LIGHT'S  WAVES,

MISC

CHAPTER 67                              INDEX TO OTHER PAGES

1. Light has its many variations, there is the light from the sun and the stars that travel distances measured in light-years, and there is the glow of light from our computer screens with is not anywhere near the brilliance that we receive from the sun.  Yet both of them are coordinates of the same format, and travel in like manner.

2. What therefore is the difference in all these waves with one being bright and the other no more than a glow? These, to put it that way, are the extreme ends between which light has its variance in every measure.

3. As then our understanding in the nature of light is at best minimal I thought to expand upon it for a greater understanding of that marvelous phenomena.

4. To thus make a start of it, let us begin with the real length of any wavelet that may vary from zero to not only a full length measure, and even greater than a full length measure. Since then that sentence appears more like a riddle we will adapt an illustration (Figure 67-1) and define it step by step.

1. In the overall view the illustration shows the waveform comparable to what we observe as being blue, a wavelet that is attributed to a measure of 4000 angstroms noted from point 1 to point 6.

2. We must remember that light (as illustrated) travels by a tubular sine formation. The points from 1 through 7 thus in the linear enhancement by figure 67-1 are one and the same in the circular or rotational enhancement to the left thereof.

3. If now we take the light generated from a tungsten element, or from a quarts-lamp, the total full length of the wavelet may not be any more than a length of about 1000 angstroms, equal to about one quarter of the turn. ( Point 1 to point 3) The rest of the wavelet, all the way to point 6, is none existent, and yet we call it a wavelet corresponding to a length of 4000 angstroms.

4. The reason for it is that when it was generated it received a collateral that for a length thereof extended but 1000 angstroms out into the linear.

5. The total full length of that collateral thus for its factual length equals to the 1000a+,  the quarter of its circumference.  How therefore does this 1000a wave formation come to be know as a wave-length of 4000a?

1. Quite simple, its angular format when it passes once around the tube - as circumference - will have passed a distance of 4000 angstroms. Point 1, and point 6 thus are one and the same point on the circumference.

2. The true measure of a wavelet thus is not in how long it spans into the linear, but rather in what its angular moment is by which it will pass once around the circle, to make one full circular pass around the atoms in its path.

3. If then we take the light of the sun, it may very well have received a collateral that extends out from point 1 to point 5, or more. From these points, 1 through 5, the wavelet has a collateral substance that extends three quarters of the way around the tube or circumference, and as such it is a powerful one, not easily faded, nor dissolved.

4. Or if we take wavelets from still more potent stars, its collateral being may extend even passed its own angular moment to extend all the way up to point 7.  In that case we have a wavelet that is 5000 angstroms in length yet we account it as a 4000a wave, since in the linear measure of 4000a it passed a full turn around the circumference.

5. The collateral substance - to call it that - of any wave may thus be of any reasonable length, anywhere from near zero to a full measure, and or beyond.  The greater the quantity of the collateral then - so much the more intense or powerful the light-wave becomes.

6. It is for that reason that star-light will continue on for years without losing its format or its identity.  And of course, there was little or nothing in its path to minimize or arrest it.

7. As then I spoke of a near zero collateral, that this very wave formation can and does exist without collateral - to have a collateral length that is near to zero, we are speaking of such light that to us appears as a mere glow, like the aurora at the poles, or the illumination of our computer screens, a hot red bar, or telephones and the like.

8. I however need to caution us on that term collateral, which I choose for lack of better terminology.  By collateral we understand something in the nature of substance.   And yes what is substance, when all of nature was made out of nothing, how do we pre-empt ourselves upon substance?

9. The nature of light in all respects is a wave formation, a coordinate of movement of and by movement, as well as upon movement. How therefore can we speak of anything collateral, to formulate substance?

10. When we look at electricity there is no collateral in its wave formation, it being no more than a coordinate of movement upon movement, and yet that coordinate is formed upon the metal of the wire, - as we would say - upon a collateral substance.

11. When however we come to the nature of light for its coordinate - it is like that electricity and it is unlike that of electricity, since light travels independent of its source, yet again is based upon the atoms for substance, while electricity is at all times tied to its source.

12. Wave formations thus, verses wave formations, vary to the degree in which they operate and in what magnitude they are found.

13. When I attribute the term collateral to light in its formation - I do not mean any kind of substance as we understand substance, nor do I mean a void, as something of no collateral. The dust of the earth may be considered as substance, even though down to its fundamentals it is not factually substance as we conceive the same.

14. And why then am I playing hide and seek, turning around in circles, intentionally failing to mention what I know so well, and yet to furnish man with some inkling towards the nature of light?

15. It is because if I am to expand upon light for its nature, I must say something, I must at least show some relevance. Let therefore this term of collateral remain, but not in any way as were it a substance so as we conceive substance to be.

16. I then deem it viable to use that term so that we may understand how light in its forthcoming is not as cut and dry as it may appear, but that there is a great deal of variance in all of its appearance.

17. We know the light, like from the sun, is able to burn our skin, and we know light as no more than a faint glow.  And thus it is my object to show how and why that one phenomena appears in these many different ways.

18. I then deem it prudent to speak a little more on "Light's intensity," since the quantity of the collateral of which we spoke is in fact something of and towards intensity.  But to better understand light's intensity we might utilize an illustration, figure 67-2.

19. Ten pounds of sugar is more of the same sweetness than one pound of sugar.  And so at an expanded focal point let there be ten light waves, where if all of the wavelet arrive simultaneously the intensity of the light would be times ten.

20. If however the wavelets of beams 5, 6, and 7 come simultaneously, the intensity would be times 3. If at any point in time only two wavelets out of the ten beams arrive simultaneously, the intensity is times two.

21. When light falls upon any one point not all wavelets come simultaneously. When out of ten only one at the time makes contact, the intensity is said to be times one in the span of time that these arrived, let us say, one trillionth of a second.

22. If then in the same time-frame only one wave entered with ten times as many wavelets residing upon it, the intensity is again times one, with a plus.

1. Intensity therefore corresponds to volume at any given point in time.  It has nothing at all to do with amplitude, the amplitude or diameter, of any and all light-waves is approximately the diameter of the lighter elements.

2. It is for that reason why light is reflected and refracted from most anything but the lighter elements.  The amplitude of light is simply said, too narrow to pass around most any other atom or molecule.

3. Evidence of this is found with the distance by which light is able to pass into water, the water molecule being too large, for light to pass.

4. But it is only at two locations on that molecule where the light is arrested, at the connecting points of the two hydrogen atoms, wherefore depending on just how the point of the wavelet arrives at that molecule, it is able to pass many before sooner or later it strikes it at the wrong location for it to pass.

5. As therefore the intensity of light corresponds to volume at any one point in time, the collateral of any wavelet of light adds or subtracts from that intensity.  The hotter the substance from which the light originates, or the more intensity- velocity wise, the greater the outcome the in intensity of the light will be.

6. The stars are those to produce heat, while the intense light of a lightning bolt is primarily in velocity.

7. Also, we have a habit of stating that the earth is heated by the light of the sun.  And true as this is, the visible spectrum itself is but a small part thereof, since the longer waves effect more of that heat, something like unto our micro-waves ovens.

8. When a gas is exited, or like our scientists prefer to call it ionized, it is able to produce the wavelets of light with near zero collateral, appearing as a glow and quickly fading out.

9. The display of light at the polar regions are one example of this. Here, by illustration figure 67-3,  the earth in its 15 km/sec velocity plowing through space - in all essence plows through a lighter than air media, a gas that is even lighter than hydrogen.

10. But in saying an element lighter than hydrogen I mean a gaseous substance that has a gravitational inclination less than that element we usually refer to as hydrogen.

11. That element then may very well be something corresponding to the atoms of hydrogen, but with less gravitational attraction, meaning - less angular potential, a smaller degree of torque.

12. Simply said; the factor of gravity is less in any distance from a globe.

13. As then by the velocity of the earth that gas is quickly compressed, similar to a jet airplane passing the sound barrier, a rotational momentum is instigated in conjunction with the magnetic field lines of the earth.

14. And since rotational magnetic means electricity, a flow of electrical current, that gaseous substance is heated to the tune of producing light-waves on the very low order thereof, a coordinate with near zero collateral.

15. Another example of this are those white streaks in the sky caused by the friction and the heat of its engines boiling the moisture that is in the air into steam. When there is little or no water the streaks will not be formed.

16. And still a similar example is with the clouds, the water molecules, that are driven about by the wind setting up a potential that we call thunderstorms.

17. As then the earth plows into that so called gaseous substance, also called empty space, it does so in its whole, at all points, by the illustrated noted arrows A.  And like any other ball moving through air the flow of that gaseous substance is driven around it, noted in the illustration by arrow E.

1. The earth then as a ball for its outer perimeters in respect to that lighter gas - will border at the outer regions of its atmosphere, it being a heavier element drawn by the format of gravity.

2. As therefore the gaseous flow proceeds from point E, to point B, and passes over the pole to B1, why are the northern and southern lights not seen directly over the pole, but to the sides thereof?

3. When going by a compass - the magnetic needle does not point directly to the center of the earth's magnetic field, but for very good reasons to the sides thereof.  And here too with the Aurora the light is primarily seen where the magnetic lines of force turn away from the pole, which is where the rotational magnetic flux concentrates.

4. If we wished to see it closer to the center, over the axis of the earth, the magnetic lines of force there are much too straight up and away, and the turbulent interaction of that gas with our magnetic field would have to rise upwards noted by arrow H.

5. But if it were to rise at that altitude above the earth it would be out of the flow that passes around the earth from B to B1.

6. Consequently the maximum degree of turbulence, and consequent angular magnetic behavior begins and end at the area's just to the sides of where the axis of the earth may be found, just as the compass points off center from any magnet.

7. Therefore the Aurora's are seen at these locations.  The reason then that these lights occur at some sixty plus miles up away from the surface of the earth, is because that altitude corresponds to the fringes of our earth

8. Meaning, that lighter gaseous substance of outer space can not come any closer to us, our air being more strongly pulled by our force of gravity, serving as a barrier between ourselves and it.

9. Why for example is it that a comet as it passes through the solar wind displays a tail, while the earth also passing through the solar wind shows its so called tail (Aurora) only at the polar regions?

10. The answer is in that there is a magnetic force encircling the planets while a comet is but like a rock, with no magnetic force upon it.

1. This is a far cry from what man's scientists have made of it, as stated: "Auroras result from emission of photons in the earth's upper atmosphere, from ionized nitrogen atoms regaining an electron, and oxygen and nitrogen atoms returning from an exited state to ground state. They are ionized or exited by the collision of solar wind particles being funneled down and accelerated along earth's magnetic field lines."

2. All this is of course but hog wash, since no atom sheds any of its electrons, lest it becomes a different element altogether. Nor is light generated by any one electron's addition nor depletion, but quite differently as I have detailed elsewhere.

3. And for their so called solar wind particles being funneled down, they have no idea of what they are saying.   By the illustration figure 67-3, if any solar particle lies in the path of the earth, it will not funnel anywhere but pass straight on to earth's surface as illustrated by arrow C.

4. A particle, is understood as something of solid substance, which is not lighter than air, wherefore it will not remain above our boundaries, but pass on through the air as a brick in water.

5. The fine dust that on a dry day may cloud up into the air, are particles, these are lumps of atoms and molecules not in the nature of any gas. Within a single millimeter of that dust more than a million atoms may be found, its atoms are far too dense and/or too large for any light to pass, wherefore also that dust is seen.

6. A single atom is not as such a particle, if however it be a single atom of a heavier element it may be considered a particle, (like unto that which we call radiation), but as such it will not then remain aloof above our atmosphere.  Only atoms in the nature of a gas will remain aloof from our atmosphere, from which and by means of which the auroras are formulated.

DIODE  (Fundamentals)

1. A diode being a device that allows electrical current to pass into one direction only.  As per illustration figure 67-5, at the right side an alternating current may be applied, the essence of which is a flow that at some specific rate, usually 60 times each second, changes its direction of rotation.

2. The media of the diode is such that it holds a fixed rotation, factually, its atoms so structured that it will allow but one fixed direction of rotation.

3. When therefore the current in its rotational movement matches that of the diode material, the flow of movement will proceed. (figure 67-6)  If however in the opposite direction of rotation as per illustration figure 67-5, the passage is blocked.

1. This may be compared to regular magnets in their directional flow of movement, when opposing directions of movement are brought together (Figure 67-5), these will block the continuation of it, or as usually stated; repel.

2. When the same magnets are positioned so that the flow is in like direction, they draw together, or, as in the case of the diode, allow the flow of current to pass.

3. This is the reality of those things, quite simple and to the point, and a far cry from having to gather a bunch of electrons that are never available, other than in the imagination of man.

1. Electrons for their size and function within nature are of no value whatsoever to promote either the rotational magnetic forces, as well as any linear magnetic field, or lines of force.

2. This is besides the fact that the existence of man's electrons is still in question. I prefer to call them the rings of the atom, rather than any particle of the atom, with the collateral or substance of those rings as not necessarily in the nature of what man conceives for electrons.

3. How simple thus must I make it? There is nothing super-natural in any diode, nor magnets whereby these act, but mechanically after the form, and norm of movement.

4. And here for those more advanced in this knowledge, the conductive movement between two magnets, as it is directionally conductive, always draws or repels the objects, while in the electrical it is either stopped or allowed to pass by directionally conductive movement.

5. The cause and differences thus are in the type of movement, linear or angular.

PERPLEXING

1. When we orbit our earth at an altitude of 200 miles, the centrifugal impact upon a person of a 165 lb earth-weight traveling at 18.000 mi/hr comes to 5,186 lb.

2. When instead that same person begins to orbit the moon at a distance of 200 miles, with a velocity of 18.000 mi/hr, his inertial impact is not the same as it would be around earth.  He for one thing is turning in a smaller circle, the diameter of the moon being 2160 miles while that of the earth is 8000 miles.

3. With the half measure of the moon, plus the 200 miles, his distance from its surface gives him a vector of 1,280 miles. The radius would thus be only 6,758,400 ft. His velocity of 18,000 miles/hr remains equal at 26,400 ft/sec.  As then the gravitational force of the moon is (as said) equal to one/sixth that of the earth, his moon weight would be 27.5 lb.

4. By the law of centrifugal thus:

5. 27.5 lb x 26,400-ft/sec2 : 6,758,400 ft/r = 2,836 lb/ centrifugal.

6. At the moon one would thus fall with a rate of 5.362 ft/sec/sec, when compared to the earth in one sixth thereof. As therefore the g/factor of the moon at its surface is 5.362, and we divide his inertial weight (c and g) by his moon weight of 27.5 lb, we come to a factor of 103.1.

7. A factor that is 19 times greater than what it is upon the surface of the moon, and that as we know cannot be.

8. When we take the 5,186 lb inertial weight of the earth measure, and divide it by his 165 lb of earth weight, it comes to a factor of 31.34, which is less than the 32.174 as the sea level factor of the earth, as of course it should be since the g/factor decreases as we remove ourselves further and further from the earth, or any gravitational object.

9. But this does not make any sense when we take the same comparison in the same computations with the moon. If we take the diameter of the earth verses that of the moon the percentage is 1.85. Then to take 1.85% of the 32.174, we come with a g/factor of the moon at 17.39.

10. This would give the person a moon weight of 89.2 lb. That in the computation would give him an inertial impact of 9,188.43 lb, which when divided by his moon weight comes again to a factor of 103, while it should be less than 17.39.

11. The reason that the factor of his inertia is so much higher to that of any gravitational pull on him is because, he is going too fast for any stable orbit.

12. At that speed he is departing from the moon, the centrifugal upon him exceeding the pull of gravity, wherefore the factor of gravity at his altitude above the moon does not show. He must be in a stable orbit where the two forces equal, - then the correct g/factor can be found from his velocity in his radius etc.

13. If we slow him down to 7000 mi/hr, that is 10,266 ft/sec, it gives him an inertial impact of 1391 lb.   That then divided by his moon weight comes to a g/factor of 15.59, as the factor of g 200 miles above the moon.

14. All this is presuming that the gravitational force on the moon is not as science has it to be 1/6th of the earth, but rather the same as that upon the earth reduced in measure by the diameter of the two spheres.

15. I then utilized the diameter, rather than the volume in comparison since the strength of the magnetic force in gravitational terms varies by distance more than it does in volume.  Our earth also for its bulge upon the equator registers a half pound difference, which is for distance rather than volume.

16. Another means to estimate g/force on the moon is to go by the escape velocities that the scientists have set up, like 36,700 for the earth and 7.800 in ft/sec for the moon, which would give the moon a g/force 4.7 times that of the earth.

17. To be sure as to what in fact the g/factor is upon the moon, we, like we did on earth, ought to calculate the rate of acceleration by which an object will fall upon the surface of the moon.

18. Or present a stable orbit around the moon, with a fixed radius and velocity, from which to determine our weight, and consequently our g/factor, the surface factor, as well as what that may be at our orbital altitude.

19. One thing that I am sure of is that the mathematics are the same for any g/factor given the correct figures to work with. The mathematics used on earth are fundamentally the same for any object, while the factors themselves vary for any and all different objects. And while I in the above utilized a comparison by diameter, this may not always be correct.

20. Obviously the scientists are never to be trusted, and that not only for their conflicting theories, but in their mathematics as well.  For what is the gall to state these escape velocities and at the same time state that the g/force on the moon is 1/6th?

21. And when you ask them a question, - do they ever come with an answer, or not rather with formulas written in jibberis?  I have as yet to see one come with an honest forthright answer, in their writing as well as in their mathematics.

22. While thus man's scientists thought they had it all in the bag for g/forces between all bodies, they have as yet a long ways to go.  And when they do so, having traveled far, these will discover that there is not really a single law for all, though the fundamentals are alike.

23. In plain terms, the earth is not held to the sun by gravitational force, nor the moon to the earth gravitational, but like everything else in nature, by the magnetic potential.  Atoms to atoms are held together by movement, a movement that is in the nature of magnetic.

24. The gravitational factor of the earth extends approximately 2300 miles out away from the earth, yet the moon is some 284.000 miles away, a distance that is 123 times as far from earth than what earth's gravity has any reach unto.

25. And if the gravitational force of the sun reaches even as far as 25,000 miles out and away from it, we upon the earth are 93 million miles removed.  Wherefore it is not by gravity that we are held to the sun, as in fact no planet is held gravitational to any other planet nor sun, but all are held magnetically.

26. And this I say, namely; "Magnetically," since there is no better term as yet for it. If we say; "Inertially," it is not fully correct even as magnetically is not fully correct, and gravitationally does in a sense appear appropriate, but also deceptive.

27. For again, without inertia existing at each planet or object, none of them could be held in orbit by any source star or planet.  The man of magnetic depends upon inertia in order to hold on to them.

28. As then gravity may be formed in the association of the two, so the female of force is born and brought home.  And it is only at home within the reaches and confines of the female of force that things can be spoken of; as being held gravitational, while nonetheless the power and embrace is of the male.

29. I have no beef with Sir Isaac Newton, he did some excellent work given him of God, but he was not to become the death of man, of the whole human race, if indeed he would have surmised or discovered gravity in the foundations of the earth.

30. Newton is able to stand within the shadow of the knowledge which God has given me, while Einstein is nowhere to be found.

31. Nor therefore have I become the death of all mankind, since I received, and was taught, nor did I ever deny it. I then scorn men not for anything that he could not possibly know, but for his ill imaginations to presume to know, as were he wiser than his Creator.

ATOMIC MOVEMENT

1. What may be the velocity of the electron rings if by some means these are kept moving and/or accelerated by the 3M movement, like such as light? (This is just to confuse us, or make us think for a reason the wise will understand)

2. By figure 67-7 at M the light passes from left to right over the atom, with a velocity at nearly 300.000 km/sec.  As then it makes contact upon the the electron ring noted at A, how may it effect the movement of that electron ring?

3. If it were to pass in a straight line as indicated at figure 67-7,M, there is no effect since the line of light as such passes in the normal, straight on.

4. But light does not move by a straight line, it has an angular moment in it by which it passes around the lighter atoms, the one noted in the illustration has a diameter of no more than 1 angstrom, nor are there other atoms such as Hydrogen connected to it by which it could be stopped in its track.

1. Let us then by part N greatly exaggerate that angular moment, whereby the angle is effective from point H to point G, which for the illustration we shall call one/tenth of its circumference, namely 36 degrees.  That 36 degrees then as 1/10th of the circumference in 1 angstrom, comes to a distance of 3.14 divided by 10 to wit 0.314 angstroms.

2. As therefore the light passes at a velocity some three thousand trillion angstroms per second, and it by its angular moment effects a 0.314 angstrom movement unto the electron ring, how does that compute into a velocity for the electron ring itself?

3. It of course effects an acceleration or velocity equal to 0.314 angstroms per second, that then comes to 1,130.4 angstroms per hour.  And how much may that be in real time like in meters or millimeters per hour?

4. And to enlarge the distance by multiplying the hours into days and once again by 30 for a month comes to a distance of 813,888 angstroms per month. As then there are ten million angstroms in any millimeter that computes to 0.0813 of a millimeter that this electron ring was nudged in a months time.

5. To us that electron ring might for all practical purposes be standing still - to move but less than a single millimeter in the time factor of a whole month.   Consequently we ought to conclude that the speed by which an electron ring encircles the atom shall hardly be affected, or effected by the movement of light, or the 3M as a whole.

6. But shall this be correct, or am I concealing something?  It is not that I am pulling a snow-job on my readers, yet I must conceal what is not for the light of day; Or should that be night?

7. If the wavelength of the light spanned itself over a total of no more than 360 atoms, we would be correct in assuming a 36 degree increment per atom.  But even a 4000 angstrom length of a wave must pass over some 2000 to 3000 atoms.

8. For in considering a length of 4000a, with 360 atoms spaced within it, all these would have the spacing of 11 more atoms in between them.

9. And here a note for those among us that attribute light to come forth by a jolt of a single electron.  While it is obvious that it requires thousands of full atoms just to behold a single wavelet of light. How bitter therefore their sweetness is.

10. The density of our air now is certainly not thin.  When we boil water into steam the atoms of that liquid certainly take on a large distance between them, but these are not just atoms, these are molecules, a combination of atoms to a single package, wherefore these are so able to disperse from one another, and be compressible.

11. Nor are the wavelengths of light able to affect the movement of electrons in these molecules, the light being arrested quite rapidly as they pass into that liquid.  It is a simple matter for light to pass the single lighter atoms, but in encountering the larger atoms, and/or molecules light does not have the circumference to pass them.

12. These things effectively show that the amplitude of light is very narrow indeed, no more than the diameter of the lighter elements.

13. And it shows how atomic movement is not instigated by the 3M, after the manner of light.  Nor shall the velocity of light or the 3M (magnetic movement) be on account of the wheels of nature, the atoms in their movement.

14. As then in the past I may have portrayed such an ideal, it is but because; the elder was teaching his children what is most relevant to their perception.

LIGHT IN MOTION

1. We know that the speed of light through air in the average is some 199,642 km/per second. But it is not the velocity as such that astounds me, but the revolutions in units of time by which it proceeds that clearly runs into the trillions.

2. First of all the constant in velocity stands at 300.000 km/sec, which then for the angular momentum of the coordinate is reduced, that for the red is at 199.743, and for the blue at 199.551, comes to a middle average of 199.642 km/sec.

3. And this multiplied into angstroms of which there are ten billion in a meter, we come to one million 996 thousand 420 million trillions.

4. To write this out is; 1.996.420.000.000.000.000, angstroms by which light travels through air.  If then we divide this for the red light by 7000 angstroms, it means that in each second of time that coordinate of light spun by some 285 trillions revolutions. Or put into minutes as RPM it comes to more than 17,000 trillion (RPM).

5. Can we even conceive for anything to turn into circles at that astronomical rate? No solid object of any kind could possibly do so, nor even any kind of material substance, since clearly light is a coordinate, a wave as it is called.

6. And yes a wave is a coordinate, an immaterial formation of movement by which all things are structured, and have their so called being.

7. Accordingly if we consider the speed of light to travel clear around the whole earth seven times in just one second of time, that velocity for all its speed becomes minor when compared to how fast it rotates simultaneously with its forward momentum.

8. It therefore is no wonder that light is able to travel in such straight lines, considering the astronomical angular inertia it evidently displays.

9. If it were to turn at a much lower rate, it, for its direction of travel might come to follow the 3M, the magnetic lines of movement which are generally curvaceous.

10. But for an eye opener seeing how we can't even conceive rotations and/or velocities at that rate of speed, these same velocities are in fact but a snail pace, like the speed of sound to that of light - compared to what really is.

11. And if all this is mind boggling, the fact that the light at that speed and at that RPM will instantly find any atom that is not spaced equally by which the coordinate (the light) will either contract or expand its format.

12. And for any out of normal approach it redirects itself as we know so well from that haze or apparent water on a hot road-bed.   But in digging into the fundamentals this is still curious since it is only at certain angles by which the haze upon the road is seen.

13. When referring to Figure 67-8; if we look at the roadbed from an angle noted P-S, there is no diffusion, nor is there from angle N-T. Yet there is from angle M- to -H.

1. Our ideal is that as long as the light comes at a change in density by the normal, there is no deflection, nor refraction as some call it. Yet neither the angle towards P, nor to N were by the normal, but showed the roadbed to us; how thus is that to be explained?

2. Or are we deceiving ourselves that we should rather determine things by the incoming angles, rather than the resulting angles that strike our eyes?

3. The light coming from point R, and arriving at point S, may then strike us at P, at which point the surface of the road is clearly seen, and yet it went through the boundary layer, and excited again through the boundary layer.

4. If thus it were somewhat deflected it would strike the road at a little bit to the left of point S, and in exiting corrected itself arriving at point P.

5. If then the light comes from point X, as it normally does, and striking the boundary layer as well as the roadbed from the normal, there is no deflection, but simply a slight expansion of the wavelets as they passed through that lesser density.

6. These wavelets then enter into the atoms of the asphalt where in turn only such wavelets are regenerated that correspond to the black color of the asphalt and by the angle S-P reach our eyes.

7. It then is to be noted that the directions to which the light is send out from point S, is not just to point P, but to all directions all the way from left to right by essentially 180 degrees.

8. If then we consider that from our location at point M only we are looking into a haze, with the roadbed not seen, may it be possible that by the dotted line S-M the light at the boundary line (point Z) was forced into a deflection whereby to us it is no longer a straight line?

9. In that case we are essentially looking at a boundary layer, and equally so if the light struck point V, in the normal from point Y. Yet the latter makes no sense since that would be the same as X to S, and so forth.

10. The fact thus remains how the surface of the road can only be seen when we receive those wavelets that come from or through the interior of the atoms of the road itself.

11. And we might add how these must be in a straight line.  If in any event the light of the sun, from any angle normal or otherwise rebounds to us from the boundary layer, or from any part within that boundary, never at all having made contact upon the surface of the road, then we behold what appears as a haze.

12. It shall not be the sky as some have it, but rather we are looking at a diffusion in the air itself, even as other mirages show themselves to be, or a diffused object in the distance for the hot air rising amidst cooler air.

13. The most amazing part of all this is; how the light at such an astronomical speed and rotation reacts so quickly and so efficiently to all the atoms in its path, like as were they a track laid out for the light. And yet we also know that it is the light itself which lays out the track.

1. By Figure 67-9 the atoms from B to C in the warmer section are spaced further apart as compared to those in the cooler section.

2. And for that minute distance, no more than a few inches, this light that in a single second will pass around the whole earth seven times recognizes that minor change in density through which it passes in less than the smallest part of any second in time.

3. Any material substance or object would never even know these few inches for a change in density, yet light does, since it is a coordinate, which of course in itself is immaterial.

4. And yet how this immaterial coordinate is susceptible to all that is material, that for its direction of travel as well as for its angular format depends upon it.

5. How very much therefore these two are subject to, and joined to one another, the atoms of all substances and the coordinate that passes upon them.

6. The light may act to travel where it will, and track a straight line where it will, and yet is very much dependent on the atoms by which they pass, in their size as well as in their spacing of one another.

7. The deflection then, or refraction if you will, is much simpler since it is in the angular design of the wave by which when they strike a change in density to refract accordingly, like line X in Figure 67-9 poses a normal to the light from B, Whereas line Y-Y is out of the normal.

8. There is therefore a lot more of light that we do not comprehend, than what we do have an understanding of.

9. And so the wisdom and the ability that we behold in the works of the Lord our Creator is far beyond us to even begin to comprehend. And how great and how mighty therefore He must be to have made this whole great universe as we construct a dwelling for ourselves.

10. And yet if it were not for His constant care, and gift to us, we could not even built our own dwellings. For like the saying goes; "If the Lord does not built the house, the workman work in vain."

11. And so for every moment of our life we are fully dependant upon Him.

Next page