Welcome to "Science Fundamentals"   <The way we see>   (an article composed in the year 1990)   By: Leonard Van Zanten

                               THE WAY WE SEE

     The marvelous phenomena by which man and beast observe the surface of some things while looking through other things.  

CHAPTER 52                  INDEX TO OTHER PAGES   

 Light and the media 2009 (this page)

  1. We are so used to looking through glass windows as were they transparent, and through air as if there is nothing to block our view.  These substances however do not possess the transparency that we ascribe to them.

  2.  They are in fact just as opaque as any other substance, but for a difference in the way that the waves of light are passed by them they appear to us as if they were not there.  It is in that respect that these are transparent.

  3. Light, as we know, comes to us by what is called waves, and color in the variations of the lengths of the wave.  Contrary then to ever expanding waves - as with water - light is very distinct.  Each wave is a separate distinct entity or coordinate that proceeds on a straight trajectory to its ultimate end without diverting itself, except when either reflected or refracted.

  4. As therefore five waves leave a source, each in a direction that will put a one meter distance between them as they arrive upon a surface (figure 52-1), what may we ask illuminates the areas between these waves?  

  5. The answer is none, they will appear absolutely dark to us, and so will the surface itself since in fact not one of these waves passed into our eye.  The rule thus is that; nothing will appear to us unless the wave strikes our eyes.

  6. How therefore - with that principles of light being correct are we so well able to behold not only the surface, but in looking horizontally over it - the whole air to seem illuminated as well?  

  7. For here we can pose the question, "how" the air in all its many molecules is not seen, or seen in the brilliance of illumination?  ...  For we just stated an axiom that unless we receive the wave into our eye nothing will be observed.

  8. Consequently, unless we receive wavelengths from the very molecules of the air, that air could neither be unseen nor illuminated, but on the contrary it should be altogether dark, like the deep darkness of the night?  

  9. Now at least this thing is becoming interesting, for yes, how then in fact does light proceed in the air to - like David Copperfield - make it disappear before us?  ...  The answer with David Copperfield, as we know, is "illusion", but with the mode of light we are no less taken in by illusion.  

  10. The essence of each and every single light-wave is more like a line than a wave.  The wavelength for example, that represents itself to us as "violet" in color, may be compared to a line that stretches from coast to coast (USA) (more than 3000 miles) with a width of no more than two miles.  

  11. Within such a tube then - the light would pass along the entire coast to coast length simultaneously making only one turn of rotation within the circumference of that tube.  The forward momentum then of that wave, as well as its rotation is in-and-by the atoms and molecules along its path.

  12. By illustration figure 52-2, as wave X leaves the sun bound for the surface of the earth, does it then implement secondary wave formations at right angles to its trajectory?   If so this is not something the wave does on its own, but in conjunction with the atoms and molecules as the two interact with one another.  

  13. Hence, this primary wave, as it strikes the earth, is arrested or captivated, or as we might say consumed in the molecules that make up the dust of the earth.  This so-called consummation of the primary wave is what produces the warmth we so cherish.  

  1. Now let us look at some comparisons to learn how things become visible to us.  Wave X from the sun does not in itself serve us with illumination; it strikes the surface of the earth and is gone.  But  along its way it implemented secondary wave formations in its unique contact with the molecules of the air, or so I presume.

  2.   One wave from the sun struck the green leaf, and rebounded itself into our eye.  Is then the green leaf also seen by way of a secondary wave that came from the molecule in a straight trajectory between the eye and the leaf? 

  3. Wave Z from the sun strikes the green leaf and a secondary wave is emitted bound for a cloud in the sky, from where it is rebounded into our eye.  

  4. What therefore will appear to our eye?  a). The sun, whose wave implemented the secondary wave?  Or b), the green leaf?  Or c), the cloud?

  5. The answer must be the cloud, since waves always reveal their source, or last point of contact.  We presume that the instant a wave goes through the mill, that is to say; through the interior of the molecule, it is essentially a new re-iterated wave in a length corresponding to the coordinate of the molecule through which it passed.

  6. As therefore the particular molecules of the leaf regenerates only the green lengths, captivating all others, these molecules (Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and oxygen) will regenerate almost any length making it appear white.  The cloud thus may remit the green-length of the leaf, but along with it came many other lengths.

  7. If on the other hand that particular wave from the leaf were "reflected" by the cloud, we would not be able to notice the green for the multitude of all other wavelengths that are either reflected, refracted, or re-generated by the substance of the cloud making it appear white, or more dark when saturated with more and more water molecules..

  8.   Thus we behold the difference in one wave from another in that there are two types of waves, primary and secondary, and that the rule of the source (or last point of contact) applies to all waves.  For here again, to utilize the axiom of the source - reflection and refraction are not counted since these act as bypasses.

  9. The mirror in figure 52-2 that "reflects" wave Y from the Sun to the eye of the beholder can of course only reveal the Sun.  And so in fact it does, while in none of the other waves the sun is beheld by our eye.  

  10. As each different substance thus is able to reiterate the events brought upon them - each after their own specific frequency, or coordinate as we might say - so they are colored to us through the intermediate of, what is best understood as, "resonance" from the varied lengths of the waves.

  11.   Reiterating the rules, that all waves show their source, and that for anything to appear - a wave of suitable length must strike the eye, we find that this holds equally true for all things that are not to appear as well.   In other words, for things  that appear "transparent." 

  12. But we have yet to learn how the air around us is found so transparent.  And for this let us go to illustration figure 52-3:  

  13. The primary wave (wave X from the sun) is readily consumed by most molecules in the process of which the molecule sends out a new wave after its own coordinate.  But the simple molecules of hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, to name a few, are not so able but readily bypass them

  14.  As therefore molecule M implements a copy, this is in two simultaneous and opposite directions, (360 degrees), again because; it is not able to captivate a primary wave, nor re-generate one of a specific length, but of all lengths.  

  15. This newly re-iterated wave then extends in a straight line striking the eye at one end, with the other end contacting upon the housing of a lamppost.  

  16. What then shall the eye behold?  ... a).  The molecule of the air, which in all respects is as opaque as any other substance?  Or b), the lamp-post in the distance?

  17. We might say that you actually see "both", you see the lamppost because there is a continues wave-coordinate between you and it, and you behold the air in seeing right through it, because - the wave has no terminal at molecule M.  

  18. The law is that the wave must show it source, which as we saw, was molecule M, and yet it did not show it, or did it? 

  19. The answer is: Yes, it did show its source, it showed it transparent, it showed it as if it were not there - since the wave passed right on by it.  ...  In other words, since the wave went two directions simultaneously in an exact opposing trajectory, we in essence looked into a void.  Or, the terminal, which the wave attempted to show - was nothing more than a continuation of itself.

  20.   That, which for all fundamentals is always opaque, will thus give us the illusion that it is transparent in that the wave-coordinate passes on through, or, is a copy going out both ways leaving no terminal or source to behold.  

  21. Be this now as it may, or as in fact it is, how then is the axiom of the law to be applied that states; "all waves to reveal their source," when certainly in this case the housing of the lamp-post is not the source, and yet we behold the same?

  22.   Answer: I mentioned earlier that in certain instances "the source can also mean the last point of contact."  This was stated more for our convenience than for a reality, since "last contact", or "source", are essentially the same as far as our beholding thereof is concerned.

  23.  I of course realize that this needs further definition, the axiom is that eyesight is by waves "reflected" into our eyes."  This is not quite true however; better terminology would be to say - by "waves contacting upon our eyes".  I thus removed the word "reflected", since it should be by any wave coming or going.  

  24. Thus we see the housing of the lamppost directly along the line modulating with a coordinate to which our vision is tuned.  For again, what should it matter from which direction the modulation is, since it is in the modulation thereof that we see.

  25.  Take for example another wavelength of the same spectrum, one the likes of electricity, - shall it matter anything whether you took a hold of either the positive or negative end?  No.  For you would get jolted on the negative side, wherein the direction of movement is in a fashion away from you, as also from the positive side, in which the direction of movement (ampere) is towards you.  

  26. The green appearance of the leaf further on down in figure 52-3, is seen for two reasons. Number one, the primary wave of the sun did not reflect.  And number two, the second opposing side, or direction of the newly implemented secondary wave, was canceled, or not formed in the intricate proceedings of the molecules. 

  27. Consequently, the molecule at the surface of the green leaf became the terminal, or source of the wave, which then is coded to our receptors in the brain, the resonance of which we interprets into our beholding.

  28. Then by illustration figure 52-4, to go by a simple rule whereby to define primary waves from secondary waves, and these from reiterated waves, and to define reflected waves from such as are not reflected.  A reflected wave is such that does "not" enter the molecules on which it is spun off, while every other one is put through it.  

  29. In the illustration all but the 7000-Angstrom lengths are canceled or captured, and even the incidence wave of that length is not merely passed on through, but newly reiterated, or implemented.

  30. Consequently, when a beam of light is reflected, all wavelengths are reflected, no dispersion is seen.  But whenever, and wherever, the wave is as we say - put through the mill - separation is possible.  

  31. This separation then is understood not only in the dispersion seen by refraction, but in the capturing of selective wavelengths (color) as well.

  32.   This illustration, in its design, is of course only to convey the basic principle.  We may as such visualize - that if this molecule had a diameter of 6000 Angstroms - then all but the 6000a wavelengths would be captivated.  

  33. There has been much talk about the "dual" nature of light.  Personally I do not believe that light comes in two distinct natures, but I do favor that it comes in two formats, that its forthcoming is two-fold. And to enhance this we could use the example of inertia, how there are two factors of inertia, and yet still there is only one inertia.  

  34. Mass with its many atoms is the first and only real inertia, the angular inertia. The second is that inertia we ascribe to linear velocity.  Since then the so called linear inertia of velocity merely compound the angular inertia, so light in its single nature if you will is likewise twofold.

  35. When by figure 52-5 the light of the Sun strikes side A, of the post, it is very well lighted, but the lines traveling only in straight lines, it cast a shadow on the ground.   Yet in all this side B of the post is easily seen in its color and even the back side is easily seen.  How therefore is the entire post seen, along with the shadow it casts?

   Figure 52-5

  1. No doubt the ground all around the post receiving full sunlight reiterates newly created wavelengths corresponding to the typical molecules of the ground into all directions, thereby illuminating all four sides of the post.  

  2. But as I behold this, there is one distinct difference, and that difference is in the light of the Sun verses those waves which are secondary as the recreated ones.

  3. The secondary waves in the gray color of the concrete floor for example, strike the post and rebound to our eyes in the brown color of the post. Meanwhile none of these waves found any terminal upon the molecules of the air wherefore the air remained transparent.   

  4. But is this sentence a correct sentence?  As for the so called secondary waves I would say yes, but for those of the Sun there is more to it, for however high we go up into the atmosphere, or in space all the area is brightly illuminated.

  5. I then suspect, that, that light which comes from the Sun, which I named primary waves reveal a distinct difference in those many which I named secondary.  But to put our finger upon it as we can with inertia is simpler said than done. One fact I deem certain is that secondary waves are immaterial, being coordinates, and most probable continues, not discrete, as to say to come in packages of.

  6. The light of the Sun then seems also un-mistakenly a wave since for all practical purposes it behaves as waves, and yet not in the same way as those termed secondary.  When we consider temperature it is clear as a bell that the Sun's ray warm the Earth, while secondary waves do not appear to be warming the substances on which it strikes.

  7. Then of course comes the question if it really is in the wavelengths of our beholding that the Sun warms the Earth, or if this may not instead be in micro-waves?  It is obvious that the rays of the Sun do not only consist of wavelengths from 4000 to 7000 angstroms, but rather in most of the waves of the spectrum.  

  8. Concentrating light by a magnifying lens will neatly start a fire.   But held in the rays of the Sun we may very well be focusing microwaves as well, which ones therefore caused the heat?

  9. A laser is concentrated light-waves, and yet do not produce all that much heat, unless in great bulk and strength.   Or are we perhaps heaping microwaves along with it to account for the heat?  We do behold the wavelengths corresponding to the red while microwaves can not be seen by the eye.  How therefore may this be?  I surmise we are in need of some experimenting.

  10. In my judgment the light-waves coming to us directly from the Sun implement new secondary wavelengths as it passes through our atmosphere illuminating everything, while its originals pass on till they are consumed by all substance to which these are opaque.  And so comes the quest as to what the format is of these waves in contrast to all others.

  11. Since then I am not one to speculate unless there is more than a reasonable assumption, I have come to the end of a line.  I may disagree with man for light in two natures, but not as one would say a dual being, or a twofold format.  I am quite aware of the corporal theory, but when the same is without wave formation, it by me falls through the cracks immediately.  

  12. And yes I would like to attribute some material form to that light of any star, but what material? And how so?  Unlike many among us I am not one to fantasize, nor am I to adapt the multitude of man's particles or photons or whatever there may be in the nature thereof.

  13. For us to see all that is upon the surface of the earth and the clouds in the sky is easy by reflected and by refracted waves as they pass by and of the atoms of these substances. But how do we explain the sky itself when the light merely passes by it without illustrating to us a source or last point of contact.

  14. We as such by looking into the sky are looking into a void, yet how may a void be seen unless there are waves for that void to be unseen by us?  Until more is understood in the nature and/or formats of light we will have to abide by the wave-form that is prominent to us.

LIGHT AND THE MEDIA   (2009)

  1. On page 20 we had a game to play under the heading of "Light of the eye", to discover if beholding was by wavelengths or by frequencies, and perhaps we could continue that game for a bit more.

  2. Let us present an illustration (Figure 52-6) and do some mathematics. Within the broken lines are two wavelengths, one of 7000A and one of 4000A, and to cut down on numbers let us use meter lengths for angstroms. As for the tubular width around the circumference let us set it at 5 angstroms. 

  3. The solid line within is one half of the wavelet greater for the 7000A, smaller for the 4000A. The velocity at which these lines pass around the circumference is the "Constant", the full 300.000 km/sec, or simply "Vc".  Then we must find the "relative" velocity of each for the actual distance it proceeded in that one second of time.

    

  1. Vc then divided by the full length of 7005/m comes to a frequency of 42.826, with 4005/m to 74.906 in frequency. These then multiplied by the nominal length of 7000, and 4000 provides us with the relative velocity of each as noted (Rv=). These revolutions now 42.826 was for a distance of 299.785/km, in 300.000/km it comes to 42.857 frequencies.

  2. In one second thus the 7000/m length for its angular moment, reduced in velocity - comes 31 rotations short of reaching 300.000/km, while the 4000/m length came 94 rotations short of reaching 300.000/km.

  3. Now let us come to some figures that are more realistic, for we have been scaling our angstrom lengths by meter lengths and since there are ten billion angstroms in each meter, we must multiply the 42.826 turns of the red by ten billion to arrive at angstrom.  That comes to better than 428 trillion revolutions, and for the blue wave at some 749 trillion revolutions.

  4. Can we actually imagine anything turning at that rate of speed? Or if we consider the 300.000 km/sec how many km that is per hour, it also is more than a billion, and that is kilometers, in angstroms it is 3 million trillions.  

  5. It is mind boggling to think of these things, even the distances in space how enormous they are, and the size of each galaxy compared to but that tiny speck called our solar system.  And how minute we ourselves are upon but a relative minor ball within that tiny speck.

  6. It would take millenniums for us to go once around the galaxy, as it is a whole year to go once around our Sun.  But when we get to the small things it becomes even more astronomical to comprehend.  

  7. Just consider the ants, how tiny they are to us, yet they are a full working system with eyes and head, legs and body, all so tiny compared to us.  And even these are large compared to much smaller creatures invisible to the naked eye. 

  8. For the many communities of ants on my yard --- my yard is their world. And the city in which I live would to them be like the galaxy to us.  For how would they ever travel to the other end of my city?  

  9. As therefore our tiny world or country is to the ants what to us is the whole of the universe, what in effect is large or small and for whom?  And what in effect is fast or slow as determined by whom?

  10. But now coming to light and its marvel in the media, -- speed becomes as astronomical as the distances are to us within the universe.  As then it is virtually impossible for us to comprehend the extend of the universe, even so much becomes the apparently simple phenomena of light in its factual nomenclature virtually impossible to comprehend, especially the movement thereof in terms of speed.

  11. Many years ago when I was yet young in my studies and thoughts regarding all that is around us, I was of course influenced by the science of man.  

  12. And while for the nature and nomenclature of the atom I was never at ease, but not having a better alternative I went along defining the atom after the established ideals except for changing or improving upon it, to do away with such things as clearly did not exist, such as single charges etc.  

  13. But as the years went on I began to question the very ideal of the atom being a planetary system, as I did in writing many years ago on page 20 hereof.   I did not however write a denial of it for lack of a better version that I could acquaint us with. 

  14. The years however added themselves unto me, and while I know much more now, I still do not believe the atom as a planetary system.  

  15. I do not believe that there are such things as protons nor electrons.  This does not mean that there are no such things as what we have come to call as atoms, for quite indeed there is a so called material entity that I have not named but is known by man as atoms.

  16. How conceivable shall it be to us to realize living creatures made of fire, and/or whose raiment are of fire? And yet there are countless many of these.

  17. But with all this how are we so apt to conclude light for its movement to pass independent of the media of which it is made and by which it comes forth?  How will you say; "That son is not mine", while though my dear women he came from your body, he is a product of you as well as of your husband with you, how then do you say; "this one has no relevance to me?"

  18. Or again to emphasize the full dependency of light to the media in which and upon which it travels, look at that triangular piece of glass that prism, here comes the light at more than a billion miles per hour, with an angular inertia of billions of revolutions per second slamming into the prism, and yet instantly it refracts perfectly according to its wavelength, a blue length mind you that turns at more than a 100 billion turns per second of time.  

  19. If this wave were not duly bound on a track how would it see the turn in its track, or even that piece of glass for its very existence?   Try and do this with a transverse, a back and forth movement even to get to the speed of it, let alone come upon atoms that by their nature and momentum would twist it into a frenzy. 

  20.  The waves for their angular speed makes good sense in this that they provide the inertia we know so well, that factor of tending to stay in place.  And not likely would these come to bounce so far up and down to accommodate man's ideal of any movement in transverse.

  21. The instant turn of the wave upon the prism is of course quite simple and natural, since the tracks are compressed, wherefore without hesitation, or any brakes applied, the hyper fast turning coordinate instantly began to make more time in place that came to be seen by us for a reduction in its relative velocity.  

  22. The surface area of the prism now being somewhat out of the normal for the trajectory of the light, how does that appear so accurately for a slanted encounter by something so tiny in circumference?

  23. All such things for their perfection alone already are indeed mind boggling.  But it is perfection, and absolute perfection at that, for He who formed all these things without limit or number thereof is yet far greater and more incomprehensive than all His works. 

  24. And what enormous and grandiose knowledge and wisdom He possesses to create all these, unto Whom we in all our numbers are less than the dust on the scale. And while we don't even consider the fine dust on the scale in weighing ourselves, yet He who is so grandiose duly considers even that fine dust.

  25. And now for our little game if eyesight be by length or frequency, Figure 52-7 may suffice. Let's assume that back at the eye light formulates something on the nature of electricity, that then is transposed to the brain to be interpreted by still another transition.  

  26. Since then electricity is a rotating magnetic entity let us liken it to a wheel that is to be spun at different revolutions per unit of time to account for a greater or lesser voltage.

  27. What difference then may there be in the two waves to make for a difference of color, a difference in voltage? They travel at different relative velocities, but how may that cause a wheel to turn? Or if we say the different length, how is length to be utilized?  And what would we surmise for frequency?

  

  1. It is a fact that both waves have an identical velocity in their wave-train, the 4000a a bit more slanted than the 7000a.  If these therefore as they plow into the receptors at the back of the eye bring about a certain revolution on these so called wheels, like steam upon a turbine.  Then the blue wave would for its greater angular moment produces a higher degree of voltage.  

  2. The point of that wave-train is after all on-coming or pushing if you will.   Or may it be in frequency, in how often wavelets come upon us in any fixed moment?  In the above it is of course not as such in the length of the wave, as much as it is in the angular moment of it. 

  3. And while I could construct a version by frequency, it is as I said, a game, and may be played by anyone that has an idea for better or for worse, as long as there is some reality in it.   

  4. Like if one insist upon frequencies, let us hear how so, and the how so must produce something realistic in the way of signals send from the back of the eye to the brain. 

  5. The light of the eye, vision, just to see and interpret all surfaces for depth and color is most astounding, and completely imperceptible.  One of the marvels of God our Creator, to whom nothing at all is impossible.

  Next page

 

Leonard