COMMON SENSE REASONING
CHAPTER 65 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
Why do I open my mouth to speak? What has gotten hold of me that I should put myself in harms way? Is not knowledge a beautiful thing, and how is it to be held in?
I look for but one thing; to be no more among the sons of men, yet the days come and go, like a shadow they pass, they leave no imprint.
For what cause then do I speak? To ease the pain of the days of my passing? I am full of thoughts and it is painful to have my abiding, he that gathers knowledge gathers likewise pain.
The atom and its compounds into coordinates and wave formations may be an interesting subject, but difficult and impossible to gather for its whole. For so I came to the conclusion that enough is enough, thus far I will go and no further.
Nor was it for myself that I came to that judgment, sad as it may seem for myself, but for mankind, for the race of man to place a border for them, a threshold which he is not to pass.
For as I looked upon man and considered him, I did not deem them worthy for what is spectacular, yet my heart still goes out to them. So thus let us again play a little to once again define a few things after logical reasoning.
When it comes to the bonding of atoms and molecules, it seems that our scientists are quite obsessed with the electron, as were it only by electrons that the parts of nature bond to one another.
This is a fallacy, since the atomic cores are equally involved and guilty of the same. We need but consider how even the faintest compression upon a medium causes sound to be heard, even if the same is below our level of hearing, it being a known fact that some animals are able to hear sounds we cannot hear.
This tells us that at the distances by which nature's part are separated there is nonetheless a sure connection, or how else would the vibration of one atom cause its neighbor to vibrate by the same tune?
If the electron for its movement causes a wake, that in other words is to say; causes a movement to pass far beyond itself, why not shall that core, more massive than any electron, cause a wake for its rotation? It after all has a purpose does it not?
And now that I said "wake", one immediately looks at me with disbelief, for how is one to get a wake down into and around the atom, when it is the very first part of nature? When there are atoms we can make a wake of them, but how is that to be secured when there is nothing to be moved?
An interesting question yes, and how shall I answer if not a question with a question. We have this notion that this core and its electrons are charged, wherefore I come with the question; "Charged with what?"
If man is to accuse me of inventing a wake, (which I did not invent) why not first accuse themselves of inventing those so called charges? If then I am not pronouncing what that wake is, neither is man to furnish me with an answer on his charges, wherefore that makes us even.
Since then I do know what man does not know, namely that his so called charges, electrical or otherwise, are nothing more than motion, should I be obliged to pronounce the nature of the wake?
When you have a wheel in motion, is that then electrified? Or the space shuttle going in circles around the earth, is it electrified? Does it have a charge upon it because it is moving in a circle?
Even in the terms of man's own scientists, to electrify something is to have a whole bunch of free electrons on the move, wherefore the most logical question becomes, how for example, that single electron in the hydrogen atom does it employ so many other electrons to proudly call itself electrified?
And where does it store these many other electrons? Or, from where does it steal them on a continual basis? And, how big must that hydrogen atom be with its warehouses full of electrons?
I could have sworn that we classified the hydrogen atom as the smallest of all with just one electron, wherefore conclusively man is contradicting himself when stating that its electron can be electrified.
Does it not seem most logical, that its charge as such is nothing more than its movement? And when it is accelerated, it simply is accelerated, not as as such ionized. This term; "ionized," is something that does not exist in the physical sciences. The dictionaries give an irrational explanation of it.
I am talking foolishly like one of the sons of man, for if an atom sheds, or takes on an electron, it is then - so man says, ionized, meaning it is electrified, which in turn means it took on hundreds or thousands of electrons.
If therefore I take an additional wife I must be well electrified, and better take on a hundred more with her, for to have one is to have a thousand? And O how I love those gorgeous creatures.
Movement is expressed in terms of speed like rpm or mph, and in directions of as well as strength, not in any term as irrational as ionized, in a term we most certainly ought to delete from our dictionaries.
So thus my wake remains unspecified since man is not about to change his ways no matter what I say. It certainly must die out with him in the generations after him, for as slow as the electrons may be moving, man for any change in him is still slower.
Still I am not going to leave man without something tangible to hold on to, wherefore I will say this much, that movement is conductive.
And for an illustration of it, consider two magnets how there is no wake between them, and yet by the directions of their internal and external movements these draw together or repel from one another. Consider this, and accept it as conductive movement, or 3M.
Let us turn to an illustration of the atom by figure 65-1, The atomic core spins into direction K, the ovals B, around its imaginary axle show its direction of rotation. This causes a conductive movement from direction X into direction Y, while a single electron ring turns clockwise at right angle thereto.
Then observe the many possibilities by which this single atom is able to direct its conductive movement. From the four directions shown, number 1 through 4, there are in fact 360 degrees of possible directions in movement by which to join or disjoin with other atoms.
And this is besides directions X and Y, as well as S and T. For in relevance to the core directions S and T, these are what we might call points of entry, or neutral as far as movement from it is concerned, except in the broad-form as an axis of rotation.
Additionally, that core can either shift or cycle in respect to a fixed momentum of the ring as illustrated by Q and R. At Q, the main conductance of the core no longer passes the ring, it being at right angle to it, while at R it is at some angular to it.
This I drew up to show the many possibilities in even a simple atom, while of course there are more in the larger more complex atoms. For when we get into these we come to the patterns and directions of movements that any one movement poses with the others, one such is indicated by number 5.
We must not now conceive this core as were it a magnet, nor as were it electrified, or having anything in the way of electricity. Nor should we fantasize anything within or upon it, other than simply a mass in rotational movement. And the same goes for that ring to simply be a degree of substance turning within a circle.
And whether that ring consist of but a single round ball like we visualize an electron to be, even that is debatable, since it could very well be a conglomerate of substance other than a ball, or square, or rectangular, or whatever.
Let us maintain it as a ring rather than anything else, which for its velocity by any single part is just as well as a ring of substance. And for the term "substance," it is no more than a relative term. Substance is what one beholds, the movement of all parts.
For when a door appears solid to us, and brown in color, that brown is but an interpretation that we make of it, by wave-lengths proceeding from it, and that solid is no more than molecules arranged in a grid held by movements.
When therefore one looks at the atomic core, and these so called electrons of any atom, to think of them as substance, that is all that man is going to get for an understanding of it, to simply surmise them as substance, whatever that may be, since like I said, it is but a relative term.
There is this error that we have, illustrated below, for a nitrogen molecule to have a triple bond, meaning three electron rings are invading one another, as if that were to make for a bond, and as such the strongest of all.
Naturally there is no mention of the involvement of the core towards that kind of bond, perhaps because man has not gotten that far into the atom yet, and is blinded by its outward appearance.
Nor is there any mention as to how three solid rings invade one another without destroying one another. It is certainly obvious to me that the atomic bomb has not taught man very much.
Nature, as I have said many times, is: "Matter in motion by coordination." That means it is constructed by movement, that again interprets into this; that parts interlock, and/or disengage, as well as maintain distances by movement in coordinated patterns and directions thereof.
This should not at all come as anything strange to us since the whole of nature testifies thereto in untold many ways. But to have man recognize truth from appearances is not a simple matter, since he is prone to sight deception.
One such example is with our moon to attribute a physical rotation upon its axis for it, when in no way there is such a rotation. Or a simple refraction of the light when it passes through a sphere, to attribute it to bending by gravitational attraction. (the folly of Einstein)
And yet of all things each day as the sun sets he knows that when the sun is already below the horizon, it is still partly seen, which man does interpret correctly, and likewise with the rainbow. How then can he not see the forest for the trees, to glorify such persons - like Einstein - as are most ignorant in these matters?
And so I am not going to reveal all things, nor such things as man craves the most, yet I will continue for a little while to at least give those which do not look upon knowledge as an affliction - a handle on things that are natural to the eye and to the mind, and leave it at that.
By figure 65-2 there are three atoms. The cores of atoms A, and C, are turning clockwise, while the core of atom B is turning counter-clockwise.
At K therefore the movement between A, and B, is alike, and these could draw together, as in bonding, or by the same keep each other at a distance for reasons other than these two motions of alike. At M, between B, and C, the movements is unlike in relevance to each other, here these will maintain a distance.
With this I wished to point out that even though the movements are alike at K, these may serve to keep each other at bay, like unto M, but not in quite the same manner when other circumstances are involved.
And with it I wished to convey how there is a definite connection between these three atoms simply by their movements and so called wake or conductance of their cores, not counting what their rings might additionally attribute to that.
Then there is this factor in nature how even though atoms can and do bond as per illustration - next to one another, there is another pattern by which many elements bond to one another, as were it a favorite one, to bond at 90 degree angles like the two smaller ones shown below atom B.
From this it is obvious that there is more than a single drive and how from the interior these are factored at 90 degree from one another with the help or input of the core inclusive.
Again I should point out that neither the atoms in their whole, nor in their core, nor rings are magnets, nor electric, but for their nature and versatility in their multiple movements are nonetheless marvelous machines, by which so many different structures, and compounds can be formulated to appear unto us in all the many things that we are and behold.
Then again we have seen in previous pages how the magnetic and electric coordinates are displayed right down to the atom. This therefore is what we must keep in mind, how nature is parts in motion, and motion is by two formats, angular and linear, which comes forth beginning with the core of the atom all the way up to whole galaxies.
For no matter where we look, or what we may dig into, we will find movements in these two formats, angular, and linear, that then by combination brings forth an enormous network of patterns.
Since again to these formats we must add their velocity in its ups and downs, to multiply that network of many patterns by a thousand fold and more.
How phenomenal it is, that our skin is laced with hairs, pliable and ever growing or at renewal. And in eating a cookie we consume many thousands of these atoms all busy moving to maintain its compound forms, and when digested, it dissects, or decomposes to serve the needs of our body, all by movement from one to the other.
And what of our muscles for all the atoms of which it consists to stretch and retract at will to our command. Or then again to stay so rigid without change in the rocks of the earth.
Or the waters of the ocean to continually move around, or to fill the space around us so that we may inhale these atoms to sort one from the other, so that those which enter into our bloodstream may serve to change the cells of our bodies for renewal, and at the same time provide the warmth needed for our continuation.
Who thought of all this, to create the atoms in these many ways to form these untold many things so that we might have bodies and a home to live within, with a surrounding meet for us, together with all the different animals in their different forms, all of which in harmony with each other.
A most marvelous feat, completely incomprehensible. As therefore the physical things made are incomprehensible, how much more not our own selves in our spiritual nature, or those many other spirits, one of whom said, "I am fire from fire"?
If I were to speak of all the different elements and spirits that co-exist with us who among the sons of man would comprehend it, and not rather be confused? For there is far more of that which is invisible than what is visible, our eyes being tuned to but a small part of the spectrum.
Yes indeed I am attempting to convey how very minute we are, and how little we know of what truly exists. Nor does man realize what is in the future for him, what it is that awaits him after his body has turned to dust again, a knowledge which the Almighty Lord grants but to those that are His own.
As I therefore beheld man to speak of the universe and what all is in it, and how it was made, etc, etc, I indeed pity him, as children that have yet to mature and be educated.
If one has a wheel, like a turbine disc turning at high speed, and you cause a vibration upon it, it will not last long upon its bearings. Or if a single blade in that wheel is to vibrate back and forth perpendicular to its direction of movement, how long will it last?
Then consider an electron in its orbit if it were to vibrate back and forth perpendicular to its direction of movement, would it not at the first move out of its line of orbit take on a different line, shifting its line of movement?
The rings within an atom now are far more resilient than any turbine wheel that is firmly anchored upon its axis, and such atomic rings can indeed resonate, rather than vibrate.
But that resonance comes to a turning upon its vector, not as man may conceive to depart from its vector, or shift over it. The vector of the atomic rings is of course none other than the core of the atom, to which the rings relate in more ways than one.
By figure 65-3, if atom A3 by any cause is moved sideways, to as one might say resonate, it affects the ring R2 in the main atom, which as such does not then vibrate, but rather it is shifted one way or the other pivoting upon its vector which is the core, and dead center upon that core.
Once the electron serving ring R2, is shifted, let us say, 5 degrees towards the number 2 coming upwards it will go downwards by the same 5 degrees at its other end towards the number 3. It does not, nor could it zig zag from point number 2 to point number 3.
The fractional instant in which the electron makes a single full turn is into a fraction of a second. There then is a great difference in how any core or atomic ring will react in the way by which it is impacted upon. When one has a toy gyro and impacts it at any one end, it will precess accordingly.
That precession then as it moves from right to left, back and forth, can be construed as a vibration, something moving back and forth. And while as such it is indeed a vibration of kind, we do not construe it as such, but rather a turning in a circle.
If then that gyro were so small that we could not see it, and its precessional movement were so fast whereby it would appear to us to be no more than a back and forth movement like unto that of sound waves, we would interpret it as a vibration, while in fact it is rather a movement of precession.
It is in that way whereby much of the movement within or upon atoms is to be seen. I may be stating that the speed of an electron ring is less than that of a snail upon our driveway, yet within their own realm these are not at all slow, but rather quite fast.
The atom then is effectively a gyro, but who is to cause an impact upon it from one end or the other, since an impact upon it - is upon its whole, to move it- like as in - with even distribution.
When a compression is brought upon an atom, such as when making sounds, it is the whole of the atom that is moved back and forth creating the mechanical wave, and while it so vibrates all of its parts remain intact, and in place with the whole of the atom.
Consider this when (for sound) the whole of the atom moves by the illustration into direction A1, that movement is faster for distance in time than the movement of the electron passing at R2.
For here, if we consider inertia and how it applies, or is affected by these vibrations - there is a minimal low point in the movement of all things which must be exceeded before (in this case) inertia truly takes effect.
If on the other hand we either apply a momentum by ram between atoms A1, and A2, or, simply upon atom A3 alone, that does not constitute a vibration of the medium, but a resonance upon the atom, and whatever it is connected to molecular-wise.
Or better still to apply ram. Ram being; Relative Angular Momentum, which is a bit different from what we comprehend by resonance.
When therefore atom A3, is moved or shifted it reacts upon ring R, 2, which in turn reacts upon atom A1, since both A1, and A3, are served by ring R2 of the main atom. This then is likely to produce wave formations, the angular moment of them depending on the degree by which atom A3 is moved.
And, at what speed that movement occurred, and that again relevant to the speed of the atomic rings. Wherefore, for the many variables it is not a simple matter to calculate all these things.
One thing we must keep in mind when determining the changes in movements, is - its vector, that to which the movement is relative. And the vector of any and all atomic rings is the core of the atom, by and in its movement, and that for natural reasons to the center of that core.
No doubt many a person will play with these scenario's by which to enhance the knowledge towards the bonding of all matter, and for the wave formation that are produced by it. An interesting and vexing occupation so I say.
By previous pages we sought for some answers on the nature of light, how in coming from the sun, and refracted as well as reflected from all things upon the surface of the earth, we came to wonder if for the brilliance of the sky some of that light was able to produce carbon copies before it even reached the surface of the earth.
This did not seem too likely for the many nitrogen and oxygen atoms as they singularly make for the atmosphere in which we abound. Then for the molecule version we know that light is easily arrested, like light passing into water for a limited distance before each and every wave-length is arrested, and done away with.
How much of our atmosphere then consists of molecules at which we might have another look? The water molecules in the air are too few to make much of a difference, nor will these make the carbon copies as we have in mind. If then ten percent of the air is made up of nitrogen and oxygen molecules, there may be a possibility that by them the copies are made.
By figure 64-4, a light-wave passing B to C anywhere midway by the molecule, would these effect a copy of that wave in all of its angular formats like as into directions D, and E? It is a question, to which I have no certified answer.
If so, that explains how and why when looking horizontally in the sky we are looking into a void, into what appears transparent, past the point of the incoming wave, and the point where it originated.
And speaking of bonding, note how these two atoms of alike for their movement have effectively a figure of eight upon them, (X-Y) adding to the bond. (Or as I might say; man's the triple bond) And does not our earth present a coordinate just like it, to hold the whole of the earth to its single mass?
For again I say, there is no such thing as electron rings invading one another, such is but a fallacy.
Then if we refer to figure 65-5, here is my reasoning. The wave comes in up from the page (at the center circle) which as shown by figure 65-4 has an angular moment, (its amplitude in the circumference). That angular moment is illustrated here by V.
If therefore the imprint of the wave may be taken around by the atom into directions G and P, it is with the imbedded angular noted N and Q. This therefore may give us something to think about.
Next, for a further illustration figure 65-6, in how or why a light-wave is arrested or passed on, note the movement around the water molecule when the hydrogen atoms are spaced at some distance from it, which is unlike when just two oxygen or nitrogen atoms form to a molecule of it, shown at the right.
Almost any light-wave will pass the oxygen or nitrogen molecule, but in coming upon the water molecule from direction point C, or B, or D, it encounters a linear flow by which it is effectively redirected in the process of which its angular moment is taken out of it. In other words, it died.
Yet there are a number of ways by which light can pass the water molecule, one such is at point A, and more such points exists from the various directions at which the light may come upon that molecule. The depth of the light into the oceans or lakes confirms this all too well.
BLACK BODY RADIATION
I do not know what is in the mind of man to say that a black body absorbs all visible wavelengths, and reflects or emits none of them. For how then were we able to see that black body?
There is this axiom that unless visible wavelengths enter our eyes, we can not see, and nothing will appear, or, everything will appear dark, as darkness being the absence of light.
Yet you installed a black oven in your kitchen did you not? How then did you do so, or were you even able to find that black oven - if black does not return visible wave-lengths? And when did you last go to a funeral, and were you wearing black?
You most certainly are a contradictory person if you concur that black emits no visible wavelengths and yet you were able to find your black coat, and shoes.
Is it not plain and obvious, as also logical that black, like all other objects also returns wavelengths belonging to the visible spectrum in order for it to be seen?
Man's scientists may not know how or why black is black, but that is no cause to be illogic about it. For that is just it, we do behold all that is black, and we concur (as we should) that nothing can be seen unless visible lengths enter into our eyes.
And so here we have a dilemma, black bodies do emit visible wavelengths, but we were unable to determine how nor why. Yet I heard one person with a pretty decent handle on it as he said:
"Black doesn't reflect light, and white reflects all colors. On the other hand, if you are talking to someone like me who deals with generating colors on a computer screen, black and white are exactly the same color, one is just brighter than the other."
This person in speaking these words may not fully have realize how accurate he was, to say: "One is just brighter than the other."
He however was wrong in saying that "black does not reflect light," since it does, as do all substances in one degree or another. For that cause we ought to narrow down for ourselves just how and by what we are able to see things.
We for one - see by reflected light, for when looking in a mirror we behold the waves that struck our face and returned to us. But for that simple statement there is a lot more to understand. It is another fact that light always show their source, or last point of contact.
For light then to show its source it can be by reflection, when for example we hold a mirror to sunlight, the reflected rays shows the sun, its source. Mostly however light showing its source is not by way of reflection, but rather by emission, like sunlight dissected by the molecules of any substance, to emit only such waves that for us pertain to its color of.
Then there is that; "last point of contact," any ray from the sun, or from any source that fall upon a rock or a tree, or a person, and is reflected from it, reveals the rock, the tree, or the person. Here the axiom of: "last point of contact" is true.
Whereas when looking in a mirror the red of the ruby lips for its pigment was the source, the point of emission, and at the same time we are beholding its last point of contact as well which was, or is the mirror.
Then as we look upon that apparent water on a hot day upon the road, we can not see the roadbed, but rather a haze upon it since the next axiom is that our observation of things is by straight lines. (figurative term)
These three factors thus apply unto that by which to see things, emission, reflection, and straight line, that interprets into source, last point of contact, and termination, the latter as another expression for straight line, the bending of a light-wave at its bend being for us a termination of the line of sight. How then and by what may light-waves be reflected, or emitted?
The question is a tall order, and to make a start of it with an illustration by figure 65-7, it is normally so that the smoother a surface, the more the light will be reflected from it rather than emitted. And to define the term emitted, it is used both in when light is produced by an object and when it merely receives it to pass on.
For the latter then it should be remit, and for the former emit. And for some realization towards light, it is impossible for us to even draw a line of light, since we must draw a line as narrow as 100/millionth of a millimeter, for no pen exist to draw a line that narrow.
In order to be emitted the light must enter into and through the surface molecules, where most commonly it is dissected for only specific lengths to be emitted, while reflection remits every wave-length. Then we must have an interpretation of what smooth means, and what that smoothness of any surface factually is.
All things consist of atoms and molecules, the illustration here shows a very smooth surface even though to us enlarged so many times it does not appear to be a straight line. The very topmost of any surface is not a material something, but a movement of material parts.
The circles in the illustration are molecules which are not always tightly packed one against the other, and each having their own area of movement, there is movement in between, not always perfectly in a straight line as far as it concerns a surface of things. When therefore a ray of light noted A, or B, or C, strikes the surface, what is it making contact upon?
It is not making any contact upon anything that can be considered material since the perimeters of the atoms or molecules are electrons moving at great speed for the area in which they move about.
The light therefore in striking upon any surface however smooth, makes contact upon "movement," upon a coordinate movement. As then the light itself is likewise nothing more than a coordinated movement, we have two movements one striking upon the other.
It then could be that the molecule at which light-ray A, is making contact did not have a shower for a while, and for the smell of it, the light noted A, decided" I am getting away from you," and accordingly reflected itself.
Are we aware of the error I just made by saying, to reflect itself? For that is but a half truth, it equally being as much in the particular movement of that molecule whereby the light came to reflect from it.
And so it is movement to movement by which a reflection of the light is instigated. The molecule then at which light-ray C is striking must have some good smelling perfume that it decided to have a look inside that molecule.
But as it came from the sun with wavelets one after the other at different angular moments, the narrow slit in the opening of that molecule by which any wavelet once entered could possibly escape, was in an angle by no more than that angle which corresponds to a wavelet 5600a in length, wherefore all other angular moments were arrested, the 5600a length only escaping, which then to our senses gave that molecule a green appearance.
Yes I am using a bit of humor, and none technical language, that nonetheless hits the nail on the head. That smooth surface therefore, is not as smooth to say that no wave will be able to enter it, and this varies with the varied substances, like a mirror with its shiny coating on the inside and black on the backside, the light passes through the glass, but not the backing.
And even then whenever light enters into a substance it is into the surface area only, unless it is ice wherein it can enter further than the mere surface. And so there are many variations that could keep us busy for some time to come.
The sum of it thus is still that we see either by emission, the source, or reflected light that can be either the source or last point of contact, and that these must be in a straight line unto us.
Then as we come to black body radiation, to conceive as if the color black were observed by no light at all reflected or remitted from it, how is it possible to see that very color? For yes we may call it a color, even as white is a color, be it a mixture or not, most colors are mixtures of various wavelengths.
Are we then saying that we can observe a certain color, without any waves coming from it? If so our interpretation of vision and light as such is not altogether correct is it?
How may it be that we determine color anyway, or the many shades thereof? I for one have no idea of what a spirit is, its nomenclature that is.
I may be one of them, as in fact I am a spirit living in a home made of atoms and molecules, but I do not understand my own nature, how then am I to explain in what way I as a spirit interpret movements for its lengths in angular moments?
I am at a loss before I even begin, but I have reason together with my eyes by which I can observe things, and how these things appear to operate. If then we are allowed to speculate on something obvious to our senses, it may not be as much speculation as we think it to be.
Like for example, when by figure 65-8, light enters the eye and being converted into what will pass through our flesh and so comes to the brain where it is to be decoded not only for vision, to factually see, but also for color, and to pinpoint where each of these wavelets came from, and that again into location as well as depth.
We are indeed talking about something that is utterly marvelous and factually incomprehensible that by our spirit we can interpret mechanical movements in such precise manners.
A black and white screen has but a single format, while our color television sets employ a triple format, it utilizes the three main colors of the spectrum which then by mixing comes to the hue and depth of every shade of color.
And perhaps so, we in our spirit may be doing the same thing, or something similar, that for three main receptors, the various waves each for their specific angular moment proceed to them, and we in turn looking at all three simultaneously determine every shade by the mix of them.
Now that we saw light in its particulars and ourselves in what way things come to our senses, how, so we ask again is black to be seen when no waves are remitted from it?
First things first then, light is reflected from anything black in color, as it is reflected from all substances in one way or another. And it is the reflected light that gives things their shiny surface, since clearly reflected light did not enter into the molecules to accordingly tell us what it was made of.
When a high pressure sodium lamp shines its orange like color upon green plants, and we look at the plant, we see it as green for all the many light-waves from that sodium lamp that entered into the molecules remitting the green lengths.
Yet, we also see an orange like glow upon that green plant, that indeed is a glow because that comes to our senses from not entering into the plants surface but in being reflected from it.
The reflected light thus being orange to begin with, it comes to us in orange, while the orange light that had its cup of coffee inside the molecules of the plant emerged as green.
Black then is primarily seen for the light that is reflected from it, wherefore it is a fallacy to say that black absorbs all the light that falls on it. Secondly, when looking at something black it is like looking into the dark, as if black were akin to darkness as in fact it is.
And yes what is darkness if not the absence of light. Should then anything black in color be absent of any light coming from it? If so, how would we ever even find our black shoes? Most of my shoes are black, and I have no problem finding them, wherefore black cannot be all darkness even though it may be akin to it.
I am aware of the fact that anything black does not show wavelengths upon a spectral plate, if therefore, so we reasoned, the spectra shows none, there must be none coming from that black surface. Yet in this we are wrong.
My wife decided to buy a black refrigerator, and she has a black oven, both of which are clearly visible from the visible wavelengths reflected from every single millimeter of them, and the more wavelets it reflects the shinier it gets.
Yet it has this curious effect that where there are few wavelets falling on it, it appears that I am looking into what in effect is darkness rather than black.
Let us therefore quite kidding ourselves as if all light is absorbed by any black surface, granted that indeed black absorbs more light than any other colored surface. Better terminology would be to say, that black bodies do not remit any light that enters within it, or absorbs all light that enters into it.
A next fact of nature however is, that black surfaces which do not appear to have any reflection are also still seen, perhaps not clearly but seen nonetheless.
If we behold two persons walking, one wearing a black suit, the other a gray suit, the ploys in the arm-lengths and the jacket of the gray suit are easily seen, which is not so upon the person with the black suit, which no doubt is because the black reflects fewer waves.
But how are we to see that black suit in the first place, since the cloth from which it is made, is anything but smooth for light to reflect upon?
It thus boils down to this that either there is more to our vision, or we do not understand the nature of black. Or, shall we say; darkness as well? But no, we do understand darkness, so we presume, to simply be the absence of light.
I then tend to agree, and yet we have this dilemma to explain the nature of black if perhaps we are equally unaware of the nature by which we see.
Shall we enter into speculation to say that with black the wavelets entering our eyes are too few to produce any real interpretation of them other than just being there?
Are we now perhaps opening a bucket of worms on which the lid is hard to close? If so, we will lose all our worms, and no fish to be caught? Perhaps we ought to look at more examples.
When during daylight hours standing under an overhang that is shaded, there is not much light, as in fact shade is akin to darkness, yet we can still make out the brown rafters to see that they are not black, while also they seem very dark, near to black, all because there are too few wavelengths of light to illuminate the shaded area, and far too few are entering our eyes to interpret anything clearly.
Here thus it boils down to too few and far between and we with perfect vision are simply looking into what for all reality is and becomes darkness, or the blackness of darkness. How close thus black is associated with darkness that by interpretation comes to; few or no wavelets to register upon us.
Black, in so many words may be said; a color near to darkness, like an entry from out of the darkness and into the light. Is this perhaps the way: not few enough to be darkness, as in none at all for darkness, but too many to recognize as darkness, wherefore we deem it black? It is an option yes, but how are we to certify ourselves of it?
Our vision now of things is not instant, there is a lingering effect, nor is every color the same for everyone, different persons have different interpretations, wherefore when we start debating black for its beholding, we ought to look equally at ourselves in how we determine things.
When we turn on an incandescent lamp, it turns itself off and on at the rate of 60 times each second, yet to us it seems constant. So then let us slow it down to but one off and on per second, will we at that rate see any light?
The answer is a yes and a no, it is a yes, because we will see a light flicker at a rate of one event per second, but that is only so since in that one second we were receiving hundreds of wavelets.
So then it is a no, because if we in that one second received but a single wavelet, it was not sufficient to stimulate our sensors, wherefore no light at all would have been observed.
Let us get down to some basics where in order for anything to be effective there has to be a minimum, like a minimum velocity. How may it be that we hear sounds? Will we hear a sound if an atom moves at 1mm a minute, or not rather when it moves at 1mm in 1/100 of a second?
When certain things are too slow, or too few they will not work or appear, like as I spoke of inertia or centrifugal how even these have to come to a minimum before they will be effective.
And why might it be that the longer infrared waves bring about a higher rate of movement within molecules than those of light?
By illustration figure 65-9. There is a turbine wheel, with its slanted blades, if then we push upon these blades by the small angular noted B, we may drive it around, whereas if we push upon them with a greater angle as by C, or D, we are not going to get much rpm out of it since our object is to cause a rotation into the direction noted X.
B, to B1 then is the nearest angle to that direction of travel, while from D, we are merely pushing it at ninety degrees to cause no motion at all into direction X. Simple as this is, and well aware of this as we are, the same pertains to the movement within and upon all atoms and molecules, as well as the resonance by which we interpret wavelengths.
I then drew a picture of resonance verses vibration, so that we should not think that it is by vibration by which heat is brought forth, or that waves are formed, or by which we interpret such movements other than sound. The simple solution is, if no sound is heard, there is no vibration.
Then suppose we are throwing ping pong balls at these blades to get the wheel moving. If we cast them at a rate of a hundred per second we might get some movement, or if we cast them at higher and higher velocities the turbine will move faster.
If an the other hand we merely cast one per second, the turbine wheel has a change to slow down again before the second one comes. Accordingly, there is a minimum quantity, as well as a minimum velocity by which to get such a wheel to move at a rate that is useful to us.
That resonance then that I spoke of by which the visible wavelengths must be interpreted within our brain, is as such in principle the fashion by which we may interpret light for our vision, as well as colors.
But how shall that so called wheel (to thus liken that resonance) be kept in motion if it receives too few wavelets to push upon it, since our interpretation so it seems depends, or may depend upon its speed as well as variation?
When for example on a hot summer day we see something that appears as water on the road, that is because the waves entering our eyes took a turn just above the roadbed, and we essentially are looking into a void, into a turn, since again for us to behold a thing the line of light must be straight on.
Or in looking at steam, or at a cloud, we are looking at the end of a line of sight that did not as such terminate but turned away, granted that many wavelets are turned back to us as well.
The fact that a black surface will radiate more thermal wave-lengths than any other color is simplicity itself. If we heat a bar with ten torches simultaneously, it per unit of time will emit more thermal energy as compared to heating it with only one torch.
We saw how by figure 65-9, our turbine wheel moved more effectively with the less angular momentum upon it. If then by figure 65-10, we behold that axiom of nature on the atomic and molecular level, there is a wheel to be moved, and the faster it moves the greater the amount of heat will be.
Heat in temperature being an agitation and a rate of movement instigated by ram, (relative angular movement). Which wavelength therefore serves better to instigate a high rate of movement upon that wheel.
The angular format of the visible wavelength of 5000a is too steep, while the longer one (30,000a) with less angular moment serves much better to get that wheel moving.
Therefore it is that the longer infrared, and still longer micro-waves are better equipped to rattle the cages of the molecules upon which they enter.
Since then the molecules of anything that appears black posses such coordinates that it arrest virtually all light falling on it, it can not produce any kind of what we call brilliance unto us.
Some of the light-waves may fall through the cracks, (to put it that way) which then are emitted, but for their number are too few to produce any illumination, a factor that is equally as much paired with our perception of things.
As then nearly all the light falling on it serves as torches to heat the black surface, it will naturally produce more thermal energy than compared to any other color that pass on most of the waves it receives. Wherefore there is nothing super-natural, nor anything mysterious about a black body in the radiation from it.
Visible light then is not produced until there is sufficient atomic and/or molecular momentum to form the angular moments that correspond to these visible wavelengths. This, as we know is done by heating it, or as I sometimes put it, to rattle their cages.
Wherefore as the inverse movements increase in speed, shorter and shorter wavelengths are produced, the angular moment increasing for each shorter length. The longer red wavelengths thus come first increasing to blue and beyond.
We are deceptive in speaking of a black body radiation that it emits visible light when heated more and more, as if to imply that it is typical for a black body. Since the fact is that all materials of all colors will do so, and even such as are invisible to us, namely nitrogen and oxygen that produce a brilliant white light when struck by an electrical charge like lightning.
If we wish to speak of what is typical for a black body in its radiation, why not be factual and truthful to say that all bodies radiate such wavelengths?
A black body heated by the many light-waves which are not reemitted from it, naturally emit the longer lengths invisible to our eyes, and heated more and more, their velocity increasing shorter and shorter waves are produced. That however is not typical of any black body but typical, or natural of all bodies of any color.
All the above now may sound very well that black is black because too few waves are coming from it to appear as anything but what is near to darkness. Yet again in saying; "too few," these few are coming from every single square millimeter of it, and how few therefore is a few?
Conclusively I have not given us a complete and full answer, and what we might do is to investigate just what chemicals that black surface consists of, if for most of its atoms they refuse to remit any wave, but if there be some that will.
And yes I know, those worms are still coming out of that can, the lid not being placed upon it, for if some atoms or molecules do emit waves, why are they not seen upon the spectral plate?
Our vision may be such that for any mix of waves we see black or white, but a prism or spectral plate separates these waves for us to determine by what that mixture these came about. Or might it be that for too few too far between our own vision defeats our intend with the spectra as well?
Perhaps these waves are upon that spectra, but who is interpret that spectra? If there be ten dots per square inch instead of the normal 300 or 600 dots to show a photo, how well can we observe that photo? If the letter H here on this screen is normally made up of 100 dots, what will it be like for no more than three dots?
I certainly would not come to know it for the letter H. What therefore the screen may show, to place at least three dots in the right order, I am not a machine, but a spirit to interpret things by relevance.
In conclusion, black is black indeed not to have a good handle on it, except that in my judgment, black is seen for the light that reflects upon it, as well as by contrast, meaning, by the light of the surroundings, to make the black stand out, in which case, when it is black, we are looking at what is essentially darkness, or so much akin that it is hard to tell the difference.
And for now I am going to leave this game for others to play with, but we ought to come to terms, that when anything produces light it emits them, while when it receives light already having its waveform, it remits them.
We do not need quantum mechanics to explain anything, even as the mature no longer look to the stork. In a mature world we go by logic and common sense, and factual procedures to interpret things accordingly. And if I am not believed that grown men still believe in foolish assimilations, here is an example of how foolish man can be, quote:
"How can we understand the reflection of light by a metal surface? A piece of metal has electrons free to move through the entire solid. This is what makes a metal a metal: it conducts both electricity and heat easily, both are actually carried by currents of these freely moving electrons. (Well, a little of the heat is carried by vibrations.) But metals are recognizable because they’re shiny—why’s that?
Again, it’s those free electrons: they’re driven into large (relative to the atoms) oscillations by the electrical field of the incoming light wave, and this induced oscillating current radiates electro-magnetically, just like a current in a transmitting antenna. This radiation is the reflected light. For a shiny metal surface, little of the incoming radiant energy is absorbed as heat, it’s just reradiated, that is, reflected."
This is not just nonsense, it is atrociously nonsense. An electrical field of an incoming wave??? Or, free electrons to make for metal??? Shall I now comment upon this? I was once a child but no longer, and so should we all.
If we take a microwave of 1mm that is equal to 10,000,000 angstroms to pass around the grid-works of molecules to let us say 12 angstroms in diameter, that will make the circumference into 38 angstroms.
The full length of the wave therefore is 10,000,038 angstroms, that divided by the constant, and multiplied in its length gives it a velocity of 299,998 km/sec, even faster than that of light. That is unless microwaves travel by a greater circumference, which I believe they do.
Micro-waves are not likely reflected from substances other than metals, they enter into its molecules raising their internal movement that for us is warmth or heat, while in confronting the structures of metals it glides off or takes to combat with it in arching upon it.
Or if we take a radio wave ten kilometers long to travel by a circumference of 10 meters. Ten kilometers is equal to 10,000 meters plus the 10, and that into the known constant comes to 299,700 km/sec.
That wave-form then has no beef with almost any substance, passing through walls as were they not there. These kind of waves come more near to the 3M itself, the linear magnetic lines of movements that passes anywhere and everywhere unobstructed.
A wall may seem like an obstruction to us, but to any spirit it is no obstruction at all, even as to any wavelength greater than that of light it is no obstruction. We see the wall because the wavelets of light are only large enough to pass around the lighter elements of which air is made up.
Consequently, the air that we do not see is just as obscure as any other substance, but since the wavelets by which we see pass unobstructed through it -- it is not seen, appearing as if transparent.
Every wave-form thus has its particulars relevant to its angular moment and the circumference by which it passes, that then determines its relative velocity as well as when or by what it will be obstructed, that in turn relates to how well it is able to produce ram, to rattle the cages of atoms and molecules.
Amplitude, together with length into the constant, determines relative velocity. But what is understood by amplitude when we first have to learn how it is that a wave moves by the 3M of all nature? How often must we be told that anything transverse in wave nature must first of all be tied down on both sides?
We have these illustration where a person is holding one end of the rope while the other end is on a pole. Indeed a way to show a transverse wave movement, but where are those persons and those poles all over the universe to secure the light between them?
And why when coming upon a black body should these be terminated, since obviously there is still a person holding it on the other end, perhaps a bit warm standing on the sun, and our black body serves rightfully well for a pole by which it may be secured.
How then is any wave ever terminated, done away with? Does not logic, as well as common sense, and all of nature in everything shows itself that transverse for light is out of the question?
If we take the angular magnetic wave of electricity, and we cut the rope by flipping the switch, it instantly ceases to be. Or stopping the generator the wave regains its straight normal self.
How can light possibly be transverse when we know for a fact that light travels by the diameter of the lighter atoms? Or do the orbiting electrons jump from their circles so they may zig zag back and forth over above the atom for no more than the atomic width?
And how fast shall we presume that these electrons effect that linear movement of light? Don't you scientists and physicists think it's about time to explain these things, to come up with something rational?
The very readings and calculations of light in its relative movement alone confirms that it must encircle the atoms, with each of their angular moments in their lengths showing all the relative velocities of light through any and all media, as well as showing how and why the shorter angular ones travel slower than the longer.
The fact that light travels at different velocities for different lengths, all in itself trashes the inverse theory, while the rotational version confirms it.
Also it is absurd to consider any electro-magnetic wave in a transverse version where its amplitudes is larger than even the human eye. The fact that light does not illuminate the oceans all the way to their depth, being arrested by mere water molecules, while passing freely through air, shows its so called amplitude no larger than about one angstrom in diameter.
And how immature to even think of those myriads of electrons (as light is supposed to be) to zig zag above or between atoms, while their sisters calmly rotate below them without any relevance to them, or these to their orbiting brothers.
Prove first that there is even a free electron, even a single one, just one single one if at all man may be so competent. For all man's talk in that way is at best disgusting.
Even the idea of an electron having a backpack full of electrons, or energy, or charges is preposterous. Movement itself as such is energy, or how much more simple can I be?
It is obvious to me that man has lost his sense of reality when it comes to amplitude. Ask anyone what the factual width of any wave is, or may be, and we are not going to get an answer other than gibberish of peak to peak etc.
But that which is irrational is to state that amplitude constitutes the intensity and/or brightness of a wave, as a measure of the energy that it carries.
Indeed so I pronounce to all the world; "This is irrational, beyond logic and common sense."
How can the width of an automobile be the energy it carries, if that is not rather in its speed, and for the weight of the automobile in the inertia thereof? Make an automobile half its width, and for the same speed and weight it will effect the same amount of force when crashed into a wall, as the full width car would do.
"Amplitude as intensity and brightness? Do we want to hear about intensity? If one throws a snowball at you one a minute, you will stand your place, but if the snowballs come at you 100 a minute, the intensity upon you has increased.
Then consider how when one million wavelets of light coming upon your skin merely warms you, but if instead you are receiving a 100 trillion wavelets, like when an atomic bomb is detonated, will that intensity of light not then burn your skin?
And does this not defeat mans theory of energy conservation? For when by so many wavelets you are made warm, but burned for so many more, it implies the energy is never conserved. For just as fewer ping pong balls upon a wheel to cause it to rotate has a change to slow down in between events, so it is with intensity.
How simple do I have to make this? Intensity is a measure of volume, as to how many events per unit of time are brought upon it. Brightness then, is also related to volume per unit of time, in addition to the type of wave-lengths, like if they be all green, or the mixture of all in the white brilliance of it.
Lasers are made on this very phenomena, to place more and more wavelets on a single line whereby to increase its intensity. Or to pump up more lines per given area increasing intensity.
Light for its speed can accommodate more than 428 trillion wavelets of the visible spectrum, if any such ray of light came upon a person, it would burn a hole in him, while for any person to see anything -- he needs no more than a fraction of one percent of that many waves per second of time.
From our incandescent lights within our homes alone we should have surmised that - since sixty times a second already makes the light appear constant unto us. And that is for good reason the fundamentals of which I will omit to mention.
Energy for its strength or vigor depends on volume, and/or on velocity, while the width of any wave by which the Almighty Lord made it to travel, is fixed for most of the E-M spectrum. That so called amplitude, which factually is the width of any wave, like that for all the visible wavelengths is so narrow that it is unable to pass by any of the larger atoms, and it is arrested as it collides upon almost all molecules.
Even that simple molecule of water refuses to allow the light to pass for much more than six hundred feet deep into the lakes and oceans of the earth, the atoms hanging at the sides of the oxygen atom presenting an obstruction to light's passage.
I now am speaking of facts, of such things as are factual in nature, easily seen and noted, and why then did we not note such things? I surely am not one to make for theories. The diameter by which a red wave travels is the same by which any blue wave will travel.
And if you doubt my word check on the velocities of these waves as they pass through air, or glass or any medium, and you will discover that I do know my physics. It is an abomination to me that I should have to lie or act irrational before you. I was born to serve you, not to deceive you.
The illustration below may get the point across that there is angular momentum in any wave traveling down the line, but that illustration is not anywhere near to reality, even as my illustration to the right of the tubular sine formation lacks reality. I however along with it demonstrated what it for its reality is like, as again illustrated here by figure 65-11.
Short or long, the wave each for its place in the spectrum, moves by a set diameter that is into the circumference. Amplitude therefore is diameter, or width, with neither one of them being the full truth, since the measure in the circumference is the true angular moment and/or distance of any and all waves.
Figure 65-11 is a rendering a little more to reality, since one would need a very long page to lay-out a wave of the visible length wherein its diameter might be observed, it being so narrow comparable to its length. The reality of a wave thus is rather the opposite of what the scientists usually show, like unto the first one above.
If then it is time for man to correct his renderings and his definitions, I will not hold my breath, but for the generations to come when such science will be corrected and improved upon.