. By a wave we understand a sine formation that in itself is not a material substance, but a coordinate of or upon the substance of the media.
Quanta as discrete packages of energy, is a question all itself. What may the quanta's be - as energy, when we have yet to define what energy is in the first place? If energy is not material - such as we conceive with matter, it must be immaterial.
But in that case the quanta falls in the same category with waves,
for while a wave may be a whole train of something immaterial, the quanta is just little parts or sections of something
immaterial.
If we state that energy is the ability to perform work, we are simply evading the question, and the next question would be - what the ability to perform work is? Wherefore in conclusion, the nature of quanta has yet to be defined.
Let us however not give up on Max Planck that quickly, but entertain all three versions, and instead assume quanta as something in between material and
immaterial or something with a nature of both.
Light is refracted into a change of direction just centimeters from a hot roadbed. But why should the light do so? Neither quanta nor corpuscles could care less if the air is just a bit thinner at that minute distance from the roadbed.
And most certainly not if we hold on to that disproved theory of the scientists that light rides "independent" upon any and all media.
At nearly 300,000 km/sec
a quanta will not see the signpost, let alone consider
making a turn. A wave on the other hand, if it can pass straight through an afterburner, why should it consider a mere density change,
unless it traveled upon tracks, and like the locomotive of any train will follow its track.
We can hassle ourselves endlessly in the contradictions that we find with each of these theories to the nature of light. Wherefore I suggest that we start from a
new approach, and survey the facts as we experience them, together with a new look at experimental evidence.
Does light travel dependent, or independent?
Let us convince ourselves that since all of nature is a single nature, so light could be of a "single nature" and that single to appear in a dual format. When it is therefore a confirmed fact that light in its velocity is impaired by our media we must conclude that light in whatever it may be - is susceptible to the media.
And having firmly accepted that light is susceptible to our media, we can likewise conclude that it is - dependent - thereon for its transmission.
Evidence to the fact that light rides dependent on our media is found with the M&M experiment. For since it had a null result - it conclusively ruled out any independent mode of travel. Hence, this same evidence was established by Michelson with his diametrically opposite star experiment (Figure 47-2)
Michelson had hoped to read a variation in the speed of the light of the two stars, instead he read the velocity of the light of both stars to be identical. Neither one showed the 1000 km/sec velocity in which he was moving with the earth. (Earth's velocity.)
The reason for his reading was in the fact that light receives its velocity from the media itself, from the engines of nature. Consequently, regardless of what velocity the light might have been traveling - before it came upon our solar system, in coming upon the system - the light became to ride dependent upon it, and upon whatever movement that solar system was in.
Accordingly, if the solar system traveled with a speed of 1000 km/see, the light certainly was unaware of that fact, since "it" receives its velocity directly from the engines of nature to pass by them at a full "constant" which in common terms is called; The speed of light (c).
This is the verdict that Michelson should have made based upon the outcome of his experiment. He however was not awarded that insight view in the nature of things as it has been awarded me, wherefore I can hardly blame the man.
For who can cross a sea if no vessel is given him to cross that sea? It is no shame to be
in "need" of understanding, as it is when one claims - he has - what he has not.
Light's
velocity
Bear with me in a revelation. There is a "constant" velocity of light, and there is a "relative" velocity of light. The "constant" is the acceleration, or better termed the "momentum" that all waves receive from the fundamental
movements of nature, in particular, the apparent movement of electrons as they orbit their nucleus.
(so said)
This so-called "momentum" appears to have an unwavering velocity, which has its trance set on a speed to the tune of 300.000 km/sec. And while I have been through nature from one end to the other - I have yet to see that velocity to vary to any degree.
It is for that reason that I call it the "constant." ... But just how nature in its engines comes to this velocity so absolutely constant under all conditions is most marvelous, but also a secret that is not as yet for the printing.
The relative velocity
on the other hand, is that velocity of light which for all the years we have called "the velocity of light", as were it the real velocity of light. The
true term thus is to define it as a velocity "relative," and it is relative to - distance in time, or visa versa. And to explain both velocities in the nature of light, let us turn to an illustration.
By figure 47-3, from point P to R the light - if it traveled on a straight line without wave-like formation - it would pass at a velocity of 300.000 km/see, (constant .V3, or c).
Since however a straight line is never a wave, and light is not found (or has not been found) to travel without some wave formation, no light has been found to travel at the "relative" velocity of
300.000 km/sec.
Since therefore the wave must proceed by a tubular width (amplitude) to pass from P over Q to point R, to in other words travel the additional distance of that amplitude. Consequently, the "relative" velocity PR will be a reduction from the constant by the amplitude in wavelength.
Accordingly, in order to pass a length of 7000a (PR) the head of the wave, as also the train
following it, must travel 7004.4 Angstroms (the diameter or amplitude being 2.2 Angstroms). This reduces the velocity to a relative velocity of 299.905 km/sec. (Actual distance in
time, and for this illustration appearing transverse.)
Next: The wave train advances upon a media more dense within which, due to its density, the tracks are more compressed. For since it is obvious that light depends on the media for its transmission as well as for its velocity, it is comprehensive from these two factors - that the engines (atoms) of nature establish their path.
Since therefore the engines are packed closer together in the denser media, they are instantly taken into a closer wave formation, that may also be said as, a more compressed wave formation, or in other terms - a blue shift, which interprets into a reduction of the "relative" velocity.
The light itself thus continues to pass into that denser media with the same velocity of constant - never at all slowing down for anything as trivial as water, or glass, or what we call "density change." Since as far as the light itself was concerned, it had no conception of density, or of speed reduction.
It knows neither one of
these, nor is it susceptible to these factors.
But now, seeing it is compressed in its "waveform", wherein it must retain its wavelength (identity), the train must make more time in place resulting into the "relative" velocity of 224.920 km/sec. (S to Y Figure 47-3).
As it then emerges from the water into the air again, it finds the atoms and molecules of the air to be spaced further apart.
And never having lost its constant of velocity - it instantly proceeds into the air by the reduced amplitude, red shifting the wave, and again proceeds by a relative velocity of 299.905
km/sec as it did before it came upon the water.
The track along which the light is transposed, are of course not physical tracks other than that the engines of nature as physical parts. No straight lines are laid forth in nature, but the momentum of the waveform tracks its own line on a perfectly straight course as long as there is no force or any other imposition upon it to the contrary.
The imposition then is found in its own wave formation, for as long as the wave encounters "equal" distances between engines, it will proceed straight on. But the instant the engines are spaced further apart, its own formation causes it to take a turn, since in that additional distance a higher or lower point on the sine is to be dealt with. This of course occurs only when the light strikes at some angle other than the normal.
Or to put it another way; Light travels by straight lines as long as the density through which it passes remains constant, and/or when light passes upon a change in density by the normal. (normal meaning straight on.)
In the normal, the wave-train is merely expanded but continues straight on as it was, also due to its "own nature", that of being "a wave-form".
Transverse or Circular
waves
Now let us question if light-waves are transverse or circular in nature. A transverse wave demands a force of reaction to every angular movement it makes. When it goes up, what is there to prevent it from going up more? And when it is going down, what is there to implement the same?
Moreover, the diameter of any light-wave is not much larger than the diameter of the atoms of Nitrogen, and/or Oxygen. How then is it to zig zag on a scale so small?
On a spring or a rope, the substance is the reactance, but the waves of light are not so; they are not a bobbing of a material string laid forth in the air. In themselves they are immaterial which brings us back to the question as to who or what orders the material atoms to oscillate or move to the tune of the wave?
But to enter upon this quest from that direction becomes a debate that is not likely to be solved. It is simply so that I cannot find any law or justification for light as transverse waves, they simply cannot be explained by any law or phenomena. Let us thus behold if either of them may be substantiated by amplitude.
The amplitude of the wave in section (A) figure 47-3 was given as 2.2 Angstroms. This computed upon its length and to the velocity of constant resulted into the relative velocity of 299.905 km/sec.
For a "transverse" wave, the actual distance was then given as 7004.4 Angstroms. This of course is not the correct distance, we merely took the full length PR and added twice the distance PW to it, once for the up-angular movement, and once for the down-angular movement.
The question then becomes; how large should the amplitude be of the wave after its compression into the media of the water?
In reference to figure 47-3, 47-3, 47-3, the new length of the wave in a crest to crest measure (SV) is 5250a. The wave itself in retaining its identity remains at a length of 7000a (STV). Since therefore 5250a is taken up in the linear measure, that leaves 1750a in the angular component.
For the basis of a transverse wave, this 1750 comes to a diameter or amplitude of the wave to the tune of
apr. 2400 Angstroms. We arrive at that by bending the 7000a length at point T, 3500a each going to S and V respectively. XT, as the amplitude of a "transverse" wave should thus be found at 2400 Angstroms.
For a circular three-dimensional wave, the same 1750, which is left for the angular component, must be placed around a circumference. If therefore we take this 1750 and multiply it by 2, once for the up, and once for the down movement as a circumference, and divide it by 3.14 to arrive at the diameter (XT), it comes to 1114.65a as the amplitude for a circular wave.
The amplitude for a
transverse wave shows thus to be more than that for a circular wave. And now all we have to do is to find a means by which to measure amplitude, and we shall have the evidence to confirm either our present theory, or my definition to the nature of waves
We do of course know that the light did not come to that large amplitude but rather made more turns around the atoms more closely packed together, which as such brought its crest to crest measure down, (as in blue shift).
To illustrate the fundamentals of blue and/or red shifts, the wave passing from one density to another undergoes compression as well as expansion (figure 47-4) For a blue shift that means a compression in the horizontal, with expansion it is the vertical component. While for a red shift these are reversed.
A reduction in length then
may or may not increases amplitude, while an expansion in length again may or
may not decreases amplitude. Under ideal conditions when in fact there is no angular component to the linear movement
of the wave, its speed, as the relative velocity, should be equal to .3V, (the constant).
Waves, Particles, or Quanta
We cannot ignore nor invalidate the waveform as an "absolute" factor to the phenomena of both radio and light waves, while at the same time it leaves certain questions unanswered. We can however ignore light on the basis of particles that must be assumed to travel independent of the media.
Light shows itself far too susceptible to the media for particles to stand a chance of
being substantiated. On the idea of light as packages of energy (quanta), there is no substance to it as long as the term "energy" is not properly defined to the nature thereof.
I however for vanity sake might use the term quanta for a new conception in which it is blended in with the waveform. Not as energy do I intend to define it, nor as a particle in the nature of that term, but nevertheless as some form of material.
Not a particle, nor mass as we know mass, but more fundamental, the most basic entity of which particles and mass are ultimately constructed, and to call that the "quantity" as the substance of the wave in its sine formation.
For it is most definitely a quantity, a certain precise volume being transposed, which in all respects may be its "identity", the length and/or frequency of the wave.
But here I am somewhat speculating, and withholding certain information by which to come
to reality, wherefore I best leave off here.
Waves then never seem to lose their length, their "quantity," regardless of how many times they are bounced back and forth between blue and red shifts.
The particular wavelength of Calcium can be found under any shift of its wavelength, meaning it retains its length, or more correctly, its "quantity. And thus to serve all three of our conceptions, we could in some way call light waves; "coordinates of quantity."
November 2010
Herein following is a message posted on the internet on "About.com."
To behold just how a reader might respond to such insight knowledge.
As indeed they did with no response at all, wherefore I came to look upon man as no more than a delusion.
Light's
Velocity, (My toy-box.)
Every thing in nature, common logic, experiment, as well as mathematics show that there are two velocities of light, that there is a velocity of constant, which for lack of factual reading we have mathematically set at 300.000 km/sec.
The second velocity of light is that velocity at which light travels in distance per unit of time. And to name this velocity, it will be called the relative velocity of light since it is relative to distance in time.
This
simple fact however seems to be unknown to the world of physics, since these are
still calling the speed of light in space as the constant of it, while never at
all is it possible to factually measure the true constant of the speed of light,
which can only be obtained mathematically from the various relative velocities.
Per example, in order to find the RELATIVE velocity of light in space we need to know both the length of the wave as well as its amplitude. Assuming a wave-length of 7000 angstroms, to have a full width diameter of 1.5415 angstroms, we multiply that by 3.14 to obtain the circumference to be 4.84 angstroms.
This added to the length
of 7000 produces a wavelet that for its angular format, (or wave formation) must
travel 7004.84 angstroms in order to travel the full nominal 7000 angstroms
length in distance and time.
Since then all light always travels through all media at that one single constant of 300.000 km/sec, its relative velocity (distance in time) is reduced according to its angular moment.
When therefore
we divide the constant of 300.000 by this full length of 7004.84, (the factual
length) we arrive at a number of wavelets to the tune of 42,827.5 (utilizing
meter lengths for angstroms). This therefore multiplied by the nominal length of
7000 brings us to a relative velocity of light at 299.972 km/sec.
As then the light enters upon our atmosphere, which is more dense than space, (the atoms being packed more closely together) the wavelet in its crest to crest measure is reduced (blue shifted) or compressed as it might be said; since for the closer spacing of the atoms, it literally begins to travel a shorter distance in time.
Just as a coiled spring when compressed, the moment of the
velocity along its coils must travel the factual length of 7004.84 at a greater
angular moment - resulting into a nominal length that is less than the original
7000.
As therefore the index of air is 1.0003, the computation shows 42,814.6556 wavelets that then times the 7000 produces a relative velocity of light at 299.702 km/sec.
The difference in the
factual length of the wave by the angular component in order to pass the full
7000 angstroms in length in space was 7004.84, while in our atmosphere this came
to 7006.94, a difference of 2.1 angstroms.
Now
there are three options:
Or:
Or:
The answer in my judgment is no-3, that it does both relevant to the composition of the media. The foremost factor in understanding the nature of light, is to first of all accept the multitude of evidence that light rides DEPENDENT on the media, and that it is altered in length as well as amplitude by the media in the relevant density thereof.
One example is on a warm day that apparent water
appearing on the road, the light taking a slight turn because the atoms along
which it is to pass - serving as a track for its forward momentum - are spaced
slightly further apart, (a red shift as it is also called).
The second thing we must get away from is, that light is NEVER at all transverse. A transverse wave can only exist when it is tied off on both ends, and it is prohibited by Newton's law of motion, that for every up movement there must be an equal force to push it down again, and a stop and go scenario is no way to attain to the speed of light.
Sound indeed travels by a
stop and go movement, a lateral stop and go, the vibration between atoms, but
its velocity likewise is greatly reduced, to less than 1/300.000 that of light.
Thirdly, this leaves but one alternative, that light is a coordinate (wave-form) that travels as an independent agent that for its movement in velocity rides fully dependent over and upon all media, at all times passing along the perimeter of the atoms by which the constancy of its speed is at all times held and maintained at that single constant currently at 300.000 km/sec.
And that for the density of the media in the angular moment of the wave,
or coordinate, a relevant velocity of light is established promoting its
velocity for distance in units of time.
Like
unto a high speed drill-bit being driven forth by the angular momentum of all
atoms, it passes all atoms along their perimeters when such atoms do not serve
to arrest the same, such as those atoms will that serve for the green color in a
leaf, arresting all but the lengths corresponding to its green color which it re-creates rather than pass on.
The
reason that the air, which is just as opaque as anything else, appears
transparent to us, is because the light finds no terminal in the atoms of the
air, or glass or water, yet when the
water is turned into steam there is a terminal wherefore we are able to observe
it, as we observe everything else where the light is terminated, and newly
specific lengths are reiterated to delight us with the color in everything.
I
now have written many pages on the subject of light in every phase thereof, and
this short version shall hardly do it justice, yet it should give us a step in
the right direction, to at least make us think, and question our old foolish
notions that our scientists for their ignorance in fundamentals have dreamed up.
I am not one to promote theories, He who taught me, the Almighty Lord, taught me rightly, but I wonder if man is sufficiently competent to apprehend the beauty of the knowledge shown to him.
For I suspect - man will look, and not having heard anything of the likes
before, and not being able to gainsay it, they will muse saying; "I can't
tell if he be right, seeing such has never been heard before."
I remain: Leonard
Additionally, I placed a question on that website, as to how and why light enters the waters of the earth by such a limited distance while in the air and space it is unlimited.
I did get a reply, but no answer. Nor shall I blame man for this ignorance of him.
