RED SHIFT INTO RADIAL VELOCITY
Send to General Science Journal on Jan 2-2015.
Published Jan 2-2015
Introduction.
Science, by Hubble's constant (Ref 1), has it that wavelength determines velocity, and that a change in it - is an equal change in velocity. This is found to be wrong, in that velocity is at all times determined by three factors, by the magnetic constant of velocity in relevance to length and amplitude.
Utilizing Hubble's constant a radial velocity will come a speed many times greater than what the factual shift in wavelength indicates. We therefore have as yet to acquire an insight into the mathematics by which radial velocities are to be calculated such as is presented here.
ARTICLE
There is a discrepancy in man's interpretation and calculations of red shifts. And to take those for comparison allow me to explain once again what the conventional way is whereby to calculate light's velocity by any wavelength thereof.
By Figure 80-1, from zero to near 5 is a wavelength of 4861A, to pass by a circumference of 4.84A. The total length therefore comes to 4865.84^{A}, that it at the speed of 300.000-km/sec must pass the nominal 4861^{A }length of the wave.
When therefore we divide its full angular length of 4865.84^{A } by its speed at 300.000-km/sec, and multiply it by the nominal length, it gives us the true and correct velocity of that wave for distance in time.
Figure 80-1
Below is a quotation in the calculation of the radial velocity of a distant galaxy.
Absorption lines of hydrogen, normally measured to be at 4861Å and 6563Å, are measured in the spectrum of a particular galaxy to be at 4923Å and 6647Å. The speed of light, c, has a constant value of 300,000 km/sec. Therefore this galaxy has a red shift of
z = [(4923 - 4861) / 4861] and z = [(6647 - 6563) / 6563] z = [62 / 4861] and z = [84 / 6563] z = 0.01275
It thus is moving away from us with a velocity, v = c * z = 300,000 km/sec * 0.01275 = 3826 km/sec
(Ref-2)
And so let us re-calculate this the conventional way rather than Hubble's way, and utilize the waves circumference at 4.84^{A} as a standard for it. For this is absolute that for any wave velocity both its length and amplitude enter into the calculation.
Laboratory velocities as noted
4861 + 4.84 = 4865.84 | : 300.000 x 4861 = 299.701-km/sec |
6563 + 4.84 = 6567.84 | : 300.000 x 6563 = 299.779-km/sec |
Radial velocities as noted Difference
4923 + 4.84 = 4927.84 | : 300.000 x 4923 = 299.705-km/sec | (299.705 minus 299.701 = 4-km/sec) |
6647 + 4.84 = 6651.84 | : 300.000 x 6647 = 299.782-km/sec | (299.782 minus 299.778 = 4-km/sec) |
And so it shows that we need not take both of the lines of hydrogen to enter into any computations since any one will do, both of them coming to 4 km/sec. It should be obvious that when anyone wavelength is expanded by a radial velocity - all of them will be equally expanded.
For a fact, this galaxy is receding at a velocity of no more than 4-km/sec, while science has it at 3826-km/sec. No small difference is it?
How therefore can man be so much in error, since we - as we know - in this case we cannot be in error? If anyone insist that we should be using a different amplitude, that would make no difference, for then the figures would be somewhat different, but the outcome would be the same.
Just look at that illustration Figure 80-1 how that wave was expanded by but a marginal amount, a mere 62^{A}, that for its new velocity - for distance in time - cannot come to anything more than 4-km/sec.
So what is wrong with their calculations, and how did they manage to come to such an erroneous conclusion? And yes we know how, - since 0.01275 into 300.000 comes to 3826-km/sec. The 62A in expansion then comes to 1.28 percent in the length of the wave. Did then the 299.701-km/sec speed of the wave increase by 1.28%?
The answer is NO, since velocity is not exclusively linked to just the length of a wave but to its amplitude and the magnetic constant as well. A percentage in expansion of mere angstroms does not warrant to multiply the same directly into kilometers, instead, we are to use proper mathematics with the proper relevant factors.
The light as it was traveling away from that galaxy was moving at a clip of 299.701-km/sec. If then the galaxy receded from it by 3826-km/sec, that adds up to 300.027-km/sec, a velocity faster than the constant of all magnetic when it is a straight line.
The question thus becomes, how something that moves at a speed of 299.701-km/sec can tear itself away from a moving object at 3826-km/sec in the opposite direction? It of course must go by the sum of those velocities - must it not?
If we take a 550nm wavelength, and expand it to 600nm, an increase of 11 percent, and we find 11 percent of 300.000, to be 33.000, and that added to the 299.736-km/sec by which the 550nm wave normally travels, it would come to a velocity at 332.736-km/sec.
That mind you is 32.736-km/sec faster than the constant, while we know no wave can exceed its constant, but that at all times the relative velocity of light must of necessity be less than the constant. I said, of necessity since a wave is a wave, a line into the linear with an angular deviation upon it.
I now might congratulate man in setting 300.000-km/sec as the constant in velocity whereby to calculate light's particulars, but it is yet for man to learn that there are always two velocities of light to reckon with. And how imperative the amplitude of any wave is for its velocity in the calculations thereof, and that amplitude has nothing at all in common with intensity. (Ref-3 Page 79, "Frequency")
But let us be realistic in how with this wavelet of 4861^{A} that normally travels at 299.701-km/sec, and red shifted to 4923^{A} comes to a new velocity of 299.705.3475-km/sec. And how will that appear when it arrives at mother earth to enter upon the density of the air that we breathe?
According to our classroom science it must come to a compression by an index of 1.0003. A reduction in velocity down by 90-km/sec to 299.615-km/sec, And again by the same index a reduction in wavelength down from 4923^{A} to 4921^{A}, a blue shift in wavelength of no more than 2 angstroms. This, for all its worth is a marginal amount, and that mind you is to make for 90-km/sec?
The real velocity of the new blue shifted wave down to 4921A, is 299.705.2279-km/s. The difference in velocity here does not even amount to a single kilometer, since 0.2279 from 0.3475 = 0.1196 of a kilometer. How therefore do we say that its velocity slowed by 90-km, when its factual reduction in wavelength amounts to not even a single kilometer?
Obviously there is something very wrong with the index when applied to wavelengths. The reason for it lies in the fact that this - is not - how the calculations are done, namely to draw a straight line between length and velocity, or as we say, - to rake them over the same comb, since we are omitting the amplitude of the wave, that by all means must enter into the calculations.
It is after all a fact that a wave is a wave, and a wave is not a straight line. As therefore there must always be an angular moment in any wave - we are to account for it. A mere 2 angstrom change cannot be held for 90-km, when the wave itself calls for a much greater reduction in length whereby to come to 90-km.
WE CANNOT GO BY PERCENTAGES. Percentage in all respects is a straight line, a two dimensional computation, while all waves demand a three dimensional calculation, a three point factor.
Since then the index of air reduced the velocity of that wave to 299.615-km/s, by what wavelength shall that velocity come to bear? Our index shows it at 4921A, but the index is a liar, a liar for length that is, since that velocity of 299.615-km/s - in utilizing all three of the factors required in the computation - is found with a wavelength of 3775A. The true reduction in wavelength thus came to 1148A, which for velocity came to its 90-km reduction.
Spectral readings should bear this out, how a 4921A wave in entering upon our atmosphere will be reduced to 3775A, that then for its radial shift of 1148A comes to 90-km/sec. And if not, either our index for velocity is in error, or we read our spectral shift in error.
From our observatories everything that we read must show a blue shift, a negative radial velocity to the tune of 90 km/sec, along with our radial velocity around the sun.
How thus, so anyone should question himself, can we possibly interpret a 62A shift into a 3826-km/sec radial velocity, when it takes a 1148A shift just to come to 90-km/sec in radial velocity? And yes dwell upon that question since the facts are unassailable. Mathematics, so it is said, is the same for everyone. And true as that is, the method for any computation into a three dimensional format cannot be done by a two dimensional yardstick.
To be assured of ourselves that the index of 1.0003 is indeed the right figure it may require a physical reading of the velocities, that of space verses what it will come to in our air, if we have not already done so. And if so, as I believe we have, then that index of retardation pertains to velocity, and velocity only, with no relevance at all to wavelength.
The reason for it should by now be obvious in how radial velocity is never singularly by length, but that it must be incorporated with amplitude. And that amplitude again into the circumference, since all waves as they are angularly produced by rotational inducement, must and can only proceed angularly on a rotational basis.
Whatever is produced three dimensionally must of necessity proceed by a three dimensional concept. A two dimensional wave has never been found, one with a length and amplitude devoid of movement, devoid of velocity. Or a wave that has only length and velocity.
If we wish to keep our waves at no more than length and amplitude - do not then give it a velocity as well, but keep it as a standing wave. If on the other hand we wish to have it moving, adding a third factor to it, let it be computed by these three factors. For at no time shall length equal velocity. That then by consequence binds our index to retardation applicable to but velocity only.
When 62A came to 4-km, its a division of 15.5. If it were 4.86A instead, the division is 13.24 and that times 90 comes to 1148A. This indicates that in order to have a radial velocity of 4.86-km/sec there must be a shift of roughly 62A, and for 90-km/sec there must be a shift of 1148A.
In how many ways now must I explain this for us to see the light? How am I to show that moving away from a stationary point is indeed directly proportional to the speed of that moving object, while moving away from another but moving object in opposite - is the sum of their velocities.
That then by all means is a straight line calculation, something on a two dimensional basis. But moving away from something that is not a straight line, but of a sine formation - the relevance in velocity comes to its angular moment as well as length. In simple English a three point measuring rod.
When pulling on a spring to expand it, the degree of our pull matches the increase in length, but the velocity by which any discrete bundle of energy passes along that spring, is not only by any length in that spring, but by its diameter in the circumference as well, wherefore in terms of velocity it comes to three factors instead of two.
Now let us speak more in general. When a straight line passes by 300.000-km/sec as the maximum of the magnetic flow of movement, and we put a dent into it so that is must travel by a sine formation, the speed of that sine formation then comes to be proportionally less by the angular moment of that dent we put into it.
That 300.000-km/sec has its relevance to the magnetic spectrum, the speed of the magnetic motion, the speed at which all magnetic lines of movement travel by any straight line of, as well as into the magnetic circle of eight. Here in the latter - I am speaking of that figure eight of force as it passes from south to north all through the earth and back around to start the sequence all over again.
If thus the magnetic flow all around the earth does not exceed a velocity of 300.000-km/sec, how shall any of its wave formation within that so well known spectrum thereof - travel any faster? This magnetic force, or movement, that I usually note by 3M, as the second most fundamental force in nature - does indeed rate a constant in velocity of no more nor less than 300.000-km/sec.
When therefore we agree on this that the figure of 300.000 is the constant, and that such is by a straight line of, it stands to reason that any line with an angular upon it - by consequence thereof - must travel at a decreased velocity.
And that this by consequence furnishes us with two velocities, the first being the constant, with the second a speed as measured, or calculated for distance in time, that then as such should be known, and called our Relative Velocity. All such velocities then found or measured in any density are at all times Relative Velocities.
But are we convinced? Is my way of teaching well enough by which we may be educated? Or should I emphasize upon the reality of our error, how when a wave is expanded by a marginal amount due to a velocity difference of no more than 4-km/sec, how that radial velocity can indeed never be more than 4-km/sec?
In how many other ways can I put it? Logic and common sense all in itself should have dawned on us that a mere 4-km change in velocity, cannot possibly be interpreted for a thousand times over. When there is a change in 1000 to 1001 which is but 1, and never more than 1, should it not be common practice to then render one's judgment by that 1?
Velocity is never relevant to wavelength alone, but to two additional factors, the magnetic constant, and wave's amplitude. It can never be based on a chance of any one without its other relevant factors.
And now for something new for us, - I must pronounce how it is the angular moment of any and all waves that enter in for reality, with the length of a wave as mere gingerbread, a factor of computation rather than any reality. Nor therefore, so I must confess to you - do lengths exist, they are but mathematical entries, in conjunction with which we may establish velocities.
A mouthful is it not? And also very real of which we are to take due notice, with more of this in due detail here under "Light's Velocity." It is the angle in a wave that for its once around the circle (circumference) brings it to length. And it is the degree in the angle of the wave by which it will refract to that rainbow of colors.
It is also the angle in the wave that for its turn around the circle determines its velocity, presenting us with its three factors into any calculus. Frequency then is but for those who are placing dents into natures lines of movement, to make for an oratory, and is likewise born forth mathematically.
If then man stands ready to reprove me, intending to hold onto his theories regarding light that he learned from those before him, and he saw no reason to change it, since of course the wine that he has been drinking for all his days were excellent to his taste, and why should he drink from a glass of wine furnished by me that has an altogether different taste?
If then you will not take me at my word, I am nonetheless a kind and generous person wherefore I will indulge you, or man's scientists as it may be. By Figure 80-3, we have that which man is so fond of, namely his sine wave, and for our example let us take a radio wave of sort.
Figure 80-3
Its crest-to- crest (nominal) measure is 100cm, with the diameter at 1cm. And so we can look at that wave in two ways, either two dimensional as man has it, or three dimensional as I have it.
In the two dimensional format - from point X the wave-point goes down to C by a distance of 1cm, and back up to Y, for 1cm, wherefore the real length, or angular length of that wave is twice the diameter plus the nominal length, a total of 102cm.
Our photon thus must travel a distance of 102cm in order to advance itself by 100cm into the linear. Whereas with me in its three dimensional concept the angular will come to 103.14cm by which it must advance itself by 100cm. If thus we were to red-shift this wave to increase its nominal length by 2cm, (or 3.14cm) it would come to be a straight line.
A straight line then is never a wave is it? Wherefore this sine wave cannot be stretched any further than 2% at which time the angular shall no longer exist. And the same is true for my wave in its three dimensional concept coming to a maximum of 3.14cm.
The velocity then of this sine wave by length and physical diameter comes to 294.117-km/s, whereas three dimensionally the velocity would come to 290.886-km/s. I am just a little slower, aging as I go, taking my time to explain it.
And so my dear fellow men of science, what is the difference in wave-to-wave when it is simply not possible for a sine formation to travel by a two dimensional concept as I have sufficiently detailed elsewhere? (Ref- Page 79 Huygens Principle.)
And now let us take those 4-km/sec radial velocity that we found to exist between ourselves and that distant galaxy. Shall that galaxy be receding from us, or are we receding from it? For all practical purposes the light that we are receiving from that distant galaxy is from the whole of it, wherefore as such we may consider it from center.
We however find ourselves upon the outer arm of a galaxy, and as such, we along with our whole solar system - are moving in an orbital track around our galaxy. The red shift at 4-km/sec then may just be our solar system radial velocity within our own galaxy, while there is no radial movement between our galaxy, and that distant galaxy.
Or if that distant galaxy were coming towards us at a speed of 2-km/sec, blue shifting the wavelengths, and we read them at a red-shift of 4-km/sec, then our galactic orbital velocity must be 6-km/sec. If then we can factually establish that our galactic orbital velocity is no more, nor less than 4-km/sec vectored to the center of our galaxy, and none other, then that distant galaxy is not in any way receding from us.
Or, what if that galaxy is coming towards us at a speed of 11-km/sec, its red shift of 4-km/sec should then be deducted from our own velocity - since we are moving at a velocity of 15-km/sec around our sun. But that red shift - as we received it, is in effect a blue shift to the tune of 11-km/sec, and should not be in the red, should it?
Or, how do we even know if that blue shifted wave was from the two hydrogen lines, or from cesium, since a length is a length even as ten dollars is always ten dollars no matter where it came from. We may conclude that the normal 4861^{0} line in hydrogen has now been moved over to a new length of 5061^{0}, but what if it were from a 4700A wave reduced to 5061A?
To me a length is a length computed by the angle at which any wave proceeds. And if the angle that makes for a blue 4000A wave comes to an expansion whereby it reaches the length of 7000A, then that blue will now be red in color. For here again it is not in lengths whereby the colors are separated but by their angular deviations, that then 'computes' into lengths.
It appears obvious how our red shift readings are not anywhere near to reality. This however by me is not meant as any evidence that the universe is not expanding, since I do not have any evidence pro nor con. But I do not in any wise believe that the universe is expanding, even as I do not believe in black holes, or some other things that man has come up with.
It is however imperative that we must at all times consider our own location and velocity in space. If for the example we take a midnight reading in the month of January towards the west horizon, and a distant star indicates a 15 km/sec radial velocity, and in the month of June we read that same star again but to the eastern horizon, and it shows a zero velocity, we have merely been reading our own velocity around our sun. Have we not?
And so our readings will depend on where upon the earth, and at what time of day, as well as in the year, and to what direction. For during any quarter of the year we may be traveling in one direction with a third quarter over - we will be traveling in an opposite direction.
Or if we are taking a reading directly overhead our velocity would be zero. Then there is our atmosphere to be considered for its blue shifting, as well as anything within our equipment to cause compression or expansion. But more than anything we are to understand the nature of the waves that we are working with.
It now is said that there are three causes to astronomical red-shift. I however know of but one, namely the Doppler red-shift. The others I judge for error and ignorance, if not for a lie for those who ought to know better. One of these is called the Gravitational red-shift, for light to overcome a gravitational field.
But since the phenomena of light by a prism, and the rainbow, as well as our sun still visible when it is below the horizon - is more than ample evidence to defeat that theory, why should I indulge myself any further in that - when - for a fact light for its movement has no effect nor any relevance to anything gravitational.
Then for that Cosmological red-shift, do not expect me to believe in fantasies. I was not educated in man's schools of physics, but by the wisest and greatest of all teachers, in whom there is no lie, nor error, nor fantasy, the very Maker of light and of all things.
Light as it travels by the velocity which we obtained as our space velocity, to wit 299.792-km/s is of course but a relative velocity, with its magnetic constant at 300.000-km/s, This velocity in the calculations utilizing the 700nm length showed that these waves travel by a circumference of 4.84 angstroms.
If then we look at the many other waves within the spectrum, it shows that as wavelength increases so their diameter by which they travel in the circular increases. Herewith is a chart based on the multiples of 10. For as we multiply the wavelengths by ten, it also comes to a multiplication of ten for their circumference in order to come to the same velocity that we established for a space velocity.
Nor therefore can these diameters, or circumferences so listed change by any large degree since each of them is relevant to that factor in 10. If per example we set our space velocity of 299.792-km/s, by the average wavelength within the optic range, the 550nm wavelength, then our diameter and consequent circumference changes somewhat, or if not our velocity would change.
Amplitude chart
Segment |
NWL |
Circumference (Diameter) |
AWL |
Rv |
x ray | 10A | 4.84A | 14.84A | 202.156 km/sec |
Ultra | 70A | 4.84A | 74.84A | 280.598 km/sec |
Ultra | 700A | 4.84A | 704.84A | 297.939 km/sec |
Light |
7.000A | 4.84A (1.5414A) | 7.004.84A | 299.792 km/sec |
Infra red | 70.000A | 48.4A (15.4A) | 70.048.4A | 299.792 km/sec |
Infra red | 700.000A | 484A (154A) | 700.484A | 299.792 km/sec |
Microwaves | 7.000.000A | 4.840A (1541.4A) | 7.004.840A | 299.792 km/sec |
Microwaves | 70.000.000 A (0.7 cm) | 48.400 A (0.000.484 cm) (15414A) | 70.048.400A | 299.792 km/sec |
Microwaves | 700.000.000 (7 cm) | 484.000 A (0.00484 cm) (154140A) | 700.484.000A | 299.792 km/sec |
Microwaves | 10 cm | 4.840.000 A (0.0484 cm - 0.484 mm) | 10.0484 cm | 298.554 km/sec |
Radio | 100. cm (1 m) | 48.400.000a (0.484 cm- 4.84 mm) | 100.484 cm | 298.554 km/sec |
Radio | 1.000 cm (10 m) | 4.84 cm | 1004.84 cm | 298.554 km/sec |
Long waves | 10.000 cm (100 m) | 48.4 cm (15.414 cm) | 10.048.4 cm | 298.554 km/sec |
Long waves | 100.000 cm (1 km) | 484 cm | 100484 cm | 298.554 km/sec |
The chart here shows how by a tenfold increase in wavelength its amplitude likewise increases tenfold.
AWL = Angular Wave-Length ** NWL = Nominal Wave-Length. ** Rv = Relative Velocity
Basis = Vc 300.000 by c 299.972, in km/sec
To determine the diameter of a wave by the length of it. For angstroms in the short waves, a division of 4545 seems to work. For centimeters in the long waves the division comes to 648.8. But if this all be correct is yet to be established.
I now did not bother with frequencies as much as to discover the true amplitude of any wave, knowing that no wave can exceed 300.000-km/s, that by their angular moments comes to a lesser velocity. To find any frequency all one has to do is - divide length into the constant, into the 300.000.
And to find any relative velocity is to divide nominal length plus circumference into the constant, and that multiplied by the nominal length again.
A radio wave one meter long will travel by almost 5 millimeters in the circumference, which is a diameter equal to 1.54 millimeters. Narrow indeed for a wave of that length, and yet within its tubular circle at any cross section for no more than a millimeter it turns around millions of atoms and molecules. This is not anything like light wherein there are but single atoms within their tubular circle.
The length of the wave then into its circumference depends on how and by what it was induced or instigated, which also means at what level or magnitude in nature that was procured. Figure 80-4 might serve as an illustration.
At any time when resonance is procured, or oscillation, (basically a changing rotational movement), it is most always upon and into the circular, similar to the armature of an electrical generator turning within a stationary field producing circular movements upon a moving line of force or motion.
Figure 80-4
There are three factors here, 1: The ever moving linear. 2: The rotating circular. 3: The variance in a pulse implemented upon the two existing movements. If then this is done by atoms alone, it will come to the optic range. If done in an molecular scheme it comes to greater formation, longer in length and greater in circumference.
Then there is the overall, or greater-then means, implementing a pulse upon the more overall coordinates that exist by and of the molecules in their greater number of, whereby the angular becomes equally greater for circumference and in lengths.
And of course there are the still greater ones like the magnetic coordinate that for its size passing through the earth from one end to the other. In other words, the figure eight of earth's magnetic force. And these come in nearly any size, from the atom on up to that of whole galaxies.
Those of the sun pass outwards beyond all of its planets, while our earth with its figure eight of magnetic movement has a good hold onto our moon, so much so that by the elongation of these lines the waters upon the earth rise for a tide. All waves in the spectrum then are rider waves, with only magnetic and electric fixed to their source.
Any wave when it is implemented on the atomic level, like C in Figure 80-5, in a rotation that comes to 2^{A} in diameter, will retain that curvature as it moves forwards. And likewise when it is implemented at a larger circumference (A, and B) it retains that particular rotational diameter..
And so it is that we have waves in all diameters and lengths. For I do believe that when we generate a radio wave by a turn that is 4-mm in diameter, that this wave will at all times travel by that dimension unless altered. And if indeed a change in density or radial movement is to alter its diameter - is yet to be established.
If now for the example we apply our three dimensional calculations upon one of the most distant objects yet found, that was measured by the Lyman-alpha emission line at 1216A shifted by 8300A, their calculations came to a radial velocity of 287.000-km/sec. (Ref 5)
The 1216A wave has a velocity of 298.910-km/s. Its expansion to 9516A brings it to a velocity of 299.847-km/s. The increase in velocity of that wave thus comes to 1037-km/s. That mind you is not anywhere near to 287.000. It is about 276 times too much.
If thus we add the 287.000 velocity to the existing 298.910 (km/sec) velocity we arrive at a radial difference of 585.910-km/sec. That mind you is nearly twice the speed of light, or twice over what could possible exist for any magnetic movement.
If then we say that such is possible for two independent objects to be moving away from each other by nearly the speed of light, to wit 287.000-km/sec, we are not thinking very well are we?
For in these cases here we are not speaking of two independent agents, but of something that is generated by, and attempting to get away from a moving object traveling at 287.000-km/s. Since then 2 plus 2 adds to 4, the light in order to get away from it at its relative velocity of 298.910-km/s - must of sheer necessity take on a velocity of no less than 585.910-km/s.
Does it not make for common sense how in order for the light to come lose from that object that it must first of all travel that speed of 287.000-km/s, at which time the wave is simply standing still in space, with no forward movement at all. Then in order to come to its own velocity in space - it must increase that velocity by 299.910-km/s, to a total of 585.910-km/s just so it may be moving and not at 287.000-km/s be standing still in space.
For it is a fact that the light at the time it was generated was upon that object riding along with it at the velocity of that object. And in its attempt to get away from the rear of that moving object it first had to come to a radial velocity equal to that of the object, at which instant it is still not receding from it. Then it is to assume its normal expanded velocity in order to be receding from it.
Or to put it still another way, a positive radial velocity is the speed at which an object is factually receding from another object. The light then has first of all its own velocity that must be lengthened so as to increase its velocity by the speed of the other object. To lengthen a wave then is consequent with an increase of its velocity.
From space into our atmosphere a wave is shortened while is slows down by 90-km/s, or when leaving into space, it, as it lengthens adds 90-km/s to its velocity, wherefore the 1216A wave with its normal velocity at 298.910-km/s by an expansion to the tune of 287.000-km/s, had to be forced into a velocity of 585.910-km/s.
A sine formation at 9516A cannot travel any faster than 299.847-km/s, only 153-km/s short of coming to the velocity of constant, or as we might say 153-km/s short of becoming a straight line. Since thus that wavelength of 1216A was acted upon to be no more than 153 kilometers away from becoming a straight line, to come to 300.000 km/s, how is that to be found at some 586.000-km/sec?
On a highway a car is heading east at 50 mph, and one heading west at 50 mph. What is the radial velocity between the two if not 100 mph? And by whom is that to be read? Then there is light heading towards earth, at nearly 300.000-km/s, and a galaxy heading away from earth at 287.000 km/s. What is the radial velocity? And by whom is that to be read?
With the cars it was between them, but that galaxy is not coming to pay us a visit to inform us of its speed, wherefore it is only to be found upon the light. Need I say more?
Logical reasoning alone should have turned on a red warning light - that something is very wrong here. Since then we did proceed with these errors, it is of no glory to science as a whole that it had to wait for me to correct it.
Will we now conclude that Edwin Hubble is right, or that my mathematics as well as insights are right? If I am wrong than our magnetic constant is also wrong, and we are all wrong in using that constant. Edwin Hubble however is no match for Him who taught me, and light as all waves will never be found to travel in excess of 300.000 km/sec.
LIGHT'S VELOCITY
We established light in wavelengths that in the
optical length vary from roughly 7000A to 4000A. And that
shorter lengths are found to travel by a velocity relative for distance in time
at a speed less than those of the longer lengths.
How therefore can there be only a singular velocity
for light? -- For the fact that the speed of light varies
according to their respective lengths - is ample proof that there is
a constant in velocity whereby it comes to the many relative velocities.
When we specify a vacuum velocity meant for space, it
should, or must have a reference to one of some 3000 optical lengths. But we at
all times fail to specify those lengths. If we base our amplitude at 1.5415A
it is the red 7000A length that computes to a velocity of 299.792-km/s. (The so called vacuum speed
of light.)
But it shall hardly be a constant when it varies with
each and every wavelength that in the optical range as mentioned amounts to 3000
different lengths. Will we therefore have 3000 different constants of? We
would do better to have our velocity to an average, like 299.736-km/s based on
5500A, (4000A at 299.637-km/s.)
And so what is c, at 299.792-km/s as the notation for light
in space when 299.637-km/s shows itself for the average of all? Nor with all this are
we anywhere near to understanding light in its movement as it shows itself to be
compressed and/or expanded in the varied densities by which it travels.
By illustration Figure
80-5, - speaking of waves as were they lengths - the red
7000A
wave as it is taken to pass in space has its angular deviation from zero to
3500A
(broken line) since of course it spans but once around the circular. If then
into glass it is compressed by an index of 1.52 the length is reduced to 4605A.
(Solid line)
This compression with an even distribution now shows
the angular from zero to 1514A with a full turn in the circular at 3029A. And by advancing another
1514A comes to 4542A
from which it continues to 4605A.
We came to our new 4605A length by taking 7000A into the index of 1.52. And while previously there was but a
single turn, this has now become 1.52 of a turn, identical to the index.
The red color of the wave that we previously equated at 3500A, has now moved backwards to 1514A. What therefore should that compressed wave appear unto us for color? A full length of 3028A^{ }is something that would normally be found for violet, or out of our optical range.
Or what will that shift show upon a spectral plate? Normally we would call it by an angle of 4605A, or by a half measure, while in fact it comes to an angular of no more than one/third of the compressed wave.
The compression forced the 7004.84A long
length into more than a single turn around the circumference. In this case since
the index to retardation was 1.52, it came to 1.52 times around, as it shifted to the new
length, 7000A to 4605A.
The angle in its movement however, which before stood at 3500A
has now been reduced to 1514A.
An interesting prospect so I say, how also the
crest-to-crest measure from 7000A has come to 3029A. In
all respects light for its movement is not anywhere near as simple as we beheld
it to be. If the identity of a wave is held as its length, then by entering into
the denser media of glass it did indeed maintain its identity seeing how it
recovered the same in exiting.
And of course its relative
velocity slowed since simply said the wave within the glass is making more time
in place. It for all of its 300.000-km/s to travel a distance of 7004.84A
in the now new length of 4605A slowed it down for
distance in time.
But we are not as yet home since our space velocity of 299.792-km/s into the index of 1.52 came to a reduction in velocity at 197.231-km/s, - and to what wavelength does that apply? It applies to the wavelength that was found by the index, the length of 4605A.
Previously in our discussion we found that the hydrogen wave of 4861A red shifted to 4923A - that then as it came upon our atmosphere by the index of air at 1.0003 blue shifting to 4921A - was in error in that a mere 2 angstroms cannot account for 90-km/s, forcing us call the index of 1.0003 to err when it is used for wavelength. Here however in this case with the entry into glass the index does not seem to be somewhat correct.
How thus can it seem to work here but not previously? It is because here we are using a factual wavelength? For in taking the full angular length of 7004.84A to be divided into the 300.000, and then multiplied by the new length found by the same index at 4605A, it comes to 197.220-km/s, which is fairly close to 197.231-km/s.
This however was not previously the case, in that case we used the one of 4861A, as quoted to us. That particular length then must be an altered length, or else the index does not really work for wavelength - but for velocity only.
For if we took our 7000A length assuming it were a 6000A length, to come upon the glass, a 6000A wave travels at 299.758-km/s, and that into the index of 1.52 comes to 197.209-km/s. If then we apply the index to wavelength, 1.52 into 6000A is 3947A, which as such comes to a velocity at 197.190-km/s, a difference of 19-km/s.
If on the other hand we assumed it as a 7000A length altered to 6000A, its velocity at the 3947A wavelength would come to 169.040-km/s, a difference of 28.169-km/s. The conclusion here is that the index does not work for wavelengths, but for velocity only.
Some of our differences may be in the amplitude, that it should be somewhat more or less, but that is not my fault. It was not me to set the space velocity at 299.792-km/s without specifying as to what wavelength that applied. And for that failure of man I used the longest of lengths, the one at 7000A, that then provided me with the proper amplitude.
But now that we have tinkered with light as full waves in lengths of just to see what that is like, we must now apply ourselves to a new reality, that lengths have their forthcoming by nothing other than the calculus, and that they as such are never real. Whereas the angular moments traveling by a three dimensional concept are the only real thing with light as well as with any wave.
And for this I will adapt what is commonly held for light, namely, that it travels by "Discrete Bundles of Energy." Myself I may have this by a different term as 3W, but that detail is in one of my previous pages. If thus we wish to call them photons, then photons it be. This is in reference to illustration Figure 80-6, a true presentation of light for its movement.
When we implement a wave, we as such are driving a discrete amount of energy by an angle into a linear path. As then for the example we are working on the atomic level - the diameter in which these bundles are driven into a circumference will come to something on the order of 1.5415A.
By the illustration, if the photon is driven in an angle from 0 to 200, the length by which that bundle of energy must pass to make for a single full turn will come to 400nm. (Our blue color wave in a crest-to-crest measure.) While for the red color wave it must be in an angle from 0 to 350 to compute to its 700nm length. Or from zero to 600 the full length would be 1200nm.
The angle then in which these photons are produced can be anywhere from zero to 90 degree. A zero angle, heading straight down at right angle to the direction of movement, would come to a zero wavelength, nor therefore a wave on the move. At 90 degrees it would a straight line and again no wave on the move. But by an angle anywhere in between the waveforms are born.
And how do these come to their various angles? It's quite simple, when we heat a metal bar it first turns reddish, meaning the slow angles, or long lengths are produced. Then as more and more heat is applied, the internal movement of the atoms increase to greater speeds, by which the induced angles becomes sharper and sharper, with the lengths of the waves decreasing.
Or to put it another way, when the speed by which a pulse is initiated is rather high the consequent angle by which it is forced into the circular is naturally sharper, away from the 90 degree, for while this pulse in the circular takes place it is upon the ever magnetic movement, like placing it upon a moving band - with a velocity of 300.000-km/sec. It is for that reason that the photon comes to its angular movement.
If the speed of that rotating inducement is rather slow, it comes to a minor angle that translates into a longer length. Therefore when we super heat something to become while hot, the higher velocity is forcing the photons at their right angle movement at a higher or more forceful rate, by which of course the angles become more acute, whereby then the length in their once around the circle decreases proportionally.
Figure 80-6. The reality of light to its waveforms.
And so we may have gathered that it is all in movement, and by rates of movement, movement producing movement. Nor is it only by heat that this takes place, even though heat is a rate of movement, but by any means that the rates of velocity can be brought about into an oscillation whereby waves may be produced. What then shall the compression or expansion be upon any such wave, if not to simply change the angle at which it travels?
We must remember how our illustration here for its diameter verses length is far out of proportion, and I do believe that for any angle there are several cut-off points, one near zero degrees, with the other near 90 degrees. At zero degrees there is no wave, and at 90 degrees it is a straight line.
When the angle comes to the 350nm line, the length of the wave becomes 700nm and travels at the speed of 299.972-km/s. If the angle comes to 30-nm, the length of that wave will be no more than 60-nm, the velocity comes to 297.599-km/s. If we compare this to a 600-nm length the velocity of which is 299.758-km/s, the difference between these two is 2159-km/s.
The reduction in velocity here is because - while the photon completes but a single rotation in the 600-nm length, the one of 60-nm must complete 10 turns in order to advance itself by the same distance. Ten times its circumference is 4.84-nm plus ten times the 60-nm in length is 648.4-nm. This in comparison to the 600-nm length was an angular length of 600.484-nm.
In that 600-nm distance - while one made one turn with the other ten turns it had a negative radial velocity of 2159-km/s. That then can be calculated any way we wish, by ones or by tens. But we cannot compare velocities of waves that travel by a different circular diameter, on one and the same diameter. The diameter of radio waves cannot be used for light, nor even for micro-waves.
Within any circular diameter from x rays on down to long waves we must abide by that 90 degree of a circle by and in which all its waves are formed. In a division of 100 there are a possible of 9000 different angular lengths. Number 9000 then is a straight line, while number one is a zero length.
My emphasis here with this illustration is to get us away from waves in lengths, or lengths altogether other than finding them mathematically - with our reality on discrete amounts of whatever that may be, photon, 3W, or energy. And how these all in themselves by the ever magnetic constant come to lengths by and in which the relative velocity of all waves is found.
As then the mystery will remain what these bundles are, and how long or how short these may be, your guess is as good as mine. I noted one of these from 0.1A to 1A, but for all reality they may be longer and/or wider. I frankly do not know other than that such things of such or other nature is what makes for light and all other types of movement in contrast.
How therefore do all these and other pieces of the
puzzle fit together whereby light for its velocity as well as for its movement
may be fully known? If indeed we are utilizing a wrong amplitude, how much should that be if we were to take our space velocity, so well known
at 299.792-km/s, as the average velocity of the 3000 possible velocities?
The average from 4000 to 7000 is 5500, by which our
amplitude would then be reduced to 1.2A. For here taking a 1.2A
into the circumference we arrive at 3.8A. And that added to 5500
comes to 5503.8A that then divided into the constant of 300.000,
multiplied by the nominal length of 5500A, brings us again to our
299.792-km/s velocity.
That space velocity of old thus - to which no length
was given - is here based on the 5500A^{
}wavelength. For it makes no sense
that when 3,000 events arrive at 3,000 different velocities to state that these
moved with a single velocity. Nor so I must say, can we even
speak of a single velocity as were it a constant when there are 3,000 of them,
each one different from the other.
And again since in fact these are different from one
another - they as such are not any sort of constant, but relative velocities, speeds
relative to distance in time. At
no time should any sort of velocity that shows itself to be relative, be called
or taken for a constant. If this cannot be understood as factual in
nature, we are in bad shape.
For all that I have spoken now in the way of light - I
am on the right track for its mode of travel, but I cannot as yet guarantee a
single set velocity, neither in the relative nor in the constant. I am merely
testing and experimenting if somehow I can come to a conclusion whereby all the
pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly together.
We have the evidence in nature that light is
compressed as well as expanded, and that it refracts according to the angle of
its own waveform. And how by
measurements its speed for distance in time varies not only by any change in
density but for wavelength as well. Wherefore it
stands to reason that there is a different angle of movement by which these
different lengths come to their varied velocities.
Yet how do we put all this together - for angular moment to an index of - so that by any and all calculations everything matches perfectly? I have made a start, but that is all that I have done.
WHAT IS LIGHT?
If we ask the scientists and physicists what light
is, the answer will be that it consists of photons. If then we ask what a
photon is, the answer is - that it is a discrete package of energy. Since then
energy in all essence is motion, light must be a discrete movement passing
angularly along a linear path.
This may be envisioned by something of an immaterial nature moving forward along the design of a coiled spring, one that in all respects is far stretched, seeing how for each single turn in that coil the length is a thousand plus times greater to its width.
It however cannot be envisioned as any kind of particle on the
move, nor therefore a photon if that photon is to be considered a particle. Even
a thin sheet of foil reflecting light - presents us with ample evidence that
light cannot consist of anything so material - how for the speed at which light
is known to travel – it would pass through that foil without ever knowing it
was there..
Light now for its nature of, as I understand it is –
‘a movement in contrast.’
If then indeed I have hit the nail squarely upon its head, these words in
themselves do not do it justice. And so bear with me as I shall attempt to
explain myself.
The whole of nature consist of two basic things.
A statement that is not altogether true, but for our purpose, and for what is
allowed unto us - it as such is correct. The first is movement noted as
3M, and understood by us as magnetic or magnetism, with the second as tiny
points or dots in nature known as atoms.
That movement then is everywhere always and it
proceeds by what is best known as lines of.
And these lines always proceed by a circle, a never ending circle that is laid
over by a half wave formation into a pattern that resembles the figure of eight.
Conclusively we are speaking of magnetic, be it in
general as magnetism, or in force, or field of. And it as such is one of the
most fundamental forces in nature. It then is immaterial, meaning its nature in
contrast to what we understand as material - is immaterial.
For here while we look upon things as material or
immaterial, these in all reality are but figures
of speech. For while our automobile appears to be material with the
air immaterial, the air is as material as the automobile is. And
likewise with the 3M, it also is material, as in existing, having a being, but
in relation to the atom for a material something the 3M movement as such is
immaterial.
There is something we must understand about motion. When an airplanes moves in the sky its movement as such is displacement, it is not an entity, nor energy on its own. That movement as an energy or power is in conjunction with the plane, not therefore on its own.
The 3M however is a motion and power on its own, an entity in itself. A vehicle on the road has energy or power only when it moves. Here too that motion is as displacement and not an entity other than in conjunction with the vehicle.
The movements of the plane, and of the vehicle, is not something we refer to as immaterial, even though it is altogether immaterial, it being nothing other than displacement. The 3M on the other hand as an entity is rated and thought of as being immaterial.
But that immaterial is so in relevance to all that we behold for being material. For when we start speaking fundamentally that immaterial 3M becomes a material something even as the atoms are. We might compare it to ourselves in our bodies as being material while the air through which we move - in relevance to our bodies appears immaterial.
And while all this in the fundamental scope may be difficult to comprehend, I can go no further without crossing a threshold that I in the wisdom given me have set for myself. Let it thus be as I have said, and do not think to fantasize upon it, for you will be in error.
Now I hope to have explained myself well enough in the
how of these two things, one rated material, with the other immaterial.
And if so, we can go forth to enumerate what light is and how it comes about.
Let us thus take our standard light bulb, a novelty
where with electricity upon a tungsten element light is produced. The
electricity as it passes upon these atoms and molecules invokes a push pull
scenario that among other things results into a heating of the element.
That heating is simply a higher degree of movement
causing the atoms to spin faster whereby they attempt to expand their fields of
force. In conjunction with this, an imbalance is set up which I termed RAM, that
not only means; Relative Angular Movement,
but is in fact a so called fluctuating movement in angular's relative to one
another.
All that movement then in the angular occurs while the
parts rotate, wherefore there are two primary innovations, number one is the circular movements, and that coupled
with number two, the angular
fluctuations. The latter in conjunction with the first then
induces as one might say - dents around the circular that are taken away by the
always present and always moving 3M, the magnetic flow.
And to illustrate this by Figure
80-7, there is
the always-moving 3M, at a straight line. Then at point
'A' the exited atoms being pushed back and forth at specific timings in their
rotations intercepted by the push-pull inflict pulses into the angular around
the circular atomic movement that as such becomes a deviation (B) upon the
straight line of movement.
That deviation then is not just a dent or indent that
we might inflict upon a string or a cable, a two dimensional concept, but it is
three dimensional, an angular indent that goes around a circular force and or
movement of. In other words, around the atoms, which are rotating entities
having a field of force.
And so that indent is taken away in the circular
fashion around all the atoms in its path that for its direction of is in a
straight line, indicated by D, E, and F. As therefore we consider anyone
of these indents by itself like at C, that little indent is a full wavelength to
span itself over 1000 to 4000 or more atoms.
B and C, in the illustration are two dimensional,
while D, and E are to illustrate its three dimensional concept by which all
magnetic waves have their movement, light being one of those. And so what
is light, if not a movement by contrast?
A straight line does not present a contrast, but any
twist or circular, or so-called dent upon it presents a contrast, a variance
that can be read at any distance from its point of origin. Since thus
there are two factors with light, the atoms for their movement, and the 3M for
its movement, light is a movement by and of them in contrast to that which is
straight.
Is then light an immaterial something? We could give
it a yes, since the 3M, as we previously looked upon is immaterial. But it is
also a no, as in not really, since the atoms by which it was induced, and by
which it proceeds, are reckoned for being material. And that angular something
in itself may also be something of a nature that is of both or neither.
Light therefore in all respects appears to us as I
began to say; "A movement in contrast." And
when these three dimensional movements strike the back of our eye, or any
surface, these in all essence trace a circle upon
it, a moving circle, a force to induce circular movement upon
whatever it may be struck.
That is how and why electricity may be gained from light falling upon our solar panels, and how light instigates movement upon all plants for the growth of it.
EXAMPLES
Now that we seem to have a good understanding in how light travels and how radial velocities are to be calculated, we have as yet to hear the full of it. Below is a Radial Velocity chart, highlighting five readings. The first column shows the radial velocity obtained by man in his calculations. The second column shows the change in wavelengths.
The third column shows the real velocities of the first noted lengths of the waves. The fourth column shows the velocities of the expanded waves. The fifth column then show the true and correct radial velocities.
Notice how it is but 3-km/s in all from the zero all the way up to 10.000, while the difference in the expansions all come to some 35^{A}. The last one on the list however is the one that is really out of bounds, a radial velocity of no more than 2-km/s that is interpreted into some 274.000-km/s.
But I wish to draw your attention to the expansions in the shifts verses the radial velocities. For each of the 35^{A} in wave expansion there was an increase of 3-km, while the one with the greater expansion of 40^{a} came to only a 2-km increase.
And why may that be so? The answer is - because it is a longer length, and as the lengths are greater and greater so the increase in their lengths must be greater to account for the same value in velocity
Radial Velocity chart
Radial velocity | Calcium K in (Dif) | V of Normal length | V of Shifted length | V Radial |
0-km/sec | 3933 to 3968 (35) | 299.631-km/s | 299.634-km/s | = 3 km/s |
100- km/sec | 3934 to 3969 (35) | 299.631-km/s | 299.634-km/s | = 3 km/s |
1000-km/sec | 3946 to 3981 (35) | 299.632-km/s | 299.635-km/s | = 3 km/s |
10.000-km/sec | 4064 to 4100 (36) | 299.643-km/s | 299.646-km/s | = 3 km/s |
274.000-km/s | 6560 to 6620 (40) | 299.778.82-km/s | 299.780.82-km/s | = 2 km/s |
(This chart shows the pitiful ignorance in man to come up with radial velocities from 0 to 10.000 km/sec when all of them have the same 35 angstroms shift. If that is not pitiful, what shall it be?)
It's quite simple really as I might demonstrate by Figure 80-8. If the angular moment in the light is shifted from 20 to 30 degrees there are (for the example) 5 points expansion in wavelength. From 30 to 40 it becomes 6 points. And to increase the angle by another ten degrees it becomes 9 points.
Where then from 50 to 60 degrees there are 15 points, another ten degrees will multiply that to 40 points. When therefore a receding object pulls on a wave by some 20-km/sec, if it be among the shorter ones like at 50 degrees, it must expand the wave more than if it were one at 30 degrees. And that expansion in the wave becomes greater and greater for the longer lengths just to keep up with the receding velocity.
And so it becomes obvious how any shift in wavelength is never directly proportional to the change in velocity. Yet we are quite able to determine the correct relative velocity of any wave as long as it computed by its three dimensional format. (Vc : Awl x Nwl) And for this we need the correct diameter of the wave into its circumference, that varies for each octave of the spectrum.
Figure 80-8
By the "Comparison chart," there is an example of length verses velocity. Notice when a blue color wave is expanded by 40A, it required a 3.6-km/s velocity. The same expansion by an 8000A wave came to only 0.9-km/s.
At 6800A with a 20A expansion it comes to 6.1-km/s, but at 8000A it will only be 4.4-km/s. As the length of a wave is greater, so much the more it needs to be increased in length for the same value of velocity.
Comparison chart. (4.84a circumference)
1: | 4000 to 4040A | 299.637.4 km/s to 299.641.0 km/s | = 40a = 3.6-km/s |
2: | 6800 to 6880A | 299.786.6 km/s to 299.789.1 km/s | = 80a = 2.5-km/s |
3: | 6800 to 6900A | 299.786.6 km/s to 299.789.7 km/s | = 100a = 3.1-km/s |
4: | 6800 to 7000A | 299.786.6 km/s to 299-792.7 km/s | = 200a = 6.1-km/s |
5: | 8000 to 8040A | 299.818.6 km/s to 299.819.5 km/s | = 40a = 0.9-km/s |
6: | 8000 to 8200A | 299.818.6 km/s to 299.823.0 km/s | = 200a = 4.4-km/s |
CONCLUSION
All waves of natures magnetic spectrum are produced by an angular momentum that then is taken away by the ever magnetic movement that rates an unwavering velocity of 300.000 km/sec. The variations in these angular movements for incidence as well as circumference is what computes into lengths and frequencies, as well as the relative velocities of each of these.
The nomenclature of these angular moments is a mystery that for the time being may be referred to as discrete amounts of energy, be it photons, 3W, or simply a movement at contrast.
For the sake of clarity and reality it is imperative that we do away with our so called space velocity (c) to rate it as no more than a relative velocity with the addition to what length of the wave it applies.
If thus we can accurately measure the speed of light by a single fixed wavelength, we will then be able to determine the precise amplitude in a full diameter.
REFERENCES
Ref 1: (http://www.space.com/25179-hubble-constant.html)
Ref 2: (http://astro.wku.edu/astr106/Hubble_intro.html)
Ref 3: leonardswebpage.info Page 79, "Frequency."
Ref 4: leonardswebpage.info Page 79, "Huygens Principle."
Ref 5: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/expand/expand.html
COMPUTING DENSITY
We
have just seen how the index to retardation works only for velocity, and
velocity only. The index may refer to density but its computation is an
altogether different story. The index of number 1 for
space verses 0.0003 for air is fine but is not to be applied to wavelength,
nor to wave shifts.
We spoke of density and the index on a previous page (Page 79) where that index for wavelength did not make any sense. Instead, the compression of a wave from space into our atmosphere that accounts for 90 km/sec, is on the order of 1148A, such as the 4923A length reduced to 3775A.
That comes to nearly a quarter of its length. (23.31%) The density of the air is therefore 23.31% more than it is in space, or at least the space within and of our solar system. And yes why must that be so? Simply because when a density increases by a quarter, so the compression upon a wave changes proportionally.
This means that for every 1000 atoms in our air there are 767 atoms within the same cubic area of space. Nor can we be wrong in this since the light for its compression came to that conclusion.
Since then man has it as if light travels without a medium in space, means that the poison of his infamous teachers has dulled his senses to the point that he can no longer tell his right hand from his left, meaning, he can no longer comprehend the facts so obviously displayed before him from the fiction that he is taught.
The obvious facts display themselves even by the index that he himself concocted, since it relates itself to how dense any medium is found to be. And the fact that light is refracted and reflected by any medium also proves how susceptible the magnetic waves are to any and all mediums.
And the fact that all magnetic waves are subject to changes in relative velocities also proves them to ride very much dependent upon any and all mediums.
And why should space be devoid of substance? The colorful clouds among the galaxies prove otherwise. And the tails on any comet also prove otherwise, even as the change in velocity from one density to another proves otherwise.
As then man erred in his computations to radial velocities, taking velocities to the percentage change in wavelength, that as such cannot be used, it however is complementary in determining densities. And that obviously so since a change in wavelength is directly proportional to density.
ADDED
The idea for an electron to produce a photon which then as such is light for its wavelengths does not illustrate how and in what way a minute electron forms that which is a thousand times greater to itself. Nor how these photons come to travel at different velocities, and present different angles of refraction.
The factual production of light's waves being brought forth is of course in and by whole atoms through impulses or oscillation as men call it, that then is sped forwards in a rotational manner.
It is for that rotational manner wherefore we are to use the circumference rather than the width of any sine formation. And since the impulse forming the wave is a drive into the angular upon a linear movement it is for that reason that we must go by the scale illustrated here by Figure 80-8.
To visualize the impulse - it is like a right angle movement upon a line of motion moving to the right, or to the left. That angular movement then is in the circular, not straight down in the linear. The combination of these two thus forms that typical coiled spring formation.
As therefore the linear movement to the right or left is greater in speed than the angular, or circular, so waves come to be very long in comparison to their circular width.
As then the increments of the angular upon a linear movement increases as its angle graduates up from zero to 90 degrees, even so the relative velocities of the waves change proportionally.
Below is a chart showing the lengths from 1500A to 8000A by an increase or decrease of 50A, and their velocities. When therefore there is a 50A red shift into any wavelength, what must the radial velocity be in order to accomplish the same?
It is by no means a straight line calculation, but fixed to the protractor, in its angles towards a line upon it. In other words, by the degrees illustrated at Figure 80-8. The velocities and consequent increase or decrease in radial velocities, with the increments as shown all in itself confirms how light is generated and send on its way in that manner.
Wavelengths | Relative/Velocity | Radial/Velocity | Increment | Red shift |
8000A | 299,818.609 km/s | 12.08 km/s | 50A | |
7500A | 299,806.524 km/s | 13.81 km/s | > 1.73 | 50A |
7000A | 299,792.714 km/s | 15.93 km/s | > 2.12 | 50A |
6500A | 299,776.781 km/s | 18.58 km/s | > 2.65 | 50A |
6000A | 299,758.195 km/s | 21.96 km/s | > 3.38 | 50A |
5500A | 299.736.232 km/s | 26.35 km/s | > 4.39 | 50A |
5000A | 299,709.880 km/s | 32.20 km/s | > 5.85 | 50A |
4500A | 299,677.680 km/s | 40.24/km/s | > 8.04 | 50A |
4000A | 299,637.438 km/s | 51.72 km/s | > 11.48 | 50A |
3500A | 299,585.715 km/s | 68.93 km/s | > 17.21 | 50A |
3000A | 299,516.779 km/s | 96.45 km/s | > 27.52 | 50A |
2500A | 299,420.322 km/s | 145.00 km/s | > 48.55 | 50A |
2000A | 299,275.322 km/s | 240.20 km/s | > 95.20 | 50A |
1500A | 299.,035.113 km/s |
For a short wavelength of no more than 1500A to be red shifted by 50A to 2000A, a radial velocity of 240.20 km/s is required. Whereas at the other extreme when a 7500A is red shifted by 50A to 8000A, a mere 13.81 km/s will accomplish it
Or looking at it the other way around, a radial velocity of 145 km/s will red shift a 2000A length by 50A, while the 6000A length will receive the same 50A increase in length by a mere 18.58 km/sec.
And notice how the increments from 8000A to 1500A graduates from 1.73 to 95.2, all because of the nature in the protractor. (Degrees in the circular to a fixed line.) Man's computation to radial velocities thus are far in error.
Conclusively, the longer the length, so much the smaller the radial velocity will be in order to come by an equal proportion in the expansion of the wave. Or putting it another way, a longer length must be expanded more for the same radial velocity compared to any shorter length.
All this because waves of all kind and size of are formed by the manner illustrated in the protractor, that is the same as saying, into the angular from zero to 90 degree, in the full relevance thereof.
A wave that goes once around the circle in a distance of 2000A, will travel slower by 543 km/s than the a wave going once around the circle in a distance of 8000A. The more turns a wave must make for any given distance so much more its velocity for distance in time will be decreased.
That is how and why a blue color wave is always slower for distance in time compared to the red color wave. Nor is it in lengths by which the color of any wave is found, but by its angular moment. When the sun rises or sets the waves with the least angle (the red) are turned (refracted) the least.
That is why there is a red sky at the sun rising and red sky in the sun setting, its light upon our atmosphere being refracted, all because we live upon a ball, a rounded surface that acts just like any prism will - with light being passed upon it.
In my estimation now the first segment of the waves range from 100-nm to 1000-nm, all of which are formed on the atomic level, by a circumference to fit around the atoms. When thus the lengths come to exceed 1000-nm, these can no longer be formed on the atomic scale, since then they would come to be more of a straight line, too close to the 90 degree mark.
The next segment of waves for their circumference must be produced on the molecular level, for as the circumference increases so longer lengths may be produced. The chart in this essay wherein lengths and diameter are increased by a factor of ten, is of course a general outline, and not necessarily exact.
What we need is to perform some research, like for the example, taking a 1-mm, or 1-cm wavelength, and somehow discover at what speed that wave will travel. With that information we can then find the correct amplitude, or circumference by which it traveled.
We know that waves on the atomic level, such as light does not pass through a stucco wall, yet a radio wave does. And that as we conjecture is because it travels on something greater than the atomic scale, wherefore I pronounced to say molecular.
But how exactly is it for a radio wave to pass so easily through a stucco wall? That is something we ought to apply our minds to. Or again, what is it that will stop or divert a radio wave, or a microwave? If we correlate all that information along with it, we may come up with some answers.
By the chart a 1-m wave might travel by a diameter of nearly 5-mm, but if this be correct or not is as yet to be established. The principle may be correct, but the figures used are but to convey that principle, and it will require a factual reading of some waves in different segments to come to more accurate figures.
Will now man take me at my word, or will he say; "We can't tell if he be right"? I do not expect anyone to take me at my word, as in fact I caution any man, to take me or any other man at his word. But I do expect man to consider and accept such facts as are obviously displayed for their reality.
The chart together with what is illustrated by the protractor confirms light for its movement as well as for its velocities as best as we can determine from what all light displays for itself. And that along with all else that is spoken of in the way of light ought not only to be considered, but duly considered for its nature to be factual or not so.
If then it is - we shall be the wiser, and if not - who will contradict it with a more factual presentation? For if indeed anyone wishes to prove this in error - let him do so by furnishing us with a more factual confirmed presentation.
Everything in nature is three dimensional, when we draw a sine wave formation on a piece of paper it may look two dimensional, but it is not. For there is length from crest to crest, and width from top to bottom, and in combination of these two is that angular within them.
Even a line or a dot is three dimensional, and while all things in nature are in motion, we can not eliminate that motion to ply ourselves by a two dimensional concept. Even a car on the road is three dimensional, for there is the road, and the car with its movement into distance as the third factor.
And so it is with atoms, always spinning, always turning, and the force upon them even it is at all times turning by a figure of eight that in itself is a circular loop, and loops within a loop. When therefore we drive an impulse upon any such circulars, how shall the outcome not be circular?
Take our electrical generator by which the electrical wave is born forth. First there is the fixed linear force, by and in which circulars are formed, the circulars that is electricity. And how do we do so? We do so by turning within the fixed lines, by driving a circular format.
And how do we know that the electrical wave is a circular rotating wave? By holding it next to a magnet, next to a fixed linear format, to which it will then move back and forth to anyone of its two poles. This tells us that the electrical wave is not only a magnetic wave of both polarities, but that it rotates.
And how do we know that its speed of rotation is by our doings? If we turn our generator by 60 cycles it will be 3600 rpm. If we take 12 volts, it shows a rotation of 12 times per second, while a 120 volt shows 120 turns per second.
And how do we know that the magnetic field of that rotating field of force expands by higher and higher speed of rotation? By looking at our high voltage power poles and its power lines how far these are held away from the poles, all because the electricity at its high revolution comes to a greater span of itself.
By a three dimensional concept the waves of light as they pass by the atoms are susceptible to each and every atom in their path, a fact that proves itself each and every day. A sine formation on a two dimensional plane however has no way to go, nor therefore can it exist.
A two dimensional sine formation on the move would be like a high speed racecar to zig zag its way over all the lanes of a freeway that is full of cars bumper to bumper on all of its lanes. It mind you can not even move, let alone exist as any concept to be considered.
But do not take my word for it, for cursed is the man that puts his trust in any other man. But realize nature's facts for yourself, and if not, attempt to zig zag such a freeway, and if you succeed we no doubt must credit you.
Look at the facts how these present themselves, and learn from it, more than from the say-so of any man, me inclusive.