CHAPTER 79                           INDEX TO OTHER PAGES


  1. For an introduction to contradictions one needs to speak of reality.  The term contradiction not only invokes illogic, but falsehood as well.  For since both can't be true one has to be false, and as such comprises to be a lie.

  2. And why am I being so stern upon the ignorance of men?  It is not for ignorance as much as for the falsehood of man that on occasion I am stern.  When men contradict themselves it could simply be called ignorance, as of course it is, but ignorance comes in several ways.

  3. It can be innocently, or intentional as a result of negligence, or by acting recklessly, or without sense, not utilizing the common sense that God gave unto His creatures.  Equally so a lie can be by innocence, or intended, and no less for our errors to be excusable or inexcusable.

  4. We go to school learning how to read and write, history and all else, and yet we have the gall to celebrate the birth of Christ in the month of December.  And so they cause me to wonder if indeed with all the schooling how they are still unable to read, nor to add 2 plus 2 to 4?

  5. As then in this page I elected to speak of contradictions, it is in an attempt to bring us to some reality, but that in the sciences.  If one needs to be pinched before he pays attention, he is not all that likely to come to what is known as reality.  If at times I put things just the way they are without smoothing it over, it is not to bury us as much as to elevate us into a sense of reality.

  6. And so I must present examples whereby I may not only awaken the reality within us, but also to correct such thing in which we stray for the error of our way.  And yes this is best done by utilizing such examples that everyone can understand provided these make use of the logic and common sense reasoning that should be in every man.

  7. And to that end let us begin with that which is known as Huygens principle of Refraction.

Huygens principlE

  1. By the illustrations here I see nothing wrong when it comes to a toy car, or to a column of men walking into a swamp whereby the result comes to a change in direction, that as such is called refraction, the meaning of which is - to fracture. But when it comes to light and to sound Mr. Huygens in his principle so noted - is very much in error;


  1. First therefore let us speak of light. The reason that Mr. Huygens failed is in the fact that he had no understanding in the nature and mode of light, as even to this day no one other than myself seems to have any idea into what light is nor how it travels. Not that this makes me so much wiser since I was taught by the greatest of Teachers, but I in turn can teach others.  Or why else was it given me?

  2. Huygens failure lies in the fact that he illustrates light as frontal waves, lines that are perpendicular to their line of travel. These in effect are to be transverse waves like unto Figure 79-3, or sine waves as they are also called.  

  3. This is a nasty thing of man, namely to have light as sine waves - and to then - for their convenience - turn them into straight lines whereby they ill conceive to explain the refraction of light.

  4. Nasty indeed, unprofessional, to first of all design a sine formation that of course contains angular moments, for which reason when any such waves comes upon a refractive surface, it does not come straight on, but in line with its angular deviations. 

  5. And that is but the least of their workmanship, for then as they gave these waves length to the tune of 4000A to 7000A that they know will stretch over thousands of atoms whereby the amplitude, or diameter, comes to be very narrow in comparison.  

  6. Wherefore these so called transverse waves are more like a - line in line with their angle of incidence coming upon the refractive surface, rather than any line perpendicular to their direction of travel, like as it is shown in the illustration of Huygens principle.

  7.  Shall I therefore be wrong to call them unprofessional because they were ignorant in their work and in their comprehension of things?  For is it really ignorance, or nor rather bordering on negligence or willful omission, or contradiction?


  1. Was Mr. Huygens indeed so ignorant of light for a sine formation, and/or lengths of? Nor have the men of science done any better since that time.  And even if the men of this age did scrap that principle of Huygens which of course does not work for light nor even for sound, they would still be in the dark, since their so called transverse, or sine waves do not exist, nor could they exist for light or any of the magnetic waves.   

  2.   Let us have a good look at those sine waves which man has invented as depicted here in Figure 79-3.  How do they expect them to travel through the air? We know that light travels in perfectly straight lines, are they therefore to pass over the top of all the atoms in their path, or along the bottom, or the sides of them?

  3. But that is impossible, is it not? And yes I put the question like that since I expect my reader to have a fair sense of reasoning, if not why bother to stick with me. Light as it travels - contacts itself upon every atom in its path evident from that apparent water upon a hot roadbed.

  4. Shall then these bottom ends of that sine formation touch upon the atoms as it goes?  Hardly so, since these bottom ends for the red colored light are spaced by 7000A, while the atoms in our air are spaced roughly by 5A. And 7000 divided by 5 means that there are 1400 atoms of which 1398 atoms were passed over without any contact.

  5. If then man's scientist are correct in their sine waves, we are most certainly blind to behold that apparition on a hot roadbed. My judgment however is that - not we are blind, - but whoever concocted that sine wave must be blind.  Nor can we put it in any other way using the tops or the sides of that sine wave, since the same is true for that wave in any fashion.

  6. Or if our friends insist that their wave just travels through the air as is, how may we ask does it do so with all these many atoms in their way, and those magnetic fields surrounding them - to have no effect upon their so called photon particles on the move?

  7. Or if anyone of us discounts the potency of these magnetic fields, just ask someone who put too much air pressure in a tank, or a tire and how that turned out - blowing it to pieces.  But our blind friends will nonetheless look upon us as being blind since so they will reply, how their sine wave is a transverse wave, one that continually slides from one side to the other.

  8. We of course can find three things wrong with that scenario.  In the first - who or what forms that sine formation when there are never any connecting points holding the two ends of that wave? We can do it with a rope yes, one end tied to a pole with the other in hand.  The rope then is a definite material, while light is immaterial.

  9. Secondly, if that sine formation is to be formed by some sort of particles or force pushing it back and forth to create these loops in that sine formation, where are they? Do they have a contract, or an agreement with those molecules of Oxygen and Nitrogen to move at their behest?

  10. If so, with all the light in the air how do our airplanes fly so smoothly with all that turbulence? Nor shall we even for a moment consider the zillions of free electrons that move about everywhere, because we know that it is not for a mouse to tackle an elephant. If now only man's scientist could understand that axiom.

  11. The statement that science made was that our air consists of oxygen and nitrogen, and not much else, with no mention of electrons which most certainly must take up most of the space in our air. That is - by fantasy of course, since in the first place these rascals in my book do not exist, not now nor ever before.

  12. And thirdly, how with that kind of a wave formation do our blind friends come to the velocity that we know to be of light?  Sound is a push pull, a vibrational mode whereby the atoms are moved slightly to create that disturbance for the miracle of sound unto us, causing our eardrums to vibrate.

  13. The maximum speed thereof however comes to but 343 meters/sec while light travels at 300,000,000 meters/sec.  And what is a transverse wave - if nothing more than a back and forth movement that would barely come to a forward velocity similar to sound.   All of nature thus proves man's transverse wave for light to be a hoax, utterly impossible.

  14. Contradictions, so I entitled this page, and how does man come to such contradictions if not because he is lacking in knowledge and in sound reasoning as well as correlating one factor from another. 

  15. Nor is this the only thing that disproves mans sine wave, for in returning to that principle of refraction by which man wedded himself to Mr. Huygens, there are a few snags.


  1. By Figure 79 4 at A, as the sine wave enters upon the prism, it is not a straight perpendicular line so as man fondly by Huygens Principle portrays them, but by an angle noted X-X.  This then being altogether different from Huygens waves is then to refract itself into direction V.   And yes the real ones do, but such is not the case when that sine wave comes upon the prism by its other half shown at B, is it now?

  2. For here the angle is reversed noted Y-Y, wherefore it should then refract itself into direction S, should it not? Or perhaps because the angle of incidence of the second half of that wave is parallel with the face of the prism it will pass straight on through to H?

  3. The conclusion here is that no sine formation of that kind can produce a refraction as all experiments factually prove them to be. Neither the rectilinear, nor the perpendicular, nor any kind of transverse wave could possibly perform what light in its three dimensional formation performs most perfectly.

  4. By now we should be fully convinced of man's contradictions, and how his ill conceived wave formations are but for a depository known as the trash-can.  And yet there is still more error to be found with the sons of men, errors indeed that border onto contradiction.

  5. For how will you have these sine formations that cannot travel any faster than the speed of sound - to travel by different speeds relevant to their wavelengths? If these are being push pulled sideways to the line of travel, a more compressed wave will come to a lower velocity than an expanded wave. 

  6. But my question is - where are those well trained gorillas to perform that selective pushing and pulling, or perhaps the poles upon which these lines may be fastened with a gorilla at each end?  I do not believe there is enough room in our air for all that, nor do I wish to be breathing gorillas.

  7. Should not these masters in the sciences before all else have educated us for light to travel no faster than what sound is known to travel?  If not so - I for one will accuse them of falsehood, more than an error in ignorance. For how is it possible for anyone standing within a forest to acclaim that there are no trees?  Shall we answer it?

  8. And now for sound, as it is claimed that it will also refract, and was placed in the same marital bed with Huygens Principle. But the term - to refract - is not only to change in direction of - but literally it is synonymous with fracture, to break up. 

  9. I then do not frown upon using that term for light, in its redirections in any change of density, nor even for that toy car, or those men walking into a swamp, weak as that term may be.

  1. But it becomes foolishly in error when it is used with sound.  When sound for its ever expanding wave encounters an obstacle it simply flares around it.  It mind you, - and take notice now of what I am saying, - simply continues as it has from its very source.

  2. From its source the atoms with a kick in their behind then proceed to kick every atoms within their reach into their behind, and that same scenario continues until they are too weak to lift up their foot against the next in line.

  3. This is a neat way of putting it, don't you agree? And so look at the illustration Figure 79-5, how the wave curves itself around every obstacle flaring itself out around it, just as it had been doing from the start, with no change in any tactic. 

  4. Simply said: There is no such refraction with the waves of sound as there is with light, the two being altogether different entities with no likeness to one another.

  5. You are not now thinking in your mind as to what harm it may be when we use terms such as do not really fit the case, now are you?  For how is one to make his teaching understood if he uses terms that do not apply?  

  6. One must be careful of his teaching in how he teaches to bring forth the truth of the matter, and not act carelessly as so many have, whereby their teaching is not sound, promoting error instead of truths.

  7. Since then the direction of sound changes as it passes from a colder to a warmer area, this also is not a refraction, yet there is that Doppler effect where one would receive the pulses of sound at a higher or lower rate. And if at all man will insist upon calling it by the term of refraction, then, for the sake of unity, I will abide by it.

  8. Man has the bad habit of showing light-waves as were they a centimeter or so in width. The first thing then than we should do is - to correlate the size of our eyes with what we are able to see with them. 

  9. When at a distance you are able to see eight little leaves on a flower along with thousands of other flowers, and trees, and buildings along with the clouds in the sky.  How many light-waves do you think will have to enter into your eye simultaneously in order to see all that? 

  10. If you do not get at least 500 of them from each flower, you could not picture them. How many therefore shall it be for the whole view of it?  Unless the tally runs into the billions, many billions, our vision would be severely hampered. 

  11. And thus going by the diameter of any light-wave that I was able to establish, within any single millimeter there is room for a million light-waves side by side, and that in the square comes to a million times a million for a single square millimeter.

  12. Not that we are in need of that many to behold that square millimeter, even 10 or 100 would be more than sufficient. But if we multiply every square millimeter by ten for but a tenth of the view that we are beholding, the tally coming into these little eyeballs of ours seems astronomical, as in fact it is astronomical.

  13. In the tally of ten I reduced our view to but ten percent, since from those parts that are far out we may only see a little yellow of a flower with no other detail thereof.  For all these many millimeters in that flower we may only receive ten total of the whole.

  14. The further an object is from us, the fewer the waves will be, because light is not anything like sound that will continue by a full wave-front. Light for its wave-front at the source is like sound - to flare out, but only into the half of all directions.

  15. For sound it is 360 degrees, for light it is 180 degrees, and light once instigated travels by a single direction each of them in a single line, wherefore as they flare out from the source, the spacing between these lines of light comes to an ever greater distance.

  16. When we look at a point of light in the distance we will receive only those waves which are absolutely directly in line with one of our eyeballs. Those which line up with our nose or ears are not seen. Since then there are so many, and these being so narrow in circumference, and produced on a continual basis, the light seems constant.

  17. And that very constant is again something we should have an understanding of.  If there is but a single wavelet in each 100.000 km coming at us, that amounts to 3 in every second of time, which may not be sufficient for any constant to us. For in our homes the light produced by means of an electrical current is turned off and on at the rate of 60 times each second, an RPM equal to 3600.

  18. At times previous to our age electricity was produced at 50 cycles, instead of 60 as it is now. The reason was that at 50 cycles the light seemed to flicker, in other words its on-off rate was too slow for us whereby we might behold the light at a constant. Our spiritual memory would not maintain the pulses at a rate less than 60 times each second.

  19. But in decoding an entire scene - as we continually do by means of our windows on the world, we in our spiritual being do so at the speed of light or faster still. And that mind you is not by waves of, nor even by the electrical coordinates that transpose the data of those light-waves to our brain, but by what these electrical coordinates instigate for another type of movement within our brain.

  20. A miracle that is what light is yes, but even more so for us to have the ability to decode all that data at the speed of light, and never once do we grow tired of it, or weary in beholding.


  1. Man does know what amplitude is, but in relation to light in working with a none existent wave, his amplitude thereof is likewise none existent. 

  2. As therefore amplitude translates into width, the full diameter, let us by Figure 79-6 here change it to that full diameter of the wave.  And let us view that sine formation as a circular passage around a circumference.  And presto we have a wave that we can deal with.


  1. Then as we do the same thing by Figure 79-7, the top one is for light with the middle for the greater molecular instigated waves, and the bottom for a still greater overall wave formation. If then you break-up those lines in about six sections and trash half of them you will have some illustration of a wave.

  2. Where then by Figure 79-6 it states "oscillation," that is to be changed into - a turn around the circular, or simply the length of a wave, and at that the "Nominal" length of the wave.  

  3. And the word "time," is to be changed into "direction," so that at last we may have this correct, and not be contradictory in ourselves, nor therefore teach our young that which is a conception devoid of physical reality.

  4. If by Figure 79-6 our scientists are attempting to convey that the greater the amplitude, so much the more intense the light will be, don't be fooled by them, since light for its amplitude in all wavelengths holds a single dimension,  a dimension that is only slightly larger than the physical diameter of the Oxygen atoms which we breathe.

  5. Their notion is that for a greater paycheck in your pocket you need a wider check. It is of no relevance if the check be written for $ 100.00 or $ 10.000.00, as long as the paper is wider so the value increases. We of course believe every word of this, as we have been believing it for many years.

  6. If then I will be able to draw you away from fantasy into reality depends upon how well your constitution is able to bear my word. Intensity is a quantity, - not a diameter, nor any measure in circumference, nor what any half dimension may be, but as to how much of it comes at any one moment in time.

  7. From an incandescent light we receive but a small number of waves cut off and on by 60 times each second. From the sun it may be that within each second for the 300.000 km there be 10.000 wavelets, too much for our eyes to look straight into. If then by an atomic explosion that rate comes to 100.000 per second, we may be blinded.

  8. Here is where you find your intensity.  And yes I am indeed conveying - that the wavelets of light are not continues upon any one line of light. These simply are not generated, nor instigated at that rate of.  The atoms as they are manipulated upon do it by cycles of. And so there is still more evidence by which man's sine wave is put on the wayside.

  9. Shall then each particular wavelength travel on its own line of movement? And yes that is quite complementary, but these for various lengths can be upon one and the same line passing over and upon the same atoms by which one of a different length just previously had its passage.

  10. If thus a blue color wave is happily moving upon a set of atoms, and a red color in the rear catches up to it, then these nullify each other, or join to some other specific length.   But how likely shall this be considering how far these wavelets are from one another, and how quickly these will come to their destination?

  11. Moreover, in space there are all these changes in density whereby these are rerouted. Therefore also that which appears to us in the sky, is not only of long ago, but not necessarily in the location that we view them.


  1. I know it is not easy to draw waves according to reality, but man does not seem to take any effort to that end. His illustrations like by Figure wave-1, does convey the difference between one and the other, but they are never as compressed as normally illustrated.

  2. If we take a carrier wave, it is a wave where all the wavelengths are the same, which of course gives it a fixed frequency. If for example we take the 1 meter wave, the frequency is 300.000.000. (One for every meter of its velocity)  But that does not mean that we are in fact receiving 300 million wavelets every second.

  3. It could very well be no more than 100 million, or even ten million. How thus do we speak of frequencies when it is but a loose term to have a 1 meter wavelength with a frequency of events of but 10Mhz when it is rated at 300 Mhz? Nor is it possible for a 1 meter band to have a frequency of 10Ghz, since 300 million is the maximum of a 1 meter band.

  4. At 300 million events per second the wavelets connect end to end, but when spaced by 2 meters the events of a 300Mhz is 100Mvs. (M for million, v for events, s for seconds) And how often will we be able to generate 1 meter waves at a rate of 300 million times a second? For so it must be to have them end on end.


  1. Most likely if we can tap that line by oscillation a million times each second, our 300Mhz stands at 1Mvs. If then we modify, or modulate the frequency, it means we are varying the spacing between the 1 meter wavelets, where for the example we could have 3 spaces, or 10 spaces or any number of spaces between wavelets, and what then would the frequency be?

  2. The fundamental frequency of the 1 meter wave will always remain at 300 million, while the events would change in a number anywhere below 300 million.  This could be used as a code, and in similar manner a change in wavelengths that is called Amplitude Modulation, can be used as a code.

  3. When however we change amplitude on a carrier wave, we are not really as such changing its diameter as much as the angular moments within it, which in turn changes the length of the wave, that then in turn changes the frequency. 

  4. But since we are merely manipulating a set carrier wave we do not set a frequency for them, since of course there may be a thousand different angular moments for a thousand different lengths, and a thousand different rates of frequencies.

  5. And to shed more light on the natures of waves and how they travel, by Figure wave-2, there is a tube for the transmission of the waves in the optic range. Contrary now to most other waves this range of wavelengths holds a fixed diameter, a circumference large enough to pass around the atoms.

  6. If a wave for its amplitude, which is diameter all the same, were but half the physical size of the atoms by which it is to pass, it could not pass them by, but be blocked. If then these waves are blocked by something larger than the atoms, like the connecting points between atoms, it for example renders the bottom of the oceans invisible to us.

  7. A circumference of about 4.84a is thus imperative by which any wave may travel, any larger amplitude will simply pass along whole molecules by the tens or the thousand, and even millions within their circumference.  It is the size of the atom that limits the physical diameter of a wave.

  8. In the optic range, as illustrated here, there are 3000 numerical lengths between the 4000a and 7000a, with each in a division of 100 there can be 300.000 different shades of color. And how do these travel when the diameter is the same for all of them?  

  9. That comes to none other than angular moments, the angle at which they are induced, which as such makes for lengths as well as frequencies. Not that lengths nor frequencies are of any reality since these come forth by none other than the calculus. It is angular moment that makes for the wave.

  10. And so at last we have a real rendition of what waves are.

  11. The illustration then shows but 5 of the 3000 possible angular moments that can be passed by that tube.  Sunlight thus may have anywhere from a thousand to 10 thousand different angular moments that of course translates in to different lengths as well, which in turn can be calculated into frequencies.


  1. But even more so, each one of these different angular moments in their lengths will compute into a different relative velocity. Since then the red 700nm wave travels 155 km/sec faster than the blue 400nm wave, how do these pass upon one and the same line of movement without interfering with one another?

  2. If at point B we have a 400 wave traveling at 299.637 km/sec, and in 1/100 of a second a 700 at point A, starts out on the same line, it would be 300 km in the rear. If then we proceed to the first second in time, from B to C, the 300 km distance would be shortened by 155 km down to 145 km.

  3. In the next second, the 700 wave would pass the 400 wave by 10 km, or the two could have collided with one another 10 km ago.  And how likely is a scenario like this to occur?  If we send a signal from LA to Amsterdam, about 9000 km, it would get there in 0.03 of a single second.

  4. This means that the 700 wave would barely be beyond point A, and the 400 wave barely beyond B.  For in two seconds of time it would have gone 14 times around the whole earth.  So how does that work with the light from the sun in taking 480 seconds to get to us?

  5. Well for one thing there is 4.84A in the circumference, so when a blue is at the top with a red at the same instance on the bottom, the red will pass the blue. The chances of one striking directly upon the other may be a hundred or a thousand to one. For look at our lakes and oceans the only thing standing in the way of the light to reach the bottom of the ocean, are those hydrogen atoms sticking out on the side of the atoms of oxygen.

  6. In the air the light pass the oxygen atoms with no problem, but in water there are obstructions on those oxygen atoms, obstructions that will arrest any of light's waves should the forward point of their angular moment strike directly upon it. And it does so sooner or later, yet it may pass millions if not trillions of these H2O molecules before it is finally arrested.

  7. By illustration Figure wave-3, at X, a 1 meter wave has nearly a 5mm diameter, but the length in the illustration should have to be drawn much longer.  It for all that it may appear to us is like a #14 wire 1 meter long, along which there is but a single turn around the circumference.

  8. This at least is showing a wave more to its reality, and not like man by Figure wave-1.  At Z, with the diameter way out of proportion a modulation upon that wave may appear like P, but never at all like N. 


  1. If we draw a wave like at N, we are forgetting what a wave is and by what velocity it proceeds onward.  At the speed of 300 million meters a second it is not likely to make any kind of right angle turns. By N it would have to make 4 right angle turns which it could only perform if it were going as slow as sound, nor even then would it do so.

  2. We can illustrate just about anything that we can dream up, but dreams do not make for reality. In what fraction of a second will a wave pass a 1mm length? And how many atoms were there in that single mm?  Need I say more?

  3. At section Y, with three 1 meter wavelets within 1 kilometer there is a spacing of 333.3 meters. The frequency here is 300Mhz, the events are 100Mvs.

  4. And now to speak of 'Intensity.' Whenever the number of events increases so does intensity. Or, whenever the number of waves per given area increases so intensity increases. And also an increase in the strength or power of the pulses will increase intensity.

  5. In the 1 meter wave from a 3Mvs, to a 30Mvs is a ten percent  increase in intensity.  And from 3Mvs to a full 300Mvs which is equal to 300Mhz, there is a 100 percent increase in intensity.  For light in the 400nm range there are a possible of 2.5 million wavelets in any meter, that for any one second in time comes to 2.5 million times 300 million is 750 trillion.

  6. If then only one million of these entered our eyes per second in time, (1Mvs) we would see most perfectly. That then leaves 750 million open places in that line of light. (One wavelet per 750)


  1. We have it firm within ourselves that the speed of light in space stands at 299.792 km/sec, and that in coming upon our atmosphere it slows down by a margin of 90 km/sec, an index set at 1.0003.  

  2. That velocity then is also called; "The vacuum velocity" since it was taken in a vacuum, or so we were told. The vacuum then that man is speaking of is not the same as space, nor does it make sense to compare the vacuum of space to a margin of 1.0003 for air.

  3. In this thing we must be poor in correlation, for what in fact we with our index are saying is, that for every 1000 atoms in any given area of our air there are 997 atoms in the vacuum of space, we are teaching our pupils that space is nearly as dense as our air.  

  4. Or shall it be that for 300.000 atoms in air there are 30 in space?  If so, than space is still not as devoid as the blind claim it to be.  If space is 0.0003% in density to air - how then is the reduction in its velocity a mere 90-km/s?

  5. None of this seems to be correct, as of course it is not correct, and implicates our space velocity also to be incorrect.  And how do we resolve this?  For all reality it appears that our - so called - space velocity is but the speed at which light travels in the upper regions of our atmosphere, and that it does not reflect upon deep space.

  6. Light for all that it shows to us is very much susceptible to each and every atom in its path, evident even from its refraction just inches above a hot roadbed.  Here, a minor change in the spacing of the atoms already causes the light to expand. (Red shift)

  7. Density has its relevance as to how many atoms or molecules there are in any given area, for as the atoms are packed closer and closer together that also refers to density. Are we then to believe that space is nearly as dense as the air that we breathe?

  8. If that were so, why do we call our atmosphere, an atmosphere when all of space is atmosphere as well? And why do we call that speed of light a vacuum velocity, when by our own standards there is no vacuum?  These things are much too contradictory to be taken seriously.

  9. We just saw how very susceptible light is to each and every atom in its path, if then there be no atoms at all, to have a vacuum, how does light conduct itself in a vacuum? If for each 5000A long wavelength of light there are at least 2 atoms to conduct the same, their spacing is at 2500A.

  10. Within our air where the spacing is approximately 5A, it means that there are 1000 atoms for each 5000A wavelength. This comes to an index that is a far cry from 1.0003, and that all in itself is not even a vacuum.  

  11. So how did we come to that notion of space as a vacuum, and yet so dense?  And for light to travel in a vacuum only marginally faster than in air, while light does contact itself upon every atom that it passes?

  12. When in rising up from the earth and speaking to one another at close range - when at last we can no longer hear what the other fellow is saying - then I would conclude for us to have come to that point in distance where the atoms no longer make contact upon one another. That area then may be called space, a region beyond our atmosphere.

  13. And so the question remains; "What is the speed of light in space?"  And; "What will the index be from space to the entry of our atmosphere?"  For I truly believe that our index of 1 pertains to that space marginally beyond our atmosphere.

  14.  I think we ought to fill a container a million miles out and come to compare its density with that which we breathe.

  15. Then of course there is that shockwave that would not exist if space were empty, or the Aurora that is produced on account of it. And where we fancy our earthís magnetic field to stretch out so long on account of our velocity, we ought to think twice - since our 15km/sec speed is but like the turtle to the hare compared to the speed at which magnetic moves.

  16. Formerly, going by what our scientists to date have established for light in space, a velocity of 299.792 km/sec, it came to an amplitude (diameter) of 1.5415A, which is more than sufficient whereby to pass around all the atoms in our air that do not have a diameter of much more than 1A.

  17. On account of this it is safe to conclude that we are on the right track not only for the correct amplitude but for the constant of the velocity as well that we, or actually - that I arbitrarily placed at 300.000 km/sec.  It as such is the magnetic velocity, the singular speed at which all magnetic movement passes.

  18. And while the compass aligns itself with these straight line movements, how are we to measure the speed of a straight line of movement? For unless and until there is an angular moment upon such a line there is no way for us to count, nor discover any of those frequencies, nor waves in lengths of.

  19. By any radio wave we are to put dents into the line that can then be read at the other end. But upon a straight line nothing at all can be read, nor therefore can we measure what the constant in velocity is of the magnetic movement, other than by putting dents into it. 

  20. As then by these dents the velocity for distance in time obviously comes to a measure somewhat less than the constant, we ought to refer to that velocity as its, or the "Relative Velocity, all because it is relative, and that for distance in time. 

  21. If now I am as yet too deep to follow, understand that when traveling in a straight line from LA to NY it would be within a shorter time period, as while en-route at each 100 miles you jag to one side and back again during your entire journey.

  22. For that is how all magnetic waves travel, light, radio, microwaves and what all there is within that magnetic spectrum. And while they do so - proceeding in a straight line with their dents upon them - they come to rotate around all the many atoms and molecules, as well as molecular grids in their way.

  23. The reason or the cause for their rotation - lies in their angular moments, in their dents so to say, that have been forced upon them by a circular inducement. That is also why light looks at every atom in its path passing around its outer circumference and never once invading its interior, by which of course it would be stopped dead in its track.

  24. How thus was I able to determine the velocity of a straight line that as such placed itself for a constant in velocity? I did so on the basis of our relative velocities verses the atomic dimensions.  When for example we have two figures we can always find the third. But I had only one figure by which to find the two others. 

  25. All I had was the speed of light at 299.792, unto which I had to take an arbitrary figure into the computation and see if these would jibe.  And so it was that I came to assume that constant of velocity to reside at 300.000 km/sec. (Vc.), whereby the amplitude came to a right measure.

  26. If for the example - by taking a different rate of constant the amplitude would have come to less than 1A, I would be wrong since that is too narrow by which light may pass around the molecules of our air.  Or if it had come to some 2A or 3A in diameter, I would again be wrong for then most everything in this world would be transparent like unto our air.

  27. If light for the example had an amplitude of 3A it might come clear to the bottom of the ocean passing all those H2O molecules. And/or pass through our stucco walls just as our radio waves pass through our walls be they of stucco or even metal, since these waves pass by a greater amplitude than those of light.

  28. Since thus by my arbitrary measure of 300.000 km/sec, the amplitude came to the right measure for passing in air, but not sufficient to pass by the larger atoms, or molecules, nature all in itself bore me witness. 

  29. But do not at this point think that I have it all figured out, or that I may be correct in everything.  Yet I do know that light is stopped in its track not only for atoms that are larger than its amplitude, but primarily by molecules in their connecting points to one another.

  30. Light in all respects finds a safe passage when the atoms are free floating, or when they are neatly arranged for them to pass as in glass and ice, as well as water. In the latter however it is but semi safe by virtue of the connecting points between atoms.

  31. In all of the figures that we have used so far (in this page) we went by the assumption that as the light is shifted, being compressed or expanded, it holds a firm diameter, like as in the illustration here the spring when compressed or expanded keeps an unchanging diameter.


  1. Our question then becomes if that is true with light, or if by any compression its diameter also changes?  Frankly speaking I cannot guarantee that it will or that it won't.  We can make assumptions, but that is just it - assumptions, not necessarily facts.

  2. If per example the amplitude of light in deep space were no more than 1A that would give us a circumference of no more than 3.14A, and that into the constant of 300.000 (Vc), the velocity would come to a Relative Velocity (Rv) of 299.865 km/sec.

  3. But this serves us with some complications, in that then as the light entered upon our atmosphere - its amplitude would be too narrow whereby to pass along those molecules of Nitrogen and Oxygen. If thus the light did not expand itself while it was being compressed how would it pass through our air? 

  4. If on the other hand light has at all times a fixed amplitude, how is it to pass in deep space with nothing more than Hydrogen atoms lightly distributed?  Or, if we change my arbitrary measure of the magnetic constant to be greater than 300.000 km/sec, everything else changes as well. And we will have to start all over with the indexes that we have and our amplitude.

  5. If now on the assumption that the diameter of light will increase by any compression upon it, and decrease by any expansion upon it, where will that bring us when I take the amplitude of light in deep space at 0.86 of an angstrom? 

  6. 0.86A to circumference gives us an angular wavelength of 7002.7004A and that into the Vc comes to an Rv of 299.884 km/sec. That all in itself is but 182 km/sec faster than what it travels in the air. (Also indicating that there is a lot of spacing between the molecules of our air.)

  7. As then our understanding in the configuration of a wavelet is - as were it a long stretched out coiled spring, its configuration in the space of 7000A is but a single turn in the width of from 0.86A to 1.54A.

  8. Let thus this figure of 299.884 km/sec, (of the 7000A) be a new velocity by which light travels in space, after which when entering upon any area in space or atmosphere where it encounters atoms the size of Oxygen and/or Nitrogen it comes to expand its 0.86A amplitude to 1.5415A in diameter.

  1. From point X to pint Y in the illustration Figure 79-8, let it be considered deep space where the diameter of the parts do not exceed much over one half of an angstrom. The light then as it must proceed by physical contact upon these parts automatically adjusts itself that as such comes to an amplitude of about 0.86A.

  2. Then in coming upon the clouds in space, or any atmosphere, (Y to Z) in which the parts come to a diameter of about 1A, it as such pulls itself around these parts all because these are free floating with no connecting points to other parts by which the light may be obstructed.

  3. The light thus in making contact with these larger atoms automatically adjusts its physical diameter to a larger scale, like the one that we mathematically established at 1.5415A.  From here when the light comes upon a density such as glass its now existing diameter for amplitude will not increase any further.  And that for two reasons.

  4. First, because the atoms within that glass are not any larger than those within the air. Secondly, these atoms are so arranged in their grid, as well as in the spacing thereof - that allows for a semi safe passage of the light.  (Also obvious from the clouds in the sky.)

  5. I then said, semi-safe since these atoms all have connecting points by which if the most forward point of the light strikes upon them, instead of over or under them - it will be arrested.  And of course the atoms in that glass being much closer spaced than those in the air, the light takes on a more angular route.

  6. Conclusively as there is a blue shift and a red shift, a compression and expansion of the wavelets to their lengths, there may also be a change in amplitude, which I do not want to call compression nor expansion because it is a mere adjustment of the light as it reaches out in making contact upon the parts in its path.

  7. That adjustment then is primarily or exclusively found in space where for large areas only the smallest of atoms may be found.  Most everywhere else, and for our purpose we best hold ourselves to our nominal amplitude of around 1.50.

  8. Since therefore as a standard we must keep to a single amplitude, and a single constant of velocity, let us maintain our magnetic velocity at 300.000 km/sec, whereby all our relative velocities of light may be obtained, as well as our index to retardation that is based on 299.792 km/sec, the latter as a densely space velocity, or upper atmosphere velocity.

  9. If then we discover that there is but a single amplitude for light even in space, we will be the wiser with this conclusion that space is not anywhere near as empty as we are sometimes led to believe. Nor therefore should we take any measure of velocity in a vacuum.

  10. Personally I believe that light holds a fixed diameter in the range of 1.5A here and in space, because once it is instigated it holds itself by it, and for the octave of light can't be much less than 1.5A in diameter. The same however may not be true for the longer waves passing in the molecular magnitude.


  1. I once placed this question on the web as to which one of the more than 3000 wavelengths this - so called - space velocity of man applied. The answer that I received did of course show man to be fit for the scrap-heap to reply to me with a bunch of his blind hypocrisy.

  2. The answer was that they did not consider the variations in wavelengths. In other words - that their velocity was no more than a rounded number. But that reply by all means makes these men out for liars and cheats, for criminals and foul hypocrites.

  3. And how is that so? Have you ever noticed how when they plot down that - so called - space velocity of theirs, they add the fractions of 458 to it? And so what does that tell us? It tells us that these blind bats are priding themselves as if they were accurate to the fraction of a kilometer.

  4. Therefore did I label them as hypocrites when by their own split tongue they do not even consider the 3000 to 3 million variations in velocity by which that velocity was established. How and why therefore are these fractions added - if not because they are more ignorant than their own lips reveal themselves.

  5. Or shall these really be hypocrites, and not rather that they have been injected with the poison of Einstein, and once injected with his poison, his death is imminent, wherefore they cannot know better.

  6. One of the reason that they do not bother with a wavelength for their velocity is that in the first place these have no idea as to how to calculate the velocity of any wavelength. They have made light a none existent phenomena even though it is all around them - all because they say that it is formed by electrons. In other words by them it is an ant to tackle an elephant.

  7. Unless one specifies a wavelength there is no way to describe the velocity of light seeing how each varied wavelength travels at different velocities, and these hypocrites do in fact know it, wherefore they have no excuse nor any defense.

  8. And when someone asks them for a specific velocity in some density - these brainless wonders proudly acclaim to know about the index of refraction.  But then have the gall to make their calculation from the figure of 300.000 km/s.

  9. That index then - as they very well know - does not apply to 300.000, but to the 299.792.  If then one is making a example by a rounded number - fine, but if the question is to something accurate, one should at least attempt to be accurate, or for the same - be accurate

  10. These blind ones among humanity now know it, yet do not utilize it, wherefore in fact they are lying through their teeth, showing themselves for liars, something they learned from the devil and his sons, from a vipers-brood.

  11. Their answer to the people, and/or their pupils are lies, and at that intended lies. All that together with their accursed pride and arrogance in adding the fractions of a kilometer to their rounded number all in an effort to show themselves for - the brainless wonders that they indeed are.

  12. And as if that is not enough of their hypocrisy and stupidity they add to say that in space there is but a single velocity of light, meaning how all wavelengths in space travel with the same relative velocity.

  13. Do I now have to comment on this, on such stupidity?  From whom now did they learn that - if not from their Einstein, from the most ignorant person ever to be known in the sciences.

  14.  Their version is that in the air light acts like a bird with two wings, but in space that bird has no wings, no head and no tail, as well as no feet, nor as much as a body.  For that is what these wonders are in fact acclaiming.

  15. Is it any wonder that I detest them as a brood of vipers, for so their teachers are, a brood of vipers. And anyone who pays them heed will be injected with their poison to likewise die the death of the uncircumcised.

  16. For they are uncircumcised on the ear as well as everywhere in between, dulled with the poison of deceit and of hypocrisy. So are your men of the sciences, not a grain better than those accursed priests as also sons of the devil, a true vipers-brood as the Lord calls them, and I no less.

  17. Anyone who is so careless to wander into a nest of vipers is bound to bitten by them, and as such becomes an accessory to their lying lips and foul teaching. So are your masters in the sciences dulled with the poison of asps.

  18. It is a grave error for any person to enter into man's schools for the sciences, since it will brainwash him to the point of becoming a vegetable.

  19. As then the Lord said;  "No one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, `The old is good." So who is to drink of this new wine from my hand? It is with a rod upon their backs so they will have to learn.

  20. For thus spoke the Lord: "This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

  21. And; "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."  Therefore men will not reply to me lest they become known for a delusion, or vegetable.


  1. Now that we have spoken of light for its velocity, we ought to have a closer look at those densities. We for example conceive as if the molecules of air are close together here on earth as well as in space.  And at the same time we presume outer space to in all essence be nearly devoid of atoms and or molecules.

  2. But with our understanding of light in how and by what it travels - as well as its velocity within air and space - the above presumptions do not make sense. And so how dense is our air? What is the spacing of those molecules that make up our air?

  3. If before all else we can determine what the spacing between them is, we, by the size of these molecules will be able to determine how many of these will fit within any given area.  As thus air is compressible while water is not. Our quest should be in just how and why that may be so in each of them.  

  4. Logically speaking, in water we would say for all these H2O molecules to rest directly one upon the other, with no real spacing between them, wherefore water is not compressible.  But air is very much compressible wherefore logically speaking those atom-molecules of air must be spaced apart from one another.   And how far might that be?

  5. When water is heated to over 220-F, the molecules push themselves away from each other turning from a liquid state into a gaseous state. And that mind you not by any small degree, one gallon of water will fill a large tank with steam.  And that steam is compressible. 

  6. Or should I have said; "That now that water is compressible?"  For it is after all water in a gaseous state.  And so the answer to our question as to why that water is now compressible - because there is now a spacing between all these molecules that we with any due force upon them are able to reduce, literally driving them back one to the other.

  7. This of course in the resistance that these molecules pose towards our force turns into a pressure reading. And that pressure can be raised quite high in that for every ounce of force we utilize to drive these molecules closer together, they in turn will resist us ounce for ounce. And when raised too high it is known to blow the whole container to pieces.

  8. Now days one has to have a license and be well qualified to even operate a steam locomotive.  Steam at high pressure is like a powerful magnetic motor, which can just as easily tear things to pieces.   And what then is my drift, but to convey that the pressure in steam is the repellent force of magnetic, untold many molecules holding themselves magnetically at bay.

  9. Air then is like water when turned into a gaseous state, it also is compressible wherefore the molecules of which our air consists are all spaced apart, all of them magnetically holding themselves at bay, and freely rolling along one another.

  10. If now I were to make a comment saying; "And why should they not be spaced apart by the repulsive forces of their magnetic fields?" I would be unfair, since the H2O molecule below 200 degrees also are joined magnetically, yet these pack themselves closer together, while freely rolling along one another.

  11. And the same is true for oil, and gasoline, and the grains of sand, and our oranges, and grapes.  And while the molecules of air also move freely among one another with the slightest of touch, they do not pack themselves together like others in their liquid state, but show a field of force around themselves larger than the molecule all by itself.

  12. And just how large might that be? The answer for it will also be contingent upon the specific temperature of that air, meaning, at what rate of movement these part are.  Nor is it any secret that all types of magnetic components show a due extension of their field around themselves.

  13. The diameter of the wire in Figure 79-10 is but small compared to the diameter by which the rotational magnetic current upon the wire extends itself, and that is but for a nominal voltage.  It becomes quite different when we attempt to string a high voltage wire illustrated by Figure 79-9, where for the greater extension we must utilize long porcelain holders.

  14. How far apart therefore will the atom/molecules of Nitrogen and Oxygen be at the average temperature on earth? The reason that on occasion I call them by the term of atom, as well as molecule is because these are essentially molecules acting as atoms.  Two atoms packed closely together acting as a single unit.

  15. A molecule, though it is technically 2 or more atoms, is generally a series of atoms, and behaves like a molecule.  In contrast to this the typical molecule of air does not behave like a molecule but more like an atom, like a single unit.  Therefore the term atom/molecule, but for simplicity allow me to refer to them as just atoms.

  16. When by Figure 79-11 we view these two magnets as atoms of our air, and for their repelling movements, (directionally none conductive movement) - these maintain a fixed distance between each other. 


  1. If then we come to apply sufficient force upon them till at last the spacing between those two polar ends comes to nothing, the objects fully seated upon one another, we might then conclude to have reached the full state of compression, that after this with more and more force there is no further compression like as with water and hydraulic fluid.

  2. How much force thus will we have to bring to bear in order to reach that point with the atoms of our air?  It has been said that the limit for pressurizing air comes to some 6000 PSI. But that in itself does not guarantee that at that pressure all of the spacing between the atoms is taken up.

  3. We have to combine volume along with pressure in order to fill our quest.  And so if we added 1/10th of a cube to a full cube of air in a sealed container, what will the pressure be?  If it be 150 PSI, then 1/10 of a cubical volume raised the pressure by 10 percent.

  4. If by adding another 1/10th of a cube the pressure came to 1500 PSI, there is again a tenfold increase in pressure with a volume of no more than ten percent.  If then by example we forced a full cubic of air in with another full cubic of air and the pressure came to 3000 PSI.

  5. We would theoretically have reduced the spacing between atoms to one half. And if by adding 2 cubic volumes to 1 cubic volume, we will have 3 cubic volumes in the nominal space of one.  If then the pressure comes to 6000 PSI, and we are no longer able to add any more air into it, we as such may have reached the limit.

  6. Meaning; at 6000 PSI within a temperature not exceeding 100 degree Fahrenheit, upon a trice volume, the air has become incompressible like unto water or oils.  Shall it then be safe for us to conclude that we have taken out all the spacing between these atoms, and that they are now like our magnets in Figure 79-11 resting upon one another body to body?

  7. Good question is it not?  And if so, at normal temperature, and in the open, the spacing between these atoms must be two to one, that the spacing for each is trice the size of the atoms, that then comes to a large distance between atoms. If then we heat the air when it is at 6000 PSI and the pressure increases it may not necessarily be for any less spacing.

  8. For just as the field of an electrical current expands when we increase its rotational movement, the increase in pressure may simply be due to the increased power of their magnetic fields.  If thus no more air can be added after the 6000 PSI we should then have our answer in just how far the atoms in air are spaced apart, and how many of them may be found in any given area.

  9. No doubt there are those among us that would like to perform this experiment if for no better reason than to enhance our knowledge in the nature that is all around us.  I for one would, but not having the proper tools, and my bones getting to be too old, I will have to leave this for others.

  10. Then there are those hexagon shapes in the molecular grids by which there is a lot of open space, yet these seem to be none compressible.  A substance of that structure with all these open holes exert so much magnetic force upon one another that we are not likely to bring any kind of compression upon them.

  11. I mentioned this so as not to have us believe that all the open spaces in any kind of grid must be taken out for it to be none compressible.  This of course is more pronounced with molecular arrangement than with free-floating atoms. But even with them the potential of their magnetic force may exceed our means of compression.

  12. By the illustration Figure 79-12 I drew up what I suspect our air looks like if at all we could see these atoms close-up.  If then we look for scale - consider my illustration to pertain to the Polar Regions, air at below zero temperature, with a greater spacing near or at the equator.

  13. This on my part is an assumption that may or may not be correct.  Fundamentally it is correct, that with higher temperatures the atoms come to be spaced further apart, but for any drastic changes there may be cut-off points, like water into steam at 220 degrees. 


  1. Or, water at zero degrees into ice, whereby instead of taking up less space - it takes up more space. (About 10 percent) While after this by deceasing the temperature more and more there is no change in the cubical volume of the ice.

  2. And here again if we note how much open space there is in the structure of ice, the same volume in liquid form (water) is but less by about 10 percent, and that as such concludes how among all these H2O molecules there is still a fair amount of open space, while at the same time that water is none compressible.

  3. In no uncertain terms, magnetic force for its power of is nothing to sneeze about. Even at the stars however hot these may be, and by what intense pressure its plasma may be shot out - magnetic force for its power is well able to hold onto it.

  4. If we have a gallon of gasoline in a plastic container sealed in a cool area, and we place it in the sun the gasoline will expand and pressurize the container. Our conclusion then is that the molecules came to a greater spacing. And correct we are, but how at fundamental levels did that come about?

  5. It came about for the same reason that the power companies hang their high voltage wires far from any metal. A higher degree of temperature means a faster rate of movement upon the atoms in their spinning mode by which their magnetic field of flux is expanded.

  6. Figure 79-13 now demonstrates a molecule of water that also at normal temperatures appears to act as were it a single unit. And like those of air it also has the means to conceal its field for a conductive pull - to in some degree remain separate from one another, and yet for whatever open space there is that water is none compressible.

  7. And so while we call it a molecule, and it counts as one, it acts nonetheless as were it but a single unit of force and of power.  For not until itís internal movements are lowered to zero degrees will it open itself up for any connection to others of its kind.  Or when its internal movement is raised to above 220 degrees it will expand itself but still not open itself for any connection to others of its kind.

  8. There are of course other ways to determine the dimensions of certain objects.   If for the example we have a magnet 2 inches in diameter, but we do not know that it is 2 inches in diameter since we are not able to see that magnet, how do we measure it?  

  9. We could take two other magnets in hand and inching our way towards that which is not visible, we reason that when these magnets come to a resistance we will have come upon the borders of that invisible object.  Then assume the distance between our two hand-held objects to be the diameter of that invisible object.  

  10. But we are wrong, are we not?  For if our measure came to 4 or 6 inches did we then measure the object for its bodily size or not rather for its field of force?  For how can we possibly measure any unseen magnetic entity for its bodily width when our tape measure is at all times stopped and/or affected by the field of force that surrounds all such magnetic entities? 

  11. The fact that liquids are not compressible, which are made up of molecules at random, also conveys for a degree of open space to exist that is kept open by not only its structural design, but equally as much by the power of magnetic to hold them by these designs. 

  12. If now for the molecule of Oxygen we give it a measure of 1.5a by 3a, we may be wrong in two ways. And the same goes for Hydrogen to state that it has a diameter equal to 0.1 nanometers - that to me starts to reveals the dimension of its field of force. By which - if I am allowed to estimate its physical dimension - must be somewhere around 0.075nm, three quarters of a single angstrom.

  13. The real proportions of the Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules, if I am again allowed to estimate, should be 1 to 1.5, or 1.6.  That is - not counting their fields of force extended outwards and away from them, which in turn are again relevant to the degree of temperature in which they may be found.

  14. For like by a higher and higher rotational velocity that we bring upon a wire, its field of force is extended, the same is true for all atoms in their rotational velocity, and mostly observed by the gaseous, or lighter elements, since those atoms that are packed neatly together in wood or steel, are for that reason alone unable to show that extension in themselves.

  15. And there may be variances, we know that air at 100/F is thinner than at 60/F, but what about 60/F verses air at 60/f below zero? Meaning, are there points at which there is no change, like ice for its volume at zero and at 40 below zero?


  1. One example that may serve as a hint is shown by Figure 79-14. The atom of Oxygen with its wide field around that has the unique ability to mask its polarities.  While by lower temperatures the field narrows down whereby its polarities become more profound, as in opening up

  2. In the higher rate of spin the polar lines of movement are drawn towards the areas noted 'A', while in the lower rate of spin these rise up to the North making it more profound. (Y to X).  

  3. If we take a ball magnet with an aluminum shaft at its polarities, and turn it at high rpm, better than 100.000. Then with our probes all around we can take our tests.  This of course is just an idea that for its reality stands to be seen.

  4. Most marvelous as all these things are, what all they will do, and wont do when their internal movements are either raised or lowered.  And this coincides with what I spoke of in several other pages, how the atoms are indeed like magnets, but that there is a difference in magnets from magnets, the ones residing in the third magnitude of nature to those residing in the atomic realm, the first magnitude of nature.

  5. That is also why I said that instead of calling them by the term of magnetic I preferred the term conductive. To refer to them as having conductive movement, which of course is properly called directionally conductive movement.    

  6. Since then all magnets of any kind also consist of directionally conductive movement, it may be hard to tell the two apart. Nor can I go into any deeper understanding thereof.

  Next page