CHAPTER 81. INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
This article was submitted and send by email Nov 23 2014 to International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences
Nov 24 send by IJFPS for review. Accepted for publication Dec 12 2014.
Published on Jan 3-2015 Link http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/archive/2014No4.html
Author: Leonard Van Zanten
affiliation is none other than the Almighty Teacher of man instructing me since
my age of 24, current age 77.
Current theory has it that as light passes from one medium to another, that it is the change in velocity that ‘causes’ the light to be refracted entering the new medium at a different angle, also known as the Huygens principle.
Evidence however proves this to be in error, since light’s velocity (by common knowledge) changes in the normal as well as by refraction, nor will it refract in the normal. A change in density affects velocity, and only velocity.
change in direction is accomplished by angular deviation, by the angle of
incidence at which each separate wavelength strikes the surface out of the
The advancement in science should always be to find the truth of the matter. This will come by experiment as well as what is factually presented to us in and by nature itself. But even more so in a grant of knowledge and understanding that man’s Creator may infuse within any person.
Experiment of any kind is of no greater value than the understanding that we have of it. And with this thesis my aim is to award mankind with a greater and more correct understanding in the nature of light.
When we speak of light in lines of, it in fact passes as such by a straight trajectory. Since then we also speak of light as ‘waves of’, it concludes for an angular moment to exist upon that line. Or how else do we speak of a wave?
moment then is in fact the identity of the wave, it being less for the long
waves, and more acute for the shorter waves, as illustrated by Figure 81-1.
illustration shows the enlargement in the diameter of a beam of light struck
upon a prism showing the angular tangents of the individual wavelets, in
this case the 70000 and 40000 lengths, each to refract
according to their own angle of incidence. The 40000 being of a
greater angle deflects equally more.
When a single wavelet (R-X) is to pass by a length of 7000A its angular deviation must be less in comparison to that of the blue (B-X) wavelet to compute to a length of no more than 4000A. When therefore a ray of light strikes a refractive surface the angle at which each wavelet comes to bear upon it varies according to each its own angular moment.
the illustration assuming the amplitude (diameter) of the wave as 1A,
the angle by which the red wave will come upon the prism is R-X-Y, while for
the blue it will be B-X-Y. The
blue wave thus being more acute will turn to a sharper angle as compared to
the less angular moment of the red color wave.
Conclusively it is not in a varied velocity by which light comes to its dispersion, but in each wavelength for its own angular moment. And to verify this; - the degree separation noted r1 to b1, must and will always be directly proportional to R-B, (the difference in the angular moments of these noted wavelengths.)
The angular moments of R and B (7000a to 4000A) are separated by a spacing of 3000A; wherefore the 15 degree separation found at r1-b1, is at all times equal to the half length thereof, namely 1500A.
The dispersion of light thus is directly proportional to one half of the sum difference in the wavelengths that are passed in some incidence other than the normal upon a surface in which it may refract.
now I must explain how and why the degree separation is always by the
half-lengths rather than the full lengths.
And for this we must come to some revelation how contrary to current
thought light passes by a rotational format turning itself around the atoms
in its path. This may be envisioned as passing along a coiled spring, a long
stretched out coiled spring.
And how light for its amplitude is no larger than that of the lighter elements. Light will turn itself through air since these atoms do not span much over 10, but in encountering any atom too large by which it may encircle itself, it is captivated.
as in water - consisting of Oxygen along which it will pass, but with the
two of Hydrogen connected to it, the light as it works its way down into the
water passing millions of them unobstructed will sooner or later strike upon
one of those two connecting points as an obstruction to it.
That is why we can never see the bottom of the ocean, for by some 600
ft down even the most angular ones (the blue color) will have been arrested.
illustration Figure 81-2, as both the blue and red color waves start out at
point A, to encircle the atoms in their path; the angular moment of the red
wave must be according to a length of 3500A in order for the full
wave to come to 7000A in its once around the tubular circle.
This for the blue with a full length of 4000A, its half
measure will be 2000A.
angular moment of any and all waves therefore will and must always
correspond to the half measure. Wherefore
when it comes to the angle of incidence by which the same is to refract, it
of necessity must be by that measure. When
we take to verify this to ourselves utilizing 4000A to 7000A,
a difference of 3000A, the dispersion of the light in the degree
thereof will at all times be found proportional to those 1500A in
illustrates the tubular format of a single wavelet in how it is defined for
lengths of. The light itself passing around the circumference is noted as
the ‘Angular wavelength,’ a real length of 7004.840 (A-R-C)
proceeding into the ‘Nominal Wavelength,’ (its crest-to-crest measure)
of 70000. (A-C) With
the 40000 nominal wavelet (A-B) having an angular length at
However much then the angle of incidence may be varied upon any refractive surface, it does not change the degree separation between these waves, simply because as the wavelengths do not change, neither will the dispersion. All this is easily obtained by experimental evidence.
From here we must come to velocities, the speed at which light moves, and is known to move, and how there are always two velocities of light. The first is how fast light (illustration Figure 2) will move from point A, to point C, in a straight line that as such must be called the “Constant” of light.
then there is an angular moment in the passage of any line of light, to
travel from A, over R, to C, whereby the velocity will always be less,
namely; its velocity for distance in time, which must be called the
“Relative velocity of light.”
for the red color (less angular) wave will then always come to a higher
velocity as compared to the blue color wave, which for its more angular
moment must obviously pass more often around the circular.
Blue therefore in all media is found to travel slower by a velocity
precisely proportional to its angular moment in wavelength of.
(Serving as evidence to the rotational mode by which light travels.)
Then to find these relative velocities we can use the index of the retardation of all media’s, which are based upon c, the velocity of light in space. As then that velocity is called a constant - it in all reality is rather a relative velocity, namely – a measure of distance in time.
The real velocity of light – its real constant - as
mathematically determined, comes to the value of 300.000 km/sec. And with it
we are able to find the true and correct amplitude of light in all of its
the example: Let us take our red 7000A wavelength to have a
diameter of no more than 1.5415A. This multiplied by 3.14 brings
the circumference to 4.84A, and that added to the 7000A
gives us a distance of 7004.84A by which this red color wavelet
must pass in order to advance itself by no more than the nominal length of
Then to verify if this is correct for the light in space, we divide that angular wavelength by the velocity of constant, obtaining the number of wavelet within that distance - that is then multiplied by the nominal length of the wave.
Example: 300.000 :
7004.84 = 42.*10^30, x 7000 = 299.792 km/sec.
As thus the relative velocity in space is factually found at 299.792
km/sec, the amplitude of that wave came to 1.5415A.
That amplitude in circumference then is the perfect agent to pass
along all the atoms of the lighter elements rendering them transparent, (air
etc.) but too narrow for most other atoms rendering them opaque.
thus speak of light in velocities of, there is always a real velocity equal
to 300.000 km/sec note Vc, which is the same as the Magnetic Velocity, the
speed at which all magnetic entities are found to travel.
And a relative velocity of light noted Vr, the speed of light for
distance in time. As thus c
stands for the space velocity at 299.792 km/sec, Vc stands for 300.000
If then we are to use the index of retardation whereby to find the relative velocities at which light will pass in any media, we must continue to use the space velocity since the index is based upon it, rather than the real constant of light.
But now with
the true amplitude known, and utilizing the factual constant (Vc) in the
velocity of light, it enhances our understanding in how and by what light
travels in any media more dense than space.
As then the light enters upon our atmosphere, the wavelet in its crest-to-crest measure is reduced (blue shifted) for the closer spacing of the atoms – it then for its full red color length of 7004.84A literally completes itself with more of a single turn within that shorter nominal distance, and as such equates to a velocity for distance in time.
As thus the index of air is 1.0003, the computation shows 42,*10^30 wavelets that then times the 7000 comes to a relative velocity of light in air at 299.702 km/sec.
Nominal 6997A. Angular 7004.84A
Nominal 5263A. Angular 7004.84A
(This illustrates that the Angular Wavelength as the identity of the wave, never changes by passing through any media,
yet for that very same reason the velocity
But now with
the true amplitude known, and utilizing the factual constant (Vc) in the
velocity of light, it enhances our understanding in how and by what light
travels in any media more dense than space.
As then the light enters upon our atmosphere, the wavelet in its crest-to-crest measure is reduced (blue shifted) for the closer
is an excellent reason for light in entering upon varied densities to shift to
the blue or to the red color end of the spectrum. The shift is nothing more, and
nothing stranger than a simple compression or expansion of the wavelets.
When light enters from air upon glass it encounters atoms much closer
together along which it must pass in a circular formation.
the air - the angular length of 7004.84A traveled by a nominal length
of 7000A for each wavelet - promoting its particular relative
velocity. In glass by its
compression those 7004.840 must now complete that amount of distance
in a nominal length of no more than 4,605A.
(The 4,605A is found by the index into the nominal length of
the wave.) Since then we were
speaking of the red color at 7000A - each wavelet came to a measure
encountering a denser media the light - like unto a coiled spring being
compressed – is by the very nature thereof forced to make more of a turn
around the circumference, that in the case of glass comes to 1.52 of a turn, a
little more than one and a half times around the circumference within the now
new nominal length of 4,605A. As
thus in a single turn the velocity came to 299.702 km/sec, in 1.52 of a turn the
velocity (for distance in time) slowed to 197.231 km/sec.
velocity of light – for distance in time – in any media thus corresponds
directly to its length (designated ‘Nominal Length’) and its angular moment
in the circumference (designated ‘Angular Length’) divided by the constant
in velocity – in and by which all magnetic waves have a single identical
velocity. In other words; the
essence of any and all waves always travel with one single constant velocity,
that for distance in time is reduced – due to and by its angular moment.
velocities of light as they have been measured for any and all media according
to the index thereof conclusively shows the above to be factual.
Wherefore, as such, all these are “Relative Velocities,” the speed at
which light is found to travel for distance in time. While light on its own never slows down for any media however
If this were not so - then all waves would at all times have to travel with a single velocity for distance in time. Since then this is found to be untrue, this interpretation to the nature of light is and must be the true and correct phenomena of it, as also it was given me, and I know it to be.
The fact that light in refracting upon a denser media also changes its velocity – applies itself only to the change in density, it has nothing in common with refraction, the relevance of which is to incidence, and incidence only.
A change in density effects light for its velocity
– ‘relative for distance in
time’, since at no time is
velocity of light’ affected
by any density, or change therein.
Also, the fact that light is refracted by a mere greater spacing of the atoms above a hot road–bed – concludes that light is extremely susceptible to each and every atom in its path - to expand for the slightest change in the spacing thereof.
My knowledge and expertise
in these matters have come from none but the education, which I received from
the Lord God, Creator of all the earth.
therefore by all observation and experiment, as well as mathematical conclusions
these are found to be valid, we ought to conclude them as truths.
To have an understanding of things is better than to
guess at things. And so when light strikes upon a piece of metal why does it
not pass through it when its atoms may not be much over 1 angstrom?
For it is a fact that many other waves of the spectrum do pass through it.
The reason lies in the fact that the atoms in that
metal have connecting points on all sides, and a field of
force surrounds them with many lines of movement like as we observe with
standard magnets. And so it is not only in size whereby light may pass
or be arrested.
All this in addition to the typical pattern of their
movement that will accept light's angular moment but passing it through the
mill, redirecting some of its angular moments while arresting others.
For the air is just as opaque as any other substance, but because
it allows light to pass - it as such appears transparent to us.
Since now it has come as something new that the
refraction of light in any change in medium is not in any change in velocity
but rather according to the angle of incidence by which the light is brought
upon it, there are always two angles of
Utilizing an illustration
Figure 81-3, the first incidence
is that incidence by which the whole array of the various wavelengths come
to bear, which in turn establishes the second and real incidence by which
light is refracted to its dispersion in the refractive angles.
When sunlight strikes upon a prism it is not one angle
of incidence by which it comes to bear, but thousands of them. When
therefore a particular angle of incidence is quoted we of necessity must
state to what length of the spectrum that incidence has its reference.
By the illustration only two are shown, a red at
7000a, and a blue at 4000a. As then the angle of these two wavelengths never
changes unless they have been red or blue shifted, the incidence of
refraction will always be according to the these angles, which
correspond to the half length of the wave.
These of course will vary in their resultant refracted
angle by the first angle of incidence as illustrated A to B. But at no
time will the dispersion of these refracted angles change by any variation
in the first angle of incidence.
As long as the distance from the longest to the
shortest, red to blue wave is at 1500a, these will always refract by
identical angles to that incidence. As therefore the angle of
incidence of the blue wave is more acute than those of the longer waves, the
blue will turn equally more acute.
A change in velocity now is strictly due to density
that changes the angle by which a wave travels. It
has nothing in common with refractive angles, nor therefore with the
refractive index, yet it is relevant to the index of
The index to refraction specifies the values by which
the light refracts more or less in those varied densities. It in other words
refers to the refracted angles, and at no time
to the incoming angle of incidence, that as such must be
specified by the first angle of incidence, as well as the second angle of
incidence, the waveform incidence.
By Figure 81-4 is a a close-up view how a wave enters into a prism, or into water, or any change in media. It would take a very large sheet of paper to draw it for reality, for where we see the wave to curve around a single atom in its path, that single atom in reality may amount to many atoms.
By Figure 81-5, the triangular area X-Y-H, is the angle of the wavelet. Area Y-Z-H then illustrates the degree in refraction, the degree change in direction.
In the normal the line H-Y would be parallel with the surface of the other media. The refractive angle therefore is due to and by distance Y-Z. The measure of that angle then is proportional to the length of the wave verses the velocity of constant. Not the relative velocity.
As soon as the wave with its most forward point strikes point H, it encounters atoms at closer distance to one another wherefore in turning around them it automatically slows down for distance in time. Meanwhile the other end of that wave - not as yet having encountered the surface area - is also moving forward. (Arrow P)
While thus the tail end of the wave continues at its normal velocity from Y to Z, and at H it is already slowing down, the change in direction is proportional to the difference in these two velocities. From Y to Z, in air the speed is 299.702-km/sec, while at H, in glass at 1.52 the speed was reduced to 197.172-km/sec, a difference of 102.530-km/sec.
The angle of refraction thus is proportional to a velocity of 102.530-km/sec by 4.84 angstroms, which is the circumference by which it travels. In this case like a row of men walking obliquely into a bed of sand where one would use the diameter in that row of men, - here we are to use the circumference since it is in that way that a wave enters upon any and all change in densities.
The degree difference in the angle of the wavelengths however remains the same from before to after it has entered the change in media. It is of course easier to calculate a change in direction by incidence in degrees than utilizing velocity verses the measure in circumference.
Yet it stands to reason that if we have a rule for light in its angle of incidence to the angle of refraction, the same will not apply to radio waves, since these travel by a larger circumference, while the relative velocities may be nearly the same.
But now a new question. When the light enters upon the prism in the normal, which means straight on, why does it not refract then? For in either way, oblique, or from the normal, the wave arrives at an angle? In the illustration that is by X-Y-H.
The reason for it lies in its rotational movement boring itself directly into the denser media, just as a drill-bit would into steel. And just as a drill-bit would slip when applied out of the normal, so the waves will slip.
In the next example are 4 objects all with a negative radial velocity, while the table below shows the corrections.
Rest wavelength (air)
Observed wavelength (air)
2: O III
3: O III
|(Awl) velocity||(Awl) velocity||(Dif) Radial velocity|
|1: Hbeta||(4866.20) 299.701. 61km/s||(4862.17) 299.701.36 km/s||(4.03) = -0.55 km/s|
2: 0 III
|(4963.75) 299.707.47 km/s||(4959.58) 299.707.23 km/s||(4.17) = -0.24 km/s|
|3: 0 III||(5011.68) 299.710.27 km/s||(5007.60) 299.710. 04 km/s||(4.08) = -0.23 km/s|
|4: Halpha||(6567.84) 299.778.91 km/s||(6562.81) 299.778.75 km/s||(4.83) = -0.74 km/s|
Instead of from 221 to 249-km/s radial velocity, as obtained by man's erroneous method, these objects are coming towards us at less than a single kilometer per second, if even they are moving towards us, or if these might not be part of the blue shift entering into our atmosphere.
It was asked quote: "Calculate the velocities of electrons with the Broglie wavelengths of 102nm and 4.4nm respectively." The answer is 298.583-km/sec for the 102nm length, and 223.451-km/sec for the 4.4nm length. If then Broglie has it different his web is broken since wavelengths nor velocity for their computation have any relevance to mass.
It was asked; "What the velocity of a wavelength was?" The answer given was, that; "Velocity is Wavelength x Frequency." And utilizing a 16.4 meter wavelength it went as follows. "Velocity = 16.4 x 3.7 s^(-1) = 60.68 m/sec. And so this wave travels at less than a kilometer per second?
Is then that the way some men acclaim how they slowed light way down - by not being competent to for themselves make the simplest of calculations? Pitiful, so is man.
The frequency of that wavelength is of course 300 million divided by 16.4 is 18.292.683. And taking the circumference of that typical wave at 0.05m. Rv = 300.000 : 16.45 = 18.237 x 16.4 = 299.088-km/sec. But that was not the question was it?
But what is the sense in saying that; "Velocity equals length times frequency?" Since the answer to that is at all times 300.000. A proper answer would be to say that; Velocity equals its constant, or simply that it stands at 300.000.
If anyone is aware of natures magnetic constant, he would not be asking what the velocity of a wavelength is, since the tally of wavelengths as well as frequencies is always its division into the 300.000. Wherefore again to come with an answer that Vc equals length times frequency, is at best childish.
Or where someone has a whole array of so called scientific notations fifty times as much simply to find a frequency, when to find any frequency it is always wavelength divided into the constant. It takes no more than F= Vc : WL. And that still does not mean for any such wave to contain these many events, it may only be one or ten percent of the whole.
Why thus all the hocus pocus if not for one to make himself look like as if he knew something, when in fact he is less than a child. His mistake was to enter into the school of man's physics, wherein one is guaranteed to be corrupted, and marred beyond recognition.
If then one asks for the speed of a relative velocity pertaining to lengths or frequencies, he must specify the particular wavelength, or frequency that he has in mind, along with the media for its index to retardation. Or if one is to specify a specific relative velocity it must read like;
Rv= Vc : Awl x Nwl : index. (Rv : 5004.84 x 5000 : 1 = 299.709-km/sec.)
The reference here is to the 5000a wavelength of light in space. Along with the question for the relative velocity that person specified that it was for space (as the index of 1) and for the 5000 angstrom wave. This is how things are done in their proper way.
The notation c then is not to be confused with Vc. Vc refers to the Velocity of constant, the figure of 300.000 in km per second. Whereas c is a notation that quite in error has been given to a relative velocity in space, as were it a constant in velocity. The notation c therefore is quite wrong and as such a lie that by all means should be trashed.
TO MAKE IT SIMPLE
How to determine the speed of any magnetic wave.
In order to calculate how fast the energy of a sine formation moves into the linear, which by the illustration Figure 81-S is moving from A to C, it must travel a distance from A to B, then to C.
That as such requires more time than to move in a straight line from A to C. As then the basic velocity of all magnetic movement in any straight line stands at 300.000 km/sec.
From A to C would be 300.000 km/s. But from A over B to C is the length of the wave (A-C) plus its diameter. As then the diameter is A to B, or B to C, we must multiply that diameter not times 2 but times 3.14 since all magnetic waves travel by a circular formation, just as the treads on a bolt or grooves in a drill-bit.
To thus find the speed at which any wave will be transposed, we add the circumference (diameter x 3.14) of the wave to its length, that then is divided into the 300.000, which gives us the frequency or number of waves in those 300.000 km. And that multiplied by the nominal length (A-C) gives us the relative velocity of that wave.
Relative then means the speed for distance in time. While the constant in speed is always the magnetic flow of movement at 300.000 km/s. For example: A-C = 5000A, Diameter = 1.5A. --- 1.5 x 3.14 = 4.71A
Rv = 5000 + 4.71 = 5004.71. 300.000 : 5004.71 x 5000 = 299.717 km/s.
How more plain and obvious can I make it that in order to travel from A to C over B, it takes more time than straight from A to C? And, how the sine velocity is reduced according to the length of the sine?
LIGHT’S DUAL NATURE
By: Leonard Van Zanten
Is there a dual nature of light? It certainly appears that way and with this essay we are comparing primary waves with secondary waves.
anything - the phenomenon of light is captivating, and more difficult to
comprehend than even gravity. It
is not without cause that we have spoken of light for a dual nature, or a
dual format, as it might be, one in the essence of a material something, and
one as no more than waves of an immaterial nature.
while for so long I suspected it, I hesitated to commit myself for lack of
more evidence, or a better understanding in the nature of light.
My words here then may be taken for facts or speculation, but not all
will be speculation, nor may all of it be facts. And so with that
understanding allow me to enumerate such factors of light as are easily
When we are in a room (Figure 81-6) and we place one of those laser pens to shine a little red circle on the opposite wall it can be seen from anywhere in that room, from A to F. But if we place ourselves at point X to look at that beam of red light sideways nothing at all of those waves are to be observed.
The conclusion here must be, that from and by the atoms of the material of that wall the incoming red waves are either reflected or refracted into all directions, into thousands upon thousand of them as copies of the first. We with our laser pen may only be sending a limited number of waves that are then multiplied many times over.
this is done by any light, for with a window in one wall the light that
passes from the outside inwards is likewise multiplied many times over to
illuminate the entire room.
is not this a fact that light always travels by a straight trajectory?
If therefore these waves through the window were not to multiply
themselves by the atoms it is struck upon - only the wall opposite to the
window would be lit. Nor is it from the incoming waves alone that copies are
send out into all directions, but these copies as they are diverted produce
yet more copies into any and all directions.
now that we got this under our belt, let’s have a look at ourselves, in
how it is for us to know that this room is fully illuminated?
We can only perceive anything illuminated if and when the waves of
light pass directly into our eyes, and nowhere else.
thus do we see the wall? Answer. In
the returning waves from that wall. And
how do we see the furniture, and even our own hands? Here again the answer
is by the waves reflected or refracted from whatever we behold.
And since the room is completely filled with waves going into all
directions, and many billions of light waves can simultaneously enter our
eyeballs, so it is that we observe the entire room with everything in it all
how may it be that the little red circle of the laser redirecting so many of
its red wavelength all throughout the room do not show up anywhere except
upon that one spot upon the wall? This
is because in nature there is no such thing as color, nor is it for any
wavelength to have any color, it is only in us to behold color by
interpretation. It is only by a reflection of the original wave that it may
be seen elsewhere.
But now we must come to the real question, as to what these light waves are material or immaterial, primary or secondary? For here we must adapt a new vocabulary to separate light for primary and secondary waves. (The dual nature of light) Since then there are originals and copies of those originals these do not necessarily fall into the dual nature of light.
waves from our laser, and those that came through the window from the
exterior are all secondary waves, with those emitted or remitted from the
atoms of all those substances were but copies of those secondary waves.
where might we find the primary type, the ones with a different nature that
is not altogether immaterial? From
the sun of course and from any star or well as any artificial source of like
nature, like its production upon a tungsten element, or a fire, any hot
source where the waves are instigated.
now we must hesitate here, for how is that computer screen illuminated when
there is no fire nor any waves within that computer to start with?
There is however that electricity, a rotational magnetic field of
force to induce – not primary – but secondary waves, the type that are
immaterial as nothing more than coordinates, the coordinate of sine
formations, nothing more than a movement, which as it goes onward traces an
waves therefore are not likely to harm us, as those of the sun to tan our
skin. these being the magnetic secondary and of little power. And of course
we are to pronounce them as magnetic since there is but a single spectrum,
that of magnetic by and in which all waves come forth.
And now let us step outside into the light of the sun that warms the earth and causes growth to all living tissue. Shall it then be by the optic waves that the earth is heated, or if not even more so by the infrared, the longer ones to which our vision is not tuned?
Be that as it may, what is it with these primary waves as they come straight down from the sun to illuminate the earth; do not these also move in a straight line? Of course they do, yet how then is the interior of our homes illuminated when we have a roof over our heads?
Our answer would be that these primary waves of the sun as they strike upon the earth are reflected and refracted out into any and all directions with the ones passing through our window to again multiply themselves illuminating the whole of our interior.
But these primary waves as they came upon the atoms of all substances did not in themselves return to anywhere, but newly regenerated copies of their coordinates were send out by and through the atoms that for their own pattern in coordinates are very selective in what lengths these will remit, and which not. It is by that phenomenon that we interpret all things for the color in them.
As then I said that these atoms would remit copies of their coordinates only, implies that all such redirected and/or remitted waves are secondary waves, the kind that unlike their parents having a sort of material nature, these copies are secondary consisting of an immaterial nature.
In my essay entitled, “Light’s Velocity,” I showed two versions of light, one in lengths, and one as discrete packages of energy. The one in lengths pertains more to the secondary type of waves, while the primary contain a volume of substance that I came to call 3W, which is something of which all atoms subsist rather than the protons and electrons as man has fabricated. Just because our solar system consists of a star with planets encircling it - does not mean that therefore the atoms should be that way.
wise there are more secondary waves passing around us than primary waves. In
experimenting with light we were dumbfounded finding it to be only waves,
and yet again as were it substantial. This was so because sometimes we
experimented with secondary waves while at other times with primary waves.
And when one looks at a man, and then at a woman, yes these two are
different, if one gets the logic of it.
But now I wish to speak of something that has bothered me for a long time. The rays of the sun are straight down, and as these in secondary form are remitted from the ground and all else going straight up as well, how is it that we can see the sky? Or to rephrase the question, how can I look into a void unless there are waves passing into my eyes to extend to that void?
We cannot from any side see the rays from the sun as they pass through the air, because the molecules of the air allow for a safe passage to those waves, and not until they are terminated or struck upon something can we behold their last point of contact.
If then I can see all that is upon the earth by those last points of contact, and even an airplane in the sky as also its last points of contact how is the air all around that airplane visible to me as a void to look into? For yes it must be a void since there are no last points of contact for all those waves into my eyes that appear to me as an open sky.
When for the example I look at a distant tree, the tree is visible because the waves from it into my eyes were their last point of contact, and since the air does not arrest any such waves, the air between the tree, and me it as such is transparent.
way above that tree there is the open sky, and while the waves remitted from
the ground going straight up may illuminate that part of the sky, how am I
to see it that illumination, since these waves in going straight up are not
coming into my eyes? It is all fine and dandy to say that these waves
illuminate the sky, but how do we determine illumination if not by waves
directly unto us?
Frustrating is it not? For what am I to believe now – that these molecules of the air also produce copies of the waves as they pass by them? If so, then yes I can understand how and why the air is illuminated. But there is a little snag here for when previously we looked sideways at those red waves from that laser, these did not produce any copies in conjunction with the molecules of the air, but only when they came upon the atoms in the wall, where they went wild to produce copies out of number.
I am beginning to believe that I am in the same boat with all the rest of the scientists that experimented with light, how on the one hand something must be, yet on the other hand it proves not to be. Could it be that only primary waves, the ones with a sure collateral are able to produce copies of the molecules of the air as well as they do of all else?
so, this is not so with any secondary wave as our experiment proved it to
be. This has bugged me for a long time, and I presume it will continue to
bug me until I can find some real evidence for it.
an airplane some thirty thousand feet up the light as it enters through the
windows illuminates the whole cabin, but where do these waves come from?
If we through these little windows can see the ground, then yes these
could be coming from the ground, but are that the only ones, or may there be
copies by and of the air molecules as well?
In looking at the sky, as into space we are as such looking into a void, which is quite understandable when a wave entering our eye moves out through the air without making any termination upon its molecules, whereby it as such continues on and on. This may be compared to the haze that appears upon a hot roadbed, the light there at some specific angle takes a turn, and since that turn is not any last point of contact other than the air itself, we are essentially looking into a void.
But that void appears like water, the semblance of it anyway. In this case the axiom of light’s straight line trajectory is enforced how we are not able by any line of light to see around corners, around any turn therein, except when that turn is very gradual like the sun below the horizon still visible to us.
a star hidden behind the sun appears to be passed the sun. This is called
refraction by the roundness of the atmosphere around the earth as well as
around the sun acting like a prism, and has nothing at all to do with
Our beholding is by angular deviations upon a rotating line of movement. Make the line straight and it is dark, all because a straight line is not a rotating formation, or to put it more accurately, the straight lines of magnetic do not present a width or diameter upon which a code may be encoded.
is there any angular deviation within such lines that first and foremost
serves us with vision that then by the degrees thereof we interpret for
why must the line in its sine formation be a rotating one? Because a none
rotating drill cannot make any holes, nor produce again rotational movement
to other coordinates, like electricity within our solar panels as one
example, and for a second to perform the same at the back of our eyes, so
that in the form of an electrical coordinate its data may be funneled to the
brain where we as spirits pick it up by still another translation.
How amazing indeed for these billions of bits of data simultaneously entering our eyes all to be twice translated before it comes to our interpretation of it. All this taking place at the speed of light. No wonder therefore that we are able to read those letters here in this essay, each single letter refracting many wavelengths unto us all of them neatly arranged so that we may know the difference between an A, from a B.
that is but the half of it since all that spacing in between these letters
also remit wavelengths, what therefore is the tally of wavelengths that we
are able to interpret simultaneously?
In our flesh we are most marvelous creatures, but even more so in spirit to decode countless numbers of data in sight and hearing as well as in what we feel all at one and the same moment.
If then we as no more than specs of dust are so marvelous, how marvelous must He be who at all times upholds us for life and being, with all else that is in the universe? With a single look and thought into the universe I feel myself as being nothing at all, and such nothingness is to define how things are made? Humility therefore is not a vice but gratitude.
If only I could be sure of this that the primary type of light does indeed form copies of its coordinate by and upon the molecules of our air, it would explain everything. For this much is a fact that such is not done by the secondary type of light waves. If then anyone knows of a way to establish the same with reasonable evidence I would be grateful.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:20:28 -0800, Leonard Van Zanten wrote:
Dear Mr. Andre Michaud
This essay may be of interest.
Leonard Van Zanten
I read your paper with interest. I see also your interrogations in your conclusion.
No doubt you must be aware that the issues that are intriguing you about light have also intrigued scientists all through history, and that eventually a string of discoveries was eventually made in better understanding what light is. Over time, much knowledge has been accumulated, even if we still do not know all that can be known about light and fundamental particles.
I don't know how much trust you would put in the comments of a stranger like me, but I can try to give you some information and refer you to sources that you can trust.
The best sources to actually learn a large part of what is known about light can be found in undergraduate physics text books, such as Halliday and Resnick "Physics" or Sears Zemansky and Young "University Physics". If you can get hold of a copy dating back to about the mid 1900's, this material is explained better than in more recent editions, because nothing new has been discovered since.
You can also trust Wikipedia to give you up to date information about light, but you must be aware that the manner in which it is described is generally colored by the interpretation that the author of the texts provided makes of the discoveries. There is no such issue with the textbooks I referred you to.
Now to your paper. Your idea that it is "copies" of the incoming laser beam that are scattered in all direction is a good representation but in reality, they are copies of as many incoming individual photons making up the incoming beam.
The incoming beam is made of countless individual photons, each of which is emitted by one electron in one atom of the laser crystal. Each of these electrons can emit one photon because the crystal is providing energy by electrical means. This energy causes one electron in each atom to move away a certain distance from the nucleus of the atom it belongs to, but since this electron is unable to remain at this distance, it eventually falls back to its natural distance from the nucleus.
It is at this moment that the energy that was communicated to it by the electrical current will be emitted as a photon. This process will repeat as long as electrical current is provided, that is thousands, and even tens and hundreds of thousands, of times per second, the more electricity is provided, the more photons will be emitted per second.
When the beam made up of these photons hits a wall, each incoming photon will be absorbed by one electron in one atom making up the surface of the wall, and again this will cause this electron to move away a certain distance from its nucleus, and as the electron falls back to its normal distance from its nucleus, the photon will be re-emitted but in any arbitrary direction, which is why that the spot on the wall can be seen from any direction in the room.
All light is emitted and absorbed in this manner, so this is why there can be only as many rebounding copies of incoming photons as there are incoming photons, one in, one out. Even photons hitting the sensitive cells of the retinas in our eyes are absorbed in the same manner.
You will find detailed explanations about how laser work if you dig deep enough into textbooks meant for undergrad level college. You can even find trustworthy courses on line, on sites like www.thegreatcourses.com to sort of follow formal learning.
So, laser light also belongs to what you call the primary category, like the Sun and incandescent lamps.
The reason we can see the sky is that some light is absorbed and emitted by air molecules, but not enough to block the view. When you get above the atmosphere, like in the space station, you see the blue haze of the atmosphere, but if you look away from the earth, you see only black. The sky tends to be blue because this is the color of light reflected back from the oceans of the Earth when sunlight hits the top layer of water in the oceans, some of which is intercepted by air molecules and reflected back to our eyes.
You have a clean analysis ability, and if you really dig into trustworthy sources, you will eventually reach a satisfying knowledge of what is currently known about light.
On the internet, you will find all sorts of "opinions" about light, and the good stuff is drowned into an ocean of crap and ill informed opinions. This is why I refer you specifically to undergrad textbooks that contain real science, and to a lesser extent, to Wikipedia. Once you have reached a good understanding, you will be able to distinguish what is good from what is not on the internet.
I hope this will help you find your answers.
GSJournal admin http://www.gsjournal.net/ http://www.srpinc.org/
Dear Mr. Andre Michaud
Thanks you kindly for the reply and the information you furnished.
And yes I searched the available resources for what has been learned about light, but these contain some errors, or no more than a general description.
Like for example: What a photon is, in how in what way and form does it travel at the speed of light while it makes its contact upon each and every atom, by which also its relative velocity is regulated? That then of course must conform to all the known factors of light. Nor has anyone justified how something as minute as an electron has the cloud to form something a thousand times greater than itself.
Both Huygens and Hubble have made some serious errors in their theories, for I did not attend classes for some eight years, but for more than fifty years now I have been tutored by the best of all teachers.
It seems you have not read my essays on “Red shift into Radial velocity, and “Light’s Velocity. And yes I do know that it is a sin to correct the known scientists and physicists, but these have yet to learn how to compute a shift in wavelength for its velocity, or even how to compute these velocities. The evidence thereto is clearly and obviously displayed in those essays.
I do not pretend to know it all, and I consider all that men have come up with. But did I not with clear evidence show how even electrons are not what they claimed to be, how these are not only negative? If then concrete evidence is not sufficient to defeat J. J. Thomson in his discoveries, by what will men be convinced of the truth? If then the learned of the earth by whatever they came up with are wrong, they are wrong,
Leonard Van Zanten
Ask a question like; "How does light travel," and you will get something like this for an answer.
The question of how light travels through space is one of the perennial mysteries of physics. In modern explanations, it is a wave phenomenon that doesn't need a medium through which to propagate. According to quantum theory, it also behaves as a collection of particles under certain circumstances. For most macroscopic purposes, though, its behavior can be described by treating it as a wave and applying the principles of wave mechanics to describe its motion.
now I must confess
how truly ignorant man is, sevenfold
in fact, for so it was prophesied.
Look how man claims that light does not need a medium through which to propagate, and yet at the same time he acclaims the medium of space to be almost as dense as our air. How blind therefore is he?
The air is given an index to retardation of 0.0003, which means that for every 1000 atoms in our air there are 997 atoms in space. Or for 10.000 atoms in the air, there are 3 atoms in space. If then it is as little as 3, how is space without a medium?
But which one of these is the correct version, shall it be 997, or 3 atoms in space? The answer depends on how we look at that index, if it be used as an index to volume, a comparison to density, or if it in reference to speed, a difference in velocity.
And we all know that the index refers to density for the change in velocity. As then the velocity in space is claimed as 299.792 km/s, by the index it is only 90 km/s slower. That 90 km/s then is but a small change when it is compared to water or glass at 1.5. The average there is 37.000 km/s.
If thus from space to air it is a mere 90 km/s the difference in density must likewise be by the same marginal difference, with this obvious conclusion that space is nearly as dense as our air.
The next more logical conclusion is that the index of space at number 1, is in error. But it would be an even greater error to conclude that velocity is not relevant to density, for if we did our index to retardation would be of no use.
Light is not only refracted and reflected, but everything shows light very much dependent on the medium, how then can man be so blind to acclaim it needs no medium? Man does not know his right hand from his left, wherefore he contradicts himself so easily.
a quotation: "Light
travels as a wave. But unlike sound waves or water waves, it does not need
any matter or material to carry its energy along. This means that light can
travel through a vacuum—a completely airless space. (Sound, on the other
hand, must travel through a solid, a liquid, or a gas.) Nothing travels
faster than light energy. It speeds through the vacuum of space at 186,400
miles (300,000 km) per second."
And: "If the light is visible, the frequency of vibration determines color. The speed of light is unaffected by vibrational frequency, however. In a vacuum, it is always 299,792 kilometers per second (186, 282 miles per second), a value denoted by the letter "c." According to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, nothing in the universe travels faster than this."
And here is another stupidity of man. "Frequency determines length," so they said. How then is the speed of light unaffected by the frequency? And he cannot make up his mind what the speed of light in space is. Is it 300.000, or 299.792 km/s?
And when he states it as 299.792 km/s he fails to provide by what wavelength that is, while with the other side of his forked tongue he acclaims light to travel by many different wavelengths. A double tongue so is man, only God did not make him that way, therefore man must be disgraced and perish.
How thus shall I be in error to acclaim man to be not only ignorant, but sevenfold ignorant? He is without eyesight, and not competent to correlate nor compare even as much as two words proceeding from his lips.
Their error is to have listened to this Einstein, and to Maxwell and others like them, people utterly devoid of knowledge and understanding.
not a single solitary thing that this person called Einstein ever had
correct, and yet they glorify him as were he the pinnacle of knowledge.
How stupid can people be, how stupid indeed.
This indeed I say; If any man wishes to become a rotten potato, let him enter the schools of physics.