NATURE TO REALITY
CHAPTER 63 (Dec. 2010) INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
The one thing that man's scientists are in need of is "reality," and with that I mean "fundamental reality." Man has made great strides in science, his findings in the atomic and molecular nature are fairly accurate, except for the fundamentals.
If only he would change his terms to its correct fundamentals I would say, man is not as far off as it may appear, or as I often make it appear. But as I hear them speak of fundamentals their speech is atrocious, bordering on insanity.
I have an intense hatred of stupidity, not of ignorance but of willful ignorance that I classify as stupidity. Ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge, not realizing where one is being taken, while the idolatry and pride in man anger me greatly.
As stupidity is to row against the stream, to willfully work against the obvious it may be classified as irrational. Or to ignore it for some pride or arrogance of one's heart, like some of the elite in the sciences, who when confronted with evidence to the contrary answered; "That they will not accept criticism."
Then there is that factor of logic and of common sense that every person should have, and not to utilize the same I deem as foolish, being a point or two worse than ignorance. But more than anything when pride shows itself I curse it as stupidity, and when arrogance attempts to have its way I deem them most foolish.
When therefore there is a world of evidence against something, and one ignores it, or even speaks against it, that also I classify as most ignorant bordering on stupidity.
Mankind as a whole, some by choice and some not so, are so hung up on that foolish person with his so called relativity, that are making themselves appear even more ignorant than he himself was. Let us therefore do ourselves a favor and forget that nonsense of a person who never in his life got anything right in the field of science. And why then do so many glorify him?
Some do because with all the contrary staring them in the face they will hold on to it as if their life depended on it. That mind you is an accursed pride. Then for most persons these simply do not know the forest for its trees.
They are told this and that, but have no conception for any truth in the matter since these have never studied the same, or thought about it. These many therefore just float with the stream, for no real fault of their own.
And so we, as I, must make a distinction not to rake everyone over the same comb. Since then my speech in these pages here is primarily to the educated in the sciences, I am kind to everyone that keeps an open mind, but harsh for those whose mind is closed, and like a ton of bricks to all that are proud and arrogant.
Call me a philosopher if you will, but I am not so. Call me a scientist if you will, but I am not so. Call me a prophet, but I am not so. Even though I prophesized, and philosophize and taught physics to its fundamentals, I am at what I was anointed, so am I.
We ought most certainly do ourselves a favor, to forget the foolish among us while adapting a measure of common sense and reality. And in order to be of service to all that are willing and able, I am going forth in this page to explain some things in the most elementary way that I can think of with the evidence of the phenomena that is all around us.
It may look all very pretty in these animations of those electrons traveling around their atomic core, but there is one thing very wrong with these animations, namely, it shows the electrons, and, it shows them moving, which in any way at all is impossibly. Did we not in a previous page discover what the approximate velocity was of these electrons?
Indeed we did because we utilized the facts of something we knew to be real, namely the wavelength of light, which in order to procure it a certain atomic velocity is required, whereby we found them to have revolutions of into the millions per second of time.
How then by any animation if it is anything at all to reality - will we be able to observe them, since in any single second that electron is at every single place in that circle many millions of times.
Just as we cannot see the blades of a high speed propeller even so we can not illustrate any electron unless we draw a complete circle and locate it at every fraction thereof with a multiple of into the millions. If anything may be observed it would be a haze and nothing more, therefore I said let us get real.
And yes I know we slowed down the process so that we might illustrate how it works, but then our wording to that effect are usually missing, how curious therefore, - to for reality sake construct an animation, while neglecting to properly narrate the same.
By illustration figure 63-1, I am going to slow it down to zero, to merely show a two dimensional plane of a single electron around its core. That electron can be found at all points 1 through 7, and in between 2 million times each second.
In order therefore for anything to pass through that ring it has to do so in less than 1/2 millionth of a second, and hopefully at precisely the right instant, like at point 4 when the electron is at point 7.
If then you will say; "O yes but we can do that." Fine and dandy for you, but there are a few snags we ought to know about before we attempt to do such a thing. For one, that electron may not at all be an electron, a part as such, and more likely be a ring
Secondly; its speed is not constant, and for a third, the only time that any passing might occur is when there is a degree of agitation upon it, a degree of ram upon the atom, which as such may not only vary the speed of the electron but its radius as well, wherefore we are not working with anything that for us would be absolutely stable to experiment within.
How often therefore will one attempt to try it out, destroying the atom in the process of it? One might have to do it 2 million times before he gets it right, and we know what happens when atoms are broken up, if not, visit a nuclear power station, or behold an atomic bomb for its destructive force to get an idea what is involved by breaking up nature to its very fundamentals.
And this is besides the fact that we do not even know if electrons factually exist, that is to say little balls turning in a circle around the atomic core. In my view we are better off to view the shells as rings.
And now that we have that ring, that for appearances is like electrons end on end, why does it orbit a core? Why not since it is like a solid ring just turn anywhere in space irrelevant of any core?
It stand to reason that this ring must move sideways if at all it is to leave that core, since in any other way at the speed of 3.14 times 2 million angstroms per second it would slice that core in halves.
And yes it is more likely to move away from its core by following its direction of movement, meaning to cut the core to ribbons along with its own self.
According to man's scientists however they do this every day, all those electrons leaving their home with no-one to perform the labor, no one left to make any light-waves, and altering its atomic signature, instantly turning nitrogen into helium.
No wonder therefore that nature never gets anything done for them, while for us we never did see that nitrogen turn into helium, wherefore who is to believe the scientists?
But no, in truth, it is not about to leave its core since it depends upon it for what is essentially a vector for it. And yes this is difficult to understand, nor can I go too deeply into this secret of nature.
If per example the electron slowed down so much to eventually come to a stop, it would come to rest itself upon the core. That which prevents it from uniting itself with the core is its velocity.
Then there is that factor of - being a "vector," - like ourselves upon mother earth, the gravitational force that we read upon our scales is but what is vectored to mother earth at its center, it does not read our gravity vectored to its axis, nor our gravity vectored to the sun. From this we learn that to have an implication it must be vectored.
Moreover, by illustration figure 63-1, There is a wake of movement around the core and within the spacing of that electron ring that at all times seeks equilibrium upon which the ring maintains its vector.
Should the ring move in line with the edge of the core as illustrated by figure 63-2, the forces of equilibrium from L to K would draw it back, wherefore it is both - of the ring, and, of the core - that the atoms maintain their integrity and their balance so to say.
We may for all practical purposes consider the whole area of the atom from core to rings as were they solid, and compressible only in the least, since the rings when pushed at one end towards the core, immediately regain their posture.
Evidence of this is found with the phenomena of sound, how even for a fractional compression upon the media, which are the atoms and molecules, how that movement is passed on to the next in line.
And what that means is - that the areas outside of the atoms, between each other in their structure formation bonding them - may equally be considered as were they solid connections to for any fraction of vibration conduct the same to the next in line. Gasses then are compressible, while solids not so much so. That however is a subject by itself to relate the how and why.
Consider "sound" how the atom is moved at any instant back and forth, will not the rings, the circle of electrons have to do the same? And does not movement affixes itself, to once in motion stays in motion, or once in position stays in position? If thus the electron ring moved independent of the core how is the atom to stay intact?
If now I can find the proper words to explain what is opposite of centrifugal, one might come to the same realization that I have. And so; there is a time for everything, and there is a place for everything, consider these axioms. Then let us consider that term of centrifugal in how, and when, and by what it comes to pass?
Centrifugal is nothing more than for a part of matter to resist being altered from its course as well as its velocity of movement. If then there is a part with no movement - there is no centrifugal, and/or, - if there is no alteration of its course and speed there is no centrifugal.
But we have this wrong, do we not? Since centrifugal applies only to a alteration in the course of movement, it does not as such pertain to velocity. In the case of velocity, by an alteration thereof, it comes to the term of resistance, rather than centrifugal, (as if centrifugal were not the factor of resistance as well.)
Then we come to consider the prime ingredient for anything by the term of centrifugal, which is - movement, since without it, as we noted, it does not apply.
The place and time therefore for centrifugal is - after - the atom, since before anything in the nature of centrifugal or resistance is to be had, we are in need of atoms, together with the need of movement by which the process may proceed.
It then is - "after" the atom is put into place, and set to move, - can anything the likes of centrifugal or resistance come to be of terms. And then only when these atoms are by number, since a single atom is so finite to its effect of these two, that it can hardly be accounted serving as such.
One must also note my wording, how in order to define things I at times intentionally use different terms.
At this point we must duly consider that axiom of "time," and "place." Where, so we shall ask, is the atom, and at what point in time and place does it become effective for centrifugal? Having answered the same, how then if we confine ourselves to no more than the atom, - are we to find resistance and/or centrifugal within it?
And yes I know our reasoning, how indeed that electron is moving pretty fast in a circle, and why not then by our law of motion should it not rather pursue a straight line?
Alright, let us stop right here to assess ourselves in just what we were thinking, for did we not just now take a law that applies to such things that are already in motion by a great numbers of? Were we not with that reasoning referring to that which comes after the atom?
Indeed we did while I clearly said; "Let us confine ourselves to no more than the atom, and, as in remembering the axiom of time and place.
If then one is walking down the road, and turns to walk another direction, does he feel any resistance upon him? Of course not, since - for time in distance - one is moving far too slow. And likewise for centrifugal, for which one must come to a velocity whereby it becomes effective in a change of.
As we move upon the earth, we are also constantly accelerating and decelerating, yet we do not notice it, since it is too slow and too gradual. A spinning top likewise looses out to itself once it turns too slowly.
But I am in a fix as well - in how to relate my mind to others, since one must first of all have the knowledge of things, and secondly to consider many factors all simultaneously to a single prospect, which for mere letters upon paper I am only able to relate them but one at the time.
How neat if by a single sentence I could relate a dozen factors all at once. But the mind alone is able to do so, with the hand we can only do one thing at the time.
And so it becomes extremely difficult, at least for me, to factually place my thoughts on paper. The correlation of many factors into one is something not found with everyone.
The first thing now that must be is - something in the nature of what we call matter, something of substance taking up space. Ironic as that sentence may be and its terms as well, which we are not going to comprehend for a nature of.
And while my view of it is like looking through a misty mirror, it is best not to explain it any different - but to accept it as something of sort that appears to be taking up space, since that - taking up space - in itself becomes a debate I wish to stay away from.
With all these words I am somehow attempting to make it clear how - we should not in picking up a pebble as a part of substance - liken it, nor compare it - to that same something of which the electron and the cores of the atoms are made. Omitting to hint at their nature, these are however all of one and the same kind.
Then of course, how did the very atom come to be, and how are its fundamentals turned to realize their very nature? The answer to which though it is written, yet not in such ways for man to comprehend the same. And so it must remain.
With the coordinates of smell for example: why should a factor of 27 be so odious, while a mere fractional change in 27 becoming 28, it is a pleasant or alluring odor? It is similar to light, where a mere fractional difference in the angle of the wavelet red changes to blue.
It thus is not in the wavelet to make for any color, nor in the coordinate of smell whereby odor is interpreted, but we as the spirits that we are interpret all things into what we erroneously believe (or appear) them to be.
Atom O atom, if only I could know what you really are, for personally I know too much to know that you are not what man interprets you to be. But even if I did know what you really are I would not be inclined to reveal the same
EXAMPLE to REALITY
Let us look to see what the centrifugal impact, and as such what the gravitational force may be on a 10 pound object in the earth one hundred miles from its axis utilizing the commonly accepted law of motion.
100 miles is 528.000 ft for radius. The speed at that location is radius times 3.14, divided by 24 hours, sixty minutes and again 60 for seconds, comes to 19.18 ft/sec. (13 miles/hour, or 21-km/hr)
Ten pound times 19.18 squared comes to 3678.724 and divided by radius comes to 0.0069, which is roughly 70 grams or 1/100 of a pound. I deem this a minor amount of g/force on a ten pound object, that for its relatively slow movement constitutes but a 1/1000 part of its normal weight into the centrifugal.
Granted now that if it were free to travel not being augmented by a gravitational pull, it would take off in a straight line, yet it shows how little force it takes to keep a ten pound weight into a uniform circular motion even when it travels at nearly 20 ft a second, which is equal to 13 miles per hour.
For to us the same is true, if it were not for the inborn gravitational force of the earth, the average person standing at the equator would have a g/force on him of no more than about 20 lb; which is about one/tenth of its normal weight.
Then if we consider the average speed of an electron ring like we did in the previous page hereto, with a velocity of 6,122,428/angstroms, the rpm being nearly two million (1,949,824), that velocity in real time comes to 2.2 meters per hour. While by comparison 13 miles is equal to 20.92 kilometers, or 20,920 meters, which verses 2.2 meters is a difference 9,509 times.
If therefore by going no more than the speed of about 21 kilometers/hour we have at least some degree of impact into the centrifugal, but what would be left if we took 454 hours just to travel but one kilometer, or 397 days, (9,534 hr), better than a year to travel the 21 kilometers the electron must perform in the same time period compared to that object within the earth at 100 miles from its axis to perform in a single hour?
For any person to walk so slow so that he may cover only 1 kilometer in 19 hours of time is more like a snail on the move. If then that snail took 19 hours to turn in a circle 318 meters in diameter (equal to 1 kilometer) how much of a centrifugal impact would that snail feel upon himself for that astronomical slow speed?
And why then are we inventing forces to keep that snail on track?
Looking at electron rings, their speed appears extremely slow, far below anything by which to find some degree of centrifugal, a force to drive them outward. What cause therefore must we impute upon upon the atomic core to hold these rings into a uniform circular motion?
We would be better off to state that unless electrons maintain a fairly good speed they are going to fall into the atomic core, or would they?
It is best to forego this particular subject since to my mind the reality is quite different than anything man has as yet conceived or imagined. (Or even much of that which I am pronouncing, since of course I am like a child with a toy.)
When at the equator we in our bodies are traveling along with the earth's rotation at 1,600 km/h, which is 1,600,000 meters per hour, the electron ring in that same time period passed only a distance of 2.2 meters, a difference in velocity of nearly three quarter million times.
At that rate of velocity then we in our bodies for our gravitational attraction to mother earth (scale weight) experience only a centrifugal impact of barely ten percent. How then if we divide that 10 percent (roughly 20-lb at average) by three quarter million to gather some idea on the impact of centrifugal upon any electron ring?
Yet those very same atoms and electron rings are going with us around earth's axis with the same speed effecting in their movement upon us that ten percent of body weight into the centrifugal, which as such is not vectored to their core (nucleus) but is effective only to earth's axis, as its vector, the movement in velocity upon them being in whole upon them.
Additionally, these atoms and electron rings well seated within our bodies are also traveling with a velocity of 15-km/sec in orbit around the sun effecting a gravitational pull upon their angular movement.
In this case I did not mention a g/factor, nor a centrifugal factor, even though the latter is indeed upon them in a vector to that sun, while a g/factor as such from the sun had long come to a minus within those 93 million miles that we are from the sun.
We therefore as such would not fall into the sun, (the acceleration of gravity into that vector being in the minus) yet we along with our atoms would divert from our uniform circular motion around our sun into a straight direction - if at all the 3M of the sun would let off on us to have no relevance to those countless many angular moving parts of which our bodies are made.
What good therefore is a strong force or weak force, when no force is needed?
Do we really actually realize at what place in nature the atom is located, and how small indeed it is? Sometimes I wonder! !!! Moreover, is not angular movement the very first movement with linear movement a product by and of it?
And while this leaves obvious questions, an open invitation, I am not at this point going to pass that threshold, yet I think I have said enough to convince us of some reality into the nature of the atom.
The core thus holds itself together by virtue of its own, and it would consume, or include the electrons were it not for - a relevance in quantity, (as a term for lack of a better word), then spun out and set in movement around it.
Wherefore it becomes a natural consequence for any electron to move about its core since at all times it remains relevant to it. For that reason it is not likely to leave the atomic core seeing how its very existence depends upon it, and not only its existence but its movement as well.
And yes I know that this also leaves questions, some of which are not for an answer, and some are. One of those is that there are no positive nor negative, nor charges upon them, nor with them, something that I will get deeper into later.
Their charge as such, is their very movement, a spinning movement for one, and - so called - orbital for another. There are no fantasies associated with it, no back-packs, no carry-on, but simply movement.
Nor, and I will say this much for the burning question, no, it is not in the electron, nor in that core all by itself to perform that which it does, its movements and all. Nor should we fantasize anything at all, for we will be in error.
But thus far I am at a threshold which I promised myself not to pass, for which man may thank himself, or his scientists, wherefore let us return to where centrifugal, and resistance have their start in nature.
The core remains intact because it is at the very footing of nature, also because it is the first vector, the first in time and place. These are three reasons how and why it comes to a core and remains as a core.
And once established, it becomes susceptible to the factors of centrifugal and resistance, yet in itself - it as such - remains aloof - in-that - it is the first implementation towards those phenomena's of "remaining fixed." Note how I did not say, centrifugal, nor did I say, resistance, so as to imply a right entry.
This is besides the fact that the movement - however fast that may seem within the atom, for time in distance is rather slow, like a person very slowly walking and in his turn not experiencing any resistance, nor the centrifugal.
So the atom for its parts in movements ranks just under that level where these factors find their start in nature, like I said - at the very footing, it needing to exist before the greater forms can exist.
And now, having said all this, let us return to the illustration figure 63-1, to behold what is meant with all these outward arrows shown around the ring of that electron. For how does a moving ring effect a wake (to call it that) around itself unless there is something to be moved?
Our scientists have it all neatly tucked in, the electrons turn happily close to one another and as we saw by the animation here before - these, even in violation of their affixed boundaries - turn instantly to leave their core so as to make a turn around another core.
A fantasy yes! Our scientists thus ought to play with some model aircraft engines and turbines, to at least come to some realization of what a spinning object is and how well it is seated in its circle of movement.
That which is wrong with their theory is - that if we take two grinding wheels turning within a millimeter apart from one another - they do not affect one another, only in physically touching will these relate to one another.
How then are the atoms and electrons of our scientists to come to any bonding, or for that matter have any relation one to the next? These no doubt will revert themselves to their infamous charges, an ideal that has some merits as we shall see later, but for their fundamental ideal is very wrong.
Yet I am myself equally in hot water to justify - that wake - shown by the arrows in my illustration here. For if we turn two wheels in the air, and there is a wake from them, the substance of that wake are the atoms and molecules of the air.
But where may these be within or around the atoms, when it are these very atoms to serve as a wake?
Still, without revealing what I wish to keep to myself, I am nonetheless going to justify it by examples that are very real to us in our every day phenomena.
To be very frank; that nature is matter in motion, and that there is movement within and upon the atom, is not a question, but if electrons are what is said, or even exist as such is highly questionable.
To me, rings of substance sounds more viable, but then again for the term substance, there is but this answer; how that which exists is unreachable, and/or inconceivable.
First however, for the better of mankind let us get rid of our ideal in those so called charges, positive and negative, to adapt a true and realistic understanding of them. By figure 63-3, at P, there is a wire with an electrical current upon it.
That current is a rotating magnetic field, all because with our generator we took a number of magnetic lines and twisted them in a frenzy of turns.
A much better version than that lie of man where the electrons are to leave their home and their movement, to supposedly work their way among all the molecules of that copper wire in an effort to serve man's ingenuity.
Their efforts however being fore-come by their core as well as their own angular movement, not to mentions all these copper molecules, looking at them saying:
"Where do you think you are going, to get by our grit? Forget it mister, we are serving a much greater coordinate so that man may have his electricity."
Look at that wire to see that the movement of that angular magnetic force is in one single direction along the entire length of the wire, on the plus end as well as the negative end.
And so what difference is there in the positive to the negative side? There is none, and if I am not believed, check on the extension of that rotating magnetic force that flows around the wire how it is all in one the same direction, at the plus as well as the minus.
As such therefore there is no such thing as plus and minus, it is either this end or the other end, and both being identical in movement and direction thereof. How therefore did we come to speak of a plus and a minus in electricity?
The answer is simple, for if we take that wire and lay it into a U shape or an open circle, (Figure 63-3, R) and we carefully mark the direction of angular movement that it has while bending the wire to its U shape, it is still turning the same way all along the entire length of it.
As then we look at its very ends - comparing one to the other, we find that - not only from our point of view, - but in all reality that single angular direction for its two ends are turning in opposite directions of one another.
All this because we took one single direction of movement and moved their ends facing one another which then became opposites in direction of movement.
Now that we have those two opposite directions of movement from a single direction of movement, shall these then therefore be a plus and a minus, as in a nature of? The answer is a no, in that here we are giving two different names to one single entity.
And it is a yes, since there are indeed movements in opposite of one another, and such phenomena - meaning directions of - are usually labeled as positive and negative, the terms thus - as such in reality - being a point of view.
Which one of these then shall we call to be the plus, or the minus? It does not matter since plus and minus are precisely identical, and for our point of view it is but what we wish to call them. If from our point of view clockwise is positive, and counter clockwise negative, then so be it.
Plus and minus therefore, and I reiterate, - in their location is merely a point of view, and not any reality of one being different from the other, except for direction of.
This single entity, in its opposite movements of rotation, when facing one another, if we touch them together, it is just the same as when we take two grinding wheels turning in opposite directions (like at S) and touching them together the result is to grind each other to pieces.
So it is with our electrical current unless we install intermediate turns of movement, like we do with our automobiles in their transmissions, only here it is much simpler by adding physical turns in the wire between them.
Then by the animated illustration of a magnet here, or in a survey of mother earth, we find the very same to be true, only in a linear fashion rather than the angular as it is with electricity.
We hold a north to be that end where the direction of movement comes out of the object, with the south at the inward direction. The fellow that drew the animation here thus has it reversed.
There is no difference in the movement of either north or south of the earth, nor is the north any more or less positive than the south. It is just that we elected to call these directions of movement by those terms, much like a man is called a man and a woman a women, and yet these two likewise are a single entity, since the woman is, or came, from a rib of the man. No wonder therefore when she is missing I have chest-pains.
What then may our electrons be if not - in their so called nature of - a point of view? Or the nucleus, in calling it positive, as a part distinct in movement as well as location to also be no more than a point of view? Since again, the term charge applied to them is no more than their movement.
These cannot have something that is positive with negative to the other side, since these terms describe no more than a direction of movement, that in turn comes about by a point of view.
There is truly nothing upon the core nor upon the electron that they should draw to one another, other than their nature, which as such is a far cry from anything by the term of plus or minus, or positive, or negative. Their movements alone by direction of - classifies them relevant to such terms in and by a point of view.
When two electrons travel in opposite directions of one another, these to each other are positive and negative by virtue of direction. When an atom is driven past the poles of a magnet, its direction within that field depends on its relative positioning thereto. It has nothing at all to do with being positive nor negative.
If it draws towards the plus side, and for that cause we call it to be negative, we are as yet wet behind the ears. All one needs to do is to turn that atom (or electron) by one half of a turn and it will go to the negative side, so that then we can call it positive instead.
I am of course speaking like a child since the flow in any tube is nothing more than a coordinate movement the nature of which we have come to call electricity, there are no such things as electrons on the move making for the flow. Nor even is the flow a flow.
How inconsiderate of man not to realize that when he has magnets that by relative positioning these will proceed either one way or the other. I know how fond man is of those one sided coins within the atom, while he has never as yet found a monopole, nor will he ever find one.
This is so - since in being singular - it must have two ends, an ingoing, and outgoing, since all charges are motions. Or, a one way and another which as movements are known by direction of. Whatever is - always has a front and a back, a right and a left, a top and a bottom.
When a electron moves by a circle it is coming from - and going to, wherefore conclusively it is positive as well as negative. The same then applies to any spinning top, or anything - like a core - turning in place.
The need for any neutrons then is none existent, nor do these have any existence, they are but a figment of man's imagination.
I hope indeed that now my drift is realized, since it is not easy for me to play this game, attempting to educate man with the most elementary terms I can find to bolster his - set in his ways - notion about nature.
If now only he would scrap those electrons, to leave them at home in the place where they belong, he would have my praise rather than rebuke.
Now let us come to interspacing, that apparent bonding agent of atoms to molecules, and molecules to whole grids of it. By figure 63-4, there are two atoms noted X and Y, the rings being the outer shell of their electrons.
And as it shows - they are crossing one another, which is possible since we fire our machine guns right through the moments of a propeller, coordinating it for the exact point when the blade is not in the path of the bullet.
How well then may this serve in the atoms to have as were it two rings locked together? For a first observation we are in error if we presume that this is the only means by which atoms may bond.
These rings for all reality in having one or more parts moving within each of these circles, are for that very cause more likely separate of one another.
Or if we think like the scientists acclaim that outer electrons in turning once around one atom then proceed to turn around another atom, and back again, that in fact they are proceeding by a figure of eight, as if such factually constitutes bonding, they missed a turn somewhere.
They themselves draw the atoms at some distance from one another, as by the illustration below, how then from one to the next is any electron to leave and for a bit travel linear - then to take up a turn around the next? Have they forgotten how fast these rings travel, and the law of motion regarding such matters?
All this becomes realistic when we consider the velocity at which these little rascals travel, which in effect is so high that for all practical purposes it is no longer a part moving in orbit, but rather a part serving as a solid ring with no open space at all for anything else to enter, and likewise for any change in direction.
And yes I know how we can synchronize two parts to pass by one another, even at high speeds. But this becomes self defeating in that the speed at which these rascals travel is not constant.
A degree of heat will vary their speed as well as their radius from the core. This variance in velocity serves us so well by enacting the various angles at which wavelengths are instigated.
To therefore draw a more realistic picture of it, we must behold the same atoms at X2, and Y2, their outer shells not in contact with one another, nor interspacing with them.
And yet there is an interspacing between them, which for lack of a better term we might call the "wake" of their movements. And how does one get a wake when there is no substance, seeing how the atoms in themselves are the substance?
Quite simple. For there is that 3M coming around to have a look at them a sextillion times a second, since the 3M is permanent, at all times gliding over them, and at any instant when these atoms make a move they could not possibly perform it without the embrace of the 3M upon them.
Then on the other hand; there is the example of magnets one to another, have two of them facing north to north, and their movements are in opposite direction of one another, by which they instantly push away from each other.
And the same directions are true with the plus and minus ends of an electrical current, their rotational movement being opposite to one another.
But facing them south to north, their movements are in like direction, and each one - looking at the other as were she a delicious beautiful lady, they embrace each other. The same law applies to all atoms for their movements.
How thus shall not these bond with one another by that very same law of motion? Their patterns then may be different, and for the various rings in circular movement as well as in cycling angularly to be far more complicated, yet that does not discount the law as such.
(In the above illustration showing a 0.177nm distance, in a scale of it, that atom should be further removed, considering the atom at 0.100nm, 1.77 is about the width of two full atoms, providing us also with a hint as to how far atoms may be apart in their molecular bonding.)
Then there are those Oxygen atoms all by themselves and Hydrogen atoms all by themselves, all of them for their standard internal movement being quite at rest, with no inclination nor drive to bond with each other.
Their standard movement in and of directions of is keeping them apart. But the instant when we provoke them with a much higher shot of movement, a spark, their normal movements are altered by which they are forced into one another bonding two to one.
Curiously, this sudden alteration produces a very large expansion, as if we supercharged two magnets and faced them north to north to repel from one another with great vehemence.
And again curiously, immediately afterwards, being bonded two to one, that whole expansion collapses on itself, as if in a deep freeze to take up no more space than a single water molecule.
These are examples of what we spoke of in the - "wake" - so illustrated by the broken circles in figure 63-4. (In reality; an extension of the coordinate) Or if one is still not convinced, go down to the grand Canyons, or to Durango Colorado, where the steam locomotives are still operating.
And taking a seat for yourself consider that steam driving these locomotives, how formerly it was mere water, incompressible, taking up but a small part of space - now having become steam - is taking up a lot of space.
Then ask yourself how these molecules made of only 3 atoms, H2O, when heated come to expand so much in size, which in effect is in distance from one another.
Shall we presume that it are little Martians pushing them apart, and not rather the very wake (as we called it) of their movements in conjunction with the ever present 3M upon them? Or, by what are two magnets driven apart, if not opposing movements?
When the wake of atom Y2 can go out as far as W in the illustration, they have effectively tripled their spacing, demanded three times or more the space that they did in liquid form.
Then to relate upon the subject of "ram," by the same illustration figure 63-4, at point R where the two atoms with their electron shells come so close together, these are affecting each other's velocity as well as spacing, since a disturbing agent of a higher degree of movement, properly called "ram" is in some words, rattling their cages.
And like any dragon when ill treated - it will start shooting out sparks in the form of light-waves, and many other lengths.
But we ought to do a better job in debating the bonds that hold atoms into molecules, and molecules into structural grids. Man appears to have done a good job in deciphering all the many molecular structures in nature, since of course they are more easily observed than their atoms.
And what we are heading for is to discover or relate in principle how and by what the bonding of these parts of nature is accomplished, which for a correction to man's scientist will also in part come to compliment them.
In a note to the wise among men, I must surely be playing a game, to speak about some of these things, in relation to what else is hidden in my box of toys. Wherefore at times I ask myself; "What O Leonard are you doing, is this really for man's sake?
If we take a look at part B, in figure 63-6, we might recall how I spoke of that scenario in a previous page coming to the ultimate conclusion that the nature of magnetic in the dominance of its figure of eight is found even upon the atom and their molecules, as well as throughout the whole chain from atom on up to the whole of a planet, and/or star, like that eight so obvious upon the earth to which the phenomena of the tides are clear evidence.
Since then in the observation of it, the spelling comes to a movement at a rate of 300,000 km/sec, it all boils down to "motion." Thus we should acquaint ourselves with that term in how it may, or should be understood.
Motion is simply, or perhaps not simply, something going from one place to another, or it can mean going from one place and coming back to its place where it started.
Thus we noted that there are two versions of motion, one in the linear, by figure 63-5, noted M1, with the other in the angular noted S. Shall we then pop the question if there are any more versions of motion? For here again, like previously, we are speaking of one single entity, which for versions of comes to directions of.
And what other version for direction can there be than either turning in a circle or going straight on? Since then there are no others, these two alone are the fundamentals. Yet from these two, as we should know, we can find a great number of directions that by degrees comes to 360 times 360.
When we observe a magnet, it displays that dominant figure of eight, illustrated at M, and likewise with any planet or star. These then as we named, are objects of the - "greater formations."
And to descend one level below that - we find that within these objects there are component factors to display and operate by the same pattern, and even electricity operates by the same pattern in taking the linear's for a spin into the angular.
Then as we descend into the very first and bottom level, the first magnitude of nature, we did again discover these types of movements to have a dominance upon them as well, one of these illustrated by figure 63-5, V, and V1 for its side-view. That therefore which we named "magnetic" appears to be throughout all of nature.
And for all that it is worth we might as well name nearly everything that moves after magnetic. We do so with all our waves, and why not apply magnetic to the atomic bonding as well?
With all due respect however, we ought to slow down a bit for a better look at all this, for yes magnetic has its entry, but shall we therefore call the wind magnetic as well?
Or the electron in its ring, shall it also be magnetic? It is no more than a simple angular movement, which as such we do not acquaint with the magnetic that we know so well.
On the other hand, is it not correct that this greater magnetic motion of the earth is also an angular, a motion going by a complete circle? Indeed it is, but that circle has a twist in it, to pass angularly by a figure of eight, and as such we actually come to express it as being linear.
There is thus a distinct difference between that greater movement in eight, and that simple circle by which the electron operates. Conclusively, we cannot just name every movement by magnetic even though it is dominant from A to Z.
For much of it we can acquaint it with magnetic, while for equally as much we ought not to do so - to remain with whatever is relevant to it in direction of movement.
Then we come to man's habit of calling so many things by "electro - something," as were it electric in which, or by which, the electron moves, and/or relate to its core.
But in doing so, we are violating that which we so just assumed for ourselves, not to call every movement to be magnetic, since electricity is magnetic the same, it simply being a rotational magnetic entity, it being very much in the term of magnetic since it displays and operates by its figures of eight just like the earth has in its so called linear fashion.
The electron on the other hand is no more electric then it is magnetic just as a chicken is not a swine. And yet there is a great deal that can be termed or related to magnetic mostly found in the molecular level, and also on the atomic level when it comes to the greater atoms, the more massive ones, with many parts relating their movements one to the other.
This is what is again illustrated by B, in figure 63-6, how the atom in looking at it from one angle appears to produce a figure eight of movement that by figure 63-5 is illustrated at V, and V1, a figure of eight that in a three dimensional concept does not physically cross over like unto the ones within magnets.
It now comes as a natural consequence for the two versions of motion, angular and linear, to pass by a figure of eight, since any circle if it is to connect upon another it must pass by some degree of linear, or alteration of its angular path.
That figure of eight then within any one atom does not come to pass except by a relation to more than one electron ring in any one direction in angles of degrees.
How handy then that figure of eight becomes in the greater atoms when these are to be bonded with other atoms, seeing how the figure of eight essentially being an angular, and in that level by angular's promotes a movement and force into the linear as illustrated by figure 63-6 at location K.
Here the Oxygen atom is bonding itself with two hydrogen atoms over the normal linear path that a figure of eight automatically produces.
Are we then to conclude that all atoms bond magnetically? No, not precisely so, for we ought to have a look at our Hydrogen atom which does not have these many multiple rings which it greater cousins have.
By the illustration at A, it can only pursue two prime directions of movement from its singular entity, with no figure of eight, nor therefore is the ideal of magnetic to be found in it, and yet it bonds itself very well with that atom of Oxygen.
Figure 63-6, at C and D, are a few illustrations of our water molecule. At C, the direction of movements from both the H, atoms as well as the O, atom are of a single direction. If then we liken them to three magnets the H at the right is facing its north to the O south, while the one on the left is facing its south to the north of the O atom.
Conclusively if they were magnets they would all draw together because the directions of their movements are "alike" unto one another.
These however are not -- as such -- magnets, only one of them has the ability for a pattern in the way of normal magnetic, the other two do not, and yet they bond. We could look at the two atoms of H, as were they nails, or metal balls sticking to the magnetization of the O atom.
But are we correct in making such assumptions, or are we being carried away by rash conclusions? It is the latter that pertains, since the movement, singular as it may be of the Hydrogen atom, is equally powerful and effective in creating the bond along with the Oxygen atom, even though it does not display anything in the way that we normally relate to magnetic.
But now in a way, I told a fib, an honest exclusion, which lies in the wording; "That we normally relate to magnetic." For here putting on our thinking cap, what is normally relative to magnetic, if not directions of, and how these directions of - when alike to one another - draw to one another?
Are you still with me? For here we may have opened a bucket of worms, a lid that must be placed back upon it. For here we may come to reason; "O then all the single atoms in the air, even those of Hydrogen ought to lock onto one another." Is that not a natural reaction of us to do so?
I then must caution us again in how we are judging the components of one magnitude, to that which resides in an altogether different magnitude. And like it is said, to be fair one must compare apples with apples.
It then is correct that movements of alike join, even on the most fundamental level, but a circular movement of a Hydrogen electron in free air, by itself among others of its kind, is not the same as the full figure of eight by which magnets ply their trade.
Wherefore on their own, for a mere circular pattern, not having that lengthy reach in the linear of a figure of eight, there is no real means by which to connect to one another, and as such float free among one another.
But given a spark, a high degree of velocity imposed upon them with any Oxygen atoms nearby, which in like manner are driven to a high degree of internal velocity greatly extending the reach of all of them, they are by way of speaking, driven into one another, their like directions of movement aggressively uniting, forming a bond.
That bond then can be in a number of patterns upon that Oxygen atom, since it with at least four or more rings, as illustrated by C, and D, can latch on to at least two or more of these Hydrogen atoms.
The instant that we introduced a spark into this mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen, each component turned to align themselves whereby alike directions of movement were able to join, since like unto magnets with their direction of movement in opposite - these with-draw from one another, the same law applies here, even in this lower more fundamental magnitude.
That then comes to this advantage that structures may be formed as per illustration below. The like directions bond, the unlike directions withdraw. If this were not so all things would merely bunch up together with no specific pattern leaving nature without the many neat patterns in structure formations. The one below is of water as ice.
There is of course so much more that we could speak of, and how marvelous it is that by a mere increase or decrease in internal movement, (a term that I prefer to saying velocity,) the structure dislodges itself, or strengthens itself, with the inclusion of expansion and contraction. The proper term for either of the above is of course; "heat," that for its cause is termed RAM.
MEDIA EXPANSION AND LIGHT
If then we consider water molecules when heated to evaporate into steam, the molecules themselves as such remain intact, yet no longer by structural formation. Nor are the H atoms separated, nor torn from the Oxygen atom, as may be done with introducing electricity into the water.
Yet how did they come to expand so much to enlarges their volume (as is said) by 1600 times? That mind you is an astronomical increase, and hard to believe.
For how far must these molecules by their increased movements move away from each other to procure such an expansion? I wonder if this may be correct, the expansion so many times, if not perhaps that steam was mixed along with nitrogen and oxygen of the air that also expanded for the greater temperature upon them.
To be absolutely sure we ought to pass the steam into a tank that contains an absolute vacuum, to be sure that no other substance was included with that 1600x expansion.
At any rate seeing how that expansion is in fact a tremendous distance whereby these atomic parts can pass their movements into and so keep each other at bay with no more than directions of.
And at the same time we come to conclude how it is so logical that rocks are hard to break, and how steel is so strong in holding on to one another, that even a sledge hammer upon them is no more than a vibration to them.
For while these atomic parts ply themselves by the same laws, they are confined to structures of, which for that very same ability of expansion, they in their structural specifics can be, and are, very strong and resilient.
When light passes upon water as in figure 63-8, it continues into the water, where if the surface were like X, the entry is normal and the light passes straight on. (A to A).
Or if the surface were Y the light would come upon the water out of the normal and deflect according to A-B, the light at all times passing by atoms and never in between them into a void. The light will cross open spaces as long as there are atoms to make contact upon.
If then the water has become steam as in figure 63-7, it is not in the greater spacing whereby the light no longer passes through, but rather for the greater movement in between the molecules not suited for a normal passing, a very elementary way of stating it, but essentially what occurs is that the light takes a turn, and exits again.
The reason then that we observe the steam, and not rather anything deep within or beyond, is because when looking from point 5 at the steam, or a cloud, the light at point X is refracted, or deflected if you will.
Wherefore we are in effect looking at the end of a line, since all light must enter our eyes by a straight trajectory, since again that is the only way by which the source or last point of contact of any of light shows itself to us.
We may behold the steam coming from 6a or 5a, in returning, in which case it also is the last point of contact from any straight line.
Now that we summarized how and why we cannot see beyond the clouds in the sky, being water vapor all the same, to behold them instead. The water molecule under normal temperature lends itself very well to conduct the wavelengths of light, but when heated, or frozen as in figure 63-9, it does not.
For steam it served as a blanket to deflect the light, a deflection that is not like unto a mirror where it is turned back directly from the smoothness of the surface, but entering into and around the molecules before exiting, very much like light does when entering upon most substances, like for example a plant to show us its green color.
When the water has become ice, it is structured, and here again it passes into the top layers and exits, with this result that for our vision we are looking into an apparent termination.
Then to explain just exactly how and why water in structural form refuses to pass a light-wave through, is an order I am not as yet able to fulfil, even as for the scenario in the steam where it is not allowed to pass.
Yet this thing is certain, namely the principle of it, that under certain conditions, like normal temperature, the air, and water, as also glass and other compounds do not present a terminal for the entry and passing of the light.
Every substance then that does present a termination, or a selective passing is seen for its presence as well as its color of.
So you see I do not all have it figured out, nor will I begin to contrive a scenario unless I am certain that the same is at least valid, or very near so.