CHAPTER 53 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
Ask most anyone what relativity is, and they will have no answer. But then, who can blame one for not having words for that which does not exist. Nor am I the first to call this ill-cherished conception of man in error.
The answer which at least one of them received from the elite was, "That they were not going to accept any criticism." In other words, don't tell us that the engine in our car is missing, we'll drive it home anyway."
Obviously it is not for these that I have placed myself behind my word processor to reveal what is factual in the nature of things. But rather for the health of those who, contrary to the first, cherish a well defined lady to accompany them to the dance.
The courts categorically frown upon perjury, which in itself tells us that truth is beloved - besides that it is our God given right and duty to play by it.
But now in order to succeed in my intend - as to what appears as a lone predator against a great number of bears and foxes, I require sharp teeth, and powerful limbs. The Lion may be called; "king of beasts", but even kings are known to have fallen for lesser predators. This time however the predators may find an invincible weapon at the side of the Lion.
How did all this talk about passing through time and becoming younger with the speed of light come about? In the previous century two men, Michelson, and Morley thought to experiment upon light for its mode of travel. Which was all fine and dandy if only they had built an instrument suitable to the task.
For as it came about; they built a device, which besides the fact that it was compensatory in its nature, was from its inset unable to furnish them with the information which they sought.
This however did not stop them from making an interpretation as if it were functional, like putting a car together with its wheels fastened to the doors, and its engine in tow acclaiming. "We have built the motor vehicle, and it has taken us home."
Or at least, if not these men it were who said that the thing took them home, some others, among them Einstein did. This device was called, "interfero-meter". And to prove this to ourselves, let us review it.
The basic assumption was, that as light travels in parallel motion with the earth it should be impaired just as the sound of a approaching train has a higher pitch then when it recedes.
Let us therefore assimilate the earth by a truck having a flat bed on which to carry the interfero-meter and proceed with our experiment. In order to simulate the movement of the earth figure 53-1 the truck is set in motion at 55 MPH.
The cross at the bed is divided by four legs of equal lengths. The race is between cars A, and B, and we are to keep our eye on car B, since it is the one to move in parallel motion with the truck (the earth), and consequently suffer impairment. Car A is merely for reference, for if the movement of car B were indeed impaired, the two cars cannot arrive simultaneously at the finish point.
But now look at this scenario, do I really have to spell it out? All distances being equal, car B travels 4 times 4 is 16 ft, just as car A moves 16 ft. And whether or not the truck moves at 55 Mph, or 5,000 Mph, or none at all, the same is not relevant to the timing of the two cars to complete their journey.
Car B is supposed to slow down as it moves from the center of the cross hairs to point X. But why should it? The bed of the truck is not moving out from under the cross hairs. On the contrary, the device is firmly fastened to the earth.
And had it slowed down equal to the speed of the truck, that gain would be equally lost as it returns from point X to the center of the cross hairs. In short, even if there was something to read, the device as constructed - is self-defeating, compensatory.
The null result that was pronounced upon it is thus no null result, but no result. What then was it to prove, or what did it prove if anything? According to the interpretation of the many that claimed it a "null result", even that was in error since in fact it did prove something.
But that writing on the wall was to wait - as once before for a Daniel to translate. And though my name is not Daniel, I received my information from the same God. Behold then what I pronounce to you is written upon it.
For while many beheld the experiment, and pronounced an "independent" nature for the mode of travel of the light, this is absolutely wrong. And how may this be? It's very simple; - car B never flew off the truck.
For if the cars had a truly independent mode of travel they would not be subject to the bed of the truck. Accordingly, if cars A and B were traveling at 55 Mph, and both left for their separate journey from the center of the cross-hairs, car A would be at Y2, while car B would be clear off the truck at point X2.
Or, for an alternate, if we extended the bed by four ft behind the truck (X2) so that car B was forced to return, it of course would remain at point X2, the velocity of the truck equal to that of the car. And one leg further, car A would catch up with car B still at point X2.
So no matter how we look at it, the device in its forward and return strategy is compensatory. It might however be functional if instead we looked for a focal point separation. For if indeed light - as it is claimed, has an "independent" mode of travel, there must be a focal point separation, point Y to point Y2.
This of course did not happen, or perhaps no one ever looked for it. If now as yet we shall find a focal point separation, I shall of course be proven wrong, and will be fed with my own words.
I will however not only venture to say but certify that no such focal point separation will be detected to prove light for its independent mode of travel.
Since light travels dependent on the very medium from which it is made-up, namely physical nature. A fact that was not shown to me by the interfero-meter, but it serves me for evidence along with everything else in nature.
There is a notion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This of course has never been proven, but then so are many other things, among which is a cherished notion, credited to Einstein, that light has a constant velocity in space. I of course am no match for Einstein, or perhaps I got that wrong, that he is no match for what has been endowed upon me.
However this may be, it shall be the facts to set apart one from the other. And to come upon one such ideal, let us investigate just how fast light may or may not move, and if indeed light does move with a constant velocity in space.
Mr. Michelson was an ardent experimenter, and among other things, he measured the velocity of light coming from two stars, which were on opposite ends of the earth, and traveling in like direction.
Contrary now to the current erroneous notion now that light travels independently, in those days it was yet up for grabs if light rode on some medium, like an ether, or by itself independent of any medium.
And so the diametrically opposite star experiment (Figure 53-2) was made by Mr. Michelson to record the velocity of the light from the two stars A, and B. This to his surprise was found to be the same for both stars, near to 300.000 km/sec.
But this was puzzling, for if star A was coming towards him at 10.000 km/see, it should be additive near 310.000 km/sec. And, compensating for the earth's own velocity to diminish it, it should have given him a final reading of 305.000 km/sec.
Then, for the other star receding at some 20.000 km/ (velocities for the example only), that should have brought the light down to 280.000, with 5000 added for the earth's own motion to come a final reading of 285.000 km/sec.
This was indeed most puzzling how with all these variations in speed and direction the light still held a velocity constant of some 300.000 km/see, - another writing on the wall to decipher.
That writing then may also be found on a road when on a warm summer day there appears to be water upon it. This all in itself provides clear evidence that light rides -- or better said "is" dependent upon the media.
It however is to be noted that for the blind even the road remains unseen, and how much less the water that appeared to be upon it?
I now am not quite sure how Michelson himself interpreted the outcome of his experiment, but current thought and interpretations has it quite in error. In the first place, here is absolute proof that light does not travel with a constant velocity in space.
And to spell it out. We, along with Michelson upon our earth, are in motion within space at (for the example) a velocity of 5000 km/see, while at the same time the light from star A is passing us at 300.000 km/sec. ... Two plus two thus equals to 305.000 km/see by which the light is factually moving through space.
How then my dear colleagues, if I may say so, can Einstein, or anyone come even remotely to the assumption that light moves with a constant velocity in space?
Light shows to have a velocity of constant yes, but that is in no way affixed to space. The term "constant" added to light, has its merits, but when the term "space" is added to it, we come to err greatly. And what shall our resolution be for light in its mode of travel?
The experiments confirms our own media to carry forth the light at a momentum that is set for it by the media. The light of either star thus (regardless at what speed they were traveling through space before they came upon our solar system) came to move relevant to our solar velocity, as it became dependent on our media for its carrier track.
For again, light rides with a constant velocity dependent on any media however light or dense these may be. The varied velocities as it passes through a prism is itself clear evidence
If therefore the media in the space between ourselves and star B were at an idle relative to space as a stationary reference, then indeed we and the light from star B are approaching upon one another at the speed of 305.000 km/sec.
But the instant the light came upon our solar border, which is not at idle, but moving towards it at 5000 km/see, - that very 5000 can no longer be read upon it, except by a blue shift.
For again, the light is now dependent on our media, which is not at idle like the space it just came from, but moving. And by the same token, the light from star A, for the whole period that it passed through our solar system, moved with a space velocity of 305.000 km/sec.
This being an undeniable fact that is self-evident, why do we still hang on to error? If nothing is able to move faster than the speed of light, then light itself proves us wrong, since it showed itself to move faster than its own constant, noted in space.