WAVE NATURE 5
CHAPTER
88 
Link to other pages.
VELOCITY VERSES VELOCITY
The general consensus is that the cause for the refraction of light lies in velocity. And to quote what is said; "Refraction is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in its speed." And another. "The difference in the speed of light in different media causes bending of light."
And still another: "Refraction is an effect that occurs when a light wave, incident at an angle away from the normal passes a boundary from one medium into another in which there is a change in velocity of the light. Light is refracted when it crosses the interface from air into glass in which it moves more slowly. Since the light speed changes at the interface, the wavelength of the light must change, too."
Is it then of me to be different from everyone else to insists that the cause for refraction does not lie in any change of velocity? No, it is not that I wish to be different, but in knowing truth it becomes me to show that truth - that by it we may all come to the truth.
Sight deception is a major issue by which man has erred in many ways and still does. It is true that as a wave passes into a change of density that its velocity changes, but that velocity is what is properly called, a Relative Velocity, a velocity for distance in time.
The reason as to why that relative velocity changes is due to, and by virtue of the change in wavelength. But that we did know, did we not? And yes we did, but in an elementary way, simply knowing that as wavelength changes so does velocity.
The how and why thereof has not as yet dawned on us, which therefore I must illustrate and define. And to hit the nail square upon the head, it is the length of the wave that determines that relative velocity, and the "why" lies in the manner by which all waves are transposed.
And so now we know - don't we? Yes we will - provided we give up on waves being transposed in any transverse version, and to accept the fact that all waves move by rotation. I however do not expect one to accept just my word for it, but rather the evidence along with it.
You would like to figure it out for yourself, but without a gift of insight that may prove to be difficult if not illusive. And so why don't we do this together. First and foremost we must come to terms with this - that there is no mechanism in the air or space by which any wave of the spectrum can be transposed by oscillation.
Only sound for its so called waves are transposed by oscillation or vibration, one part moving up against the next. And since we know as to what speed that comes to, realize this as well - that with sound we are speaking of parts, of a particle of substance, while light does not consist of particles, but of coordinates in and by motion.
A block of iron for example is a block of matter, when therefore that block of iron is magnetized, shall that magnetism and those lines that it displays also be matter? No, because it as such is movement, or like I said, a coordinate. And a coordinate is not something that you link to matter, but to motion or movement.
If light consisted of particles it would not reflect upon a mirror but go right on through it, only a coordinate of movement has the ability to reflect without any harm to the tender tissue of a plant, or a piece of tinfoil.
I could put us on the spot by questioning, - how if refraction is caused by the change in velocity, then how come it does not refract when the light enters into the normal? For whether it comes in the normal, or out of the normal, the change in velocity is exactly the same.
The change in velocity then is always exactly proportional to the change in wavelength. And that obviously so since I already acclaimed that it is - in the length of the wave that determines the relative velocity. But we ought to dig up an illustration by which we can better clarify this absolute fact in nature.
Figure 93-1, illustrates the typical sine formation that we have adapted for the waves of the spectrum. Notice therefore that it is not a particle, nor does it consist of particles, but it is just as we have drawn, a coordinate of movement.
As then the arrow in the middle indicates the direction of movement, the velocity of that movement is at all times the speed at which the sine wave travels for distance in time, properly termed its Relative Velocity. And that speed as we know is always less than the constant that we rate at 300.000-km/sec.
Figure 93-1
And so let us ask - just what is that velocity of constant, that speed of 300 million meters a second? For if no wave ever travels at that speed, not even in space where we have it at 299.792-km/sec, how did we come to that constant of velocity? And yes, consider this - how and why is it called a constant when we have yet to name anything to travel by that velocity?
The answer to this is simplicity in itself. By the illustration from Y to C, to X, the speed at which that wave is formed is the constant, the full 300.000-km/sec. While the velocity at which the whole of the wave is transposed, like Y to X, is its relative velocity, namely that velocity that we find by measuring distance in time.
But rather than measuring - how shall we suppose to find that velocity mathematically? That too is quite simple, Y to X, as the crest-to-crest is the nominal length of the wave, while Y to C to X is the actual and/or full length of the wave.
If thus the nominal is 100-cm, and the diameter 1-cm, it comes to a circumference of 3.14-cm. And 3-14 plus 100 being 103.14-cm, and that divided into the 300.000 is 2908 that then multiplied by the nominal comes to 290.866-km/sec.
But perhaps we are confused for we have the notion as if these waves are as they are illustrated, while in reality they are not anything like what is shown by Figure 93-1. If we look at electrical waves, as we always do, these do appear that way, but only with electricity, any wave passing through air can not be seen, nor brought up on any screen.
Illustration Figure 93-2, is more like it - since we know for a fact that the diameter of a light-wave is somewhere around 1.5 Angstroms. And we also know that red light has a full length of 7000A, the half of which is 3500A. C1 therefore corresponds to C, and Y1 corresponds to Y.
And even at this we are not able to illustrate light realistically, unless on a floor or table we draw two lines 3.5 meters long spaced by only 1.5-cm. and within this we draw our wave from one end to the other, top to bottom or visa versa. That mind you is the length of an automobile at a width no more than our thumb.
Looking at even a half length of a wave realistically it will appear to us as were it nearly a straight line. And yes all waves are nearly straight lines. That is also one reason why they can circumvent the earth seven times in one second, and how and why it is the constant in velocity that by all means is the one and only real velocity of any and all waves.
Or have I lost you now? Perhaps I have - wherefore I will have to put it in other words. Stop and think, ask yourself this; What is that velocity that we measured for light? It was its distance in time was it not? But what is distance in time? It was how far the whole of that angular moment advanced itself by a certain number of kilometers in a second of time.
And who was doing all the moving? Was it not the constant driving that nearly straight line? As then that line moved by a circular pattern once around the circumference for each 700-nm, it was forced to travel a greater distance than 300.000-km - within those 300.000-kilometers that is must pass within a single second of time.
That greater distance then is the sum of that circumference multiplied by the tally of its frequencies, the number of 700-nm lengths that will fit within a length of 300.000-km. The reduction in velocity down from the constant is thus - due to - and found - by whatever that additional distance came to.
Those velocities that we therefore always work with is not any real motion, the constant is the real motion, the real movement. Our physical measure for distance in time - as a velocity - is not as such the movement of the wave, but how much by its angular moment it decreased for distance in time.
I asked a question, stating, "Was it not the constant driving that nearly straight line?" And here it is - that velocity of 300.000-km/sec that is found nowhere else, not with any wave. But it is found with magnetism, and here you will have to take my expertise on it since I do know how to factually find the speed at which these magnetic lines move, but not without some help.
Since then my expertise on fundamentals appears to exceed that of any person on the planet, believe me when I say that the velocity of magnetism in its lines or coordinate as such is at all times the named constant at 300.000-km/sec. And by it all waves are moved in their angular moments to their lengths.
And equally so with electricity, its sine formation that we can bring upon a screen contains that very same movement and velocity of constant. If then we measure the speed of electricity it will be proportionally less by its angular moment, that then may be computed in the same way whereby the relative velocity of any wave is calculated.
The only reason that we can factually observe the sine formation of the electrical coordinate is because its pattern remains stationary, while the 3M, the magnetic constant inhibits its lines just as those of any magnet also contain or inhibit that velocity of constant. We however are unable to observe that movement, for just as we cannot see the wind, yet we know it to be there.
REFRACTION
At the start our subject was supposed to be on Refraction and how that came about. I then got carried away as that happens more often with me. Shall I then rehearse in how and by what refraction comes about, for I did so in part 3, but not sufficiently whereby to evidence the same.
A wave then is similar to a drill-bit, similar in that it rotates, passing around the substance of nature serving as their highway upon which to travel. For at no time did we see an automobile flying through the air with nothing for its wheels to ride upon.
So it is with waves, a coordinate requires a substance upon which and by which it may be a coordinate, be it a figure eight of force like any magnet, or a wave on the move, encircling single atoms like light, or millions of atoms within those of radar, or billions of them with any length greater than 100 meters.
How therefore does a wave - when coming in the normal - pass into a greater density straight on - without refraction? In reference to Figure 93-3, if a wave were just like a drill-bit it would pass straight on by DD, all because a drill-bit has its point at the center of its rotation - as illustrated.
But the waves of light and radio etc., have this difference that they rotate around atoms and such substance, wherefore their point lies in the circumference rather than in the center as illustrated by both Figures 93-3, and 93-4.
When therefore by Figure 93-4 it comes in contact with the prism the most forward point of that angular moment digs in (so to say) and turning as it goes toward P - it is automatically diverted (refracted) into direction K.
A standard drill-bit on the other hand with its point in the center of its rotation and beveled off would tend to go into direction H. And why then should that same wave in Figure 93-3, with its point at the outer edge of its rotation also pass straight on in toward CC?
It is because the point of a wave for its diameter into the circumference is always like unto the end (outer perimeter) of a tube. And that end-line coming parallel upon a greater density will not, and cannot as such refract, the two lines being perfectly parallel.
But there is more to this, for that tube with its flat end is not as such a tube, but a tube filled with atoms, and/or molecules unto which the wave for its movement will adhere. In the normal therefore the wave will simply be compressed for it to continue its normal passage around the atoms that are now spaced closer together than they were in the air.
Whereas by Figure 93-4, the instant when the flat end of that so called tube came upon the prism, with the line of that prism in an angle before it, it is the perimeter of that tube that makes first contact, and it follows the same pattern that Mr. Huygens illustrates for his waves, like a row of men walking obliquely into a bed of sand.
But now we come to the question, - what if the point of that wave arrives at the left - away from the face of the prism rather than on the right as illustrated? The answer here is manifold, first of all we must never forget that a wave is a rotating entity, and at that a rotation at extremely high revolutions.
For the 700-nm wave that is about 400-trillion revolutions per second, and more for the blue wave. Secondly, if the point of the wave comes first at the left - then the area at the right is a void, and our wave would again dig in the same way refracting to K, all because it is a rotating entity with its point at the flute thereof.
Thirdly, that so called tube, as we said earlier, is filled with substance, and thus not as such an empty tube, for which cause - into a fourth reason, it rides dependent upon it, whereby it is not easily driven from it. Evidence of this is with light traveling in such straight lines.
And no less by that apparent water on a hot road caused by a change in distance from one atom to the next, thinner air as it is called whereupon the light makes its refraction. A wave will compress at any greater density, but the instant it encounters a few atoms with greater spacing it instantly expands accordingly. That thus shows how dependent those waves are upon the substance of nature and their relative spacing.
How far by the heat of the sun upon a roadbed may the atoms distance themselves from one another? If it be 1 or 2 Angstroms, what are 2 angstroms to something that travels at a velocity of 300-thousand-trillion-Angstroms each and every second? Yet that light reacts upon it most perfectly, because it rides upon them.
If now we consider a normal sine formation to come upon a prism as per Figure 93-5, the first angle as it strikes upon a prism is parallel with the surface, it should therefore proceed straight on to W. While the trailing angle comes to the XYZ coordinate by which it should refract towards E.
Since then within any prism we do not see a straight as well as a refracted ray of light, it is a confirmed fact that light does not travel by any such sine formation. Illustration Figure 93-6 then shows the XYZ coordinate by which any and all magnetic waves refract.
The degree in the refraction then is first and foremost by the angular moment of the wave, the XYZ coordinate, and secondly by its angle of incidence at which it comes upon the face of the prism. Reference here is to page 79.
Then to evidence this fact in nature, if we pass a 700-nm wave and a 400-nm wave through a prism, the difference in their angular moments is 300-nm, that for half-lengths comes to 150-nm. The separation in the refraction of these two waves must then by degrees be the equal to those 150-nm.
And so all we have to do is physically measure that degree separation - if it corresponds to the half-lengths or the full lengths. If it be the halves it serves to confirm my word, if not someone made an error since they cannot possibly refract by whole lengths.
INCIDENCE AND DENSITY
Now it warrants us to enhance the further reality of waves in how and why they refract by entering a change in density, and the consequent dispersion of light into its colors.
And to lead up into that let us review the measures of light from its high end at some 700-nm to its low end at 400-nm, these being round numbers.
If we substituted millimeters for angstroms, the half length of the blue wave would measure 2-meters with the red at 3.5-meters to a width of 5 millimeters, that per illustration Figure 93-7, comes to a rectangular. As then the red 7000A wave spans from R to S, the blue 4000A wave spans from R to H.
What therefore may be the degree separation between these two, or in percentages of its tubular width? At the midway point of the red wave, 1750A, the line passes at dead center wherefore the distance at that point will be 2.5A. And since the blue wave is somewhat passed that point - the distance at H between the two waves is somewhere at 2.14A.
With the blue wave having a span of 57.15% of the whole that leaves 42.85% from H to S. And 0.05 x 42.85 comes to 2.1425. as the distance between H and and the line of the red wave, also as 42.85% of the circumference, or full width.
And so let us assume or surmise that the separation between these two waves is at these figures, and that they will always remain at these figures, for when there is a contraction or expansion both of them will be reduced or expanded by the same degree.
And that goes for refraction as well, for when both come at a fixed index of refraction and one is to refract at a sharper angle to that of the other, that in itself does not change the degree by which these two have their fundamental separation.
But why is it that for its width I went to the measure of its circumference rather than the diameter? The illustration for this is by Figure 93-8, and while this may be a bit difficult to understand, I feel that since these waves do not merely cross a diameter, but pass by a circumference that in their operation the dispersion between these two lies also in the measure of their circumference.
Then with our reference to Figure 93-9, we have only one angle of incidence to one angle of refraction, while I show 2 angles of incidence to more than one angle of refraction. And to debate the current version of it, when light strikes a denser medium such as the prism and is refracted according to the index thereof - there is no separation of the light into its different colors.
For it is not of the prism to separate wavelengths; a prism does "not" disperse light into its colors, It is by and of "incidence alone" that light is seen for its colors. And that we can take as a law, since that law is written in nature.
And here is another law written in nature: Any "one" incidence can never have more than "one" angle of refraction. To have more than "one" angle of refraction one is in need of more than "one" angle of incidence.
The prism is useful in that we can see through it, that it remits its wavelengths back out of it into all directions, like a turntable, how the light by its rotation also works around the molecules set into a grid whereby its coordinate can radiate out into a near 360 degrees.
And that is not at every atom nor molecule, but by lengths of, for when a particular wave spans 500 atoms, that event takes place at these intervals. That same thing then is not seen in the air where the light finds no termination, while the coordinates in glass do.
By the illustration figure 93-9, incidence 1, has but a single angle to the face of the prism by which to refract into what can only be a single change in direction.
But because sunlight always arrives with a great number of different angles inherent in their lengths, there is always more than one angle of incidence; therefore did I show two incidences, 1, and 2. Incidence 2 is the one that contains the varied wavelengths - and comes paired with incidence 1.
When therefore any one of these incidences encounters a dense medium like our prism, they - out of the normal - will refract "first and foremost" to its angular configuration that I call it XYZ coordinate, and secondly to the compactness, the degree of that density that we have established as the index of it.
Conclusively, the angle of refraction is a twofold affair, and this is important to remember, for when any number of different lengths arrive - at obviously - different angles of incidence, each and everyone of them will refract by exactly the same degree relevant to that index.
The index, or the prism as such, does not, and cannot refract anyone length more than the other. If it did then the index as such is useless - since it is a single fixed degree of density. In consequence thereof it is impossible for any prism to cause any diversion into the waves by which their colors are seen.
We always thought that a prism will separate light into its colors. And if that were true than the earth also does not rotate before the sun, but that it is the sun to move around us. A prism can refract waves but only each to their own incidence.
This is so because each different length of the light presents its own particular angle of incidence - and these will refract to each their own angle of refraction, that as such is more acute for the shorter verses the longer lengths resulting into the array of color.
The dispersion of light thus is exclusive by and of, and in the waveforms themselves as they arrive at different angles of incidence to different angles of refraction. That is how the colors are seen - and in no other way.
Our index to refraction now is also the index to retardation, and/or expansion, its primary use being for velocity, but since it works equally well for refraction, it seems that it is mostly spoken of for refraction. And we might as well keep it that way so as to make us forget about velocity, it not ever in any way being any cause to refraction.
The evidence to that was previously shown, and I will speak some more of it. While then I found the index to be useful for velocity it was but marginally so, and of no use at all in determining the retardation or expansion in the changing lengths of the waves, since that goes by another factor, and that factor likewise alters velocity. (Ref-1)
It might be said that there are two angles of incidence, but in reality with our normal single incidence there are up to 3000 or more in that octave of light alone if numbered by increments of 1.
The light as it enters into a prism, or any other such density, does not change it mode of movement, it came encircling atoms and it will continue to do so, but its angular moment now being compressed to a sharper angle these must now make more turns around the circumference from its precious rotation in the air.
Consequently, its relative velocity will be reduced, for that is how and why different lengths come to their different speeds. What would however be a curious note - is to discover what the color of a red 700-nm length is within the prism.
299.792 divided by 1.52 (the noted index) comes to 197.231-km/sec. and that velocity pertains to a length that is far less than that by which a blue wave is known. In other words, those many colors for their reduction in wavelength within the prism are beyond our visible range.
The only reason that these waves within the prism appear to be visible is because they revert back to their original in leaving that prism to our beholding. We therefore never at at all observe what in all reality is within that prism.
If then we wish to check on those angles of incidence from the high 700-nm to the low 400-nm if indeed their incidence is by half-lengths or full lengths, we need but measure the separation between them, as we came to earlier by that 40+ percentage difference.
It is obvious that man will have to rewrite his theories on refraction, and while the Snell's law may be useful its theory is based on wrong conclusions. Anyone can measure things like one angle from the next, but for an understanding of fundamentals one is in need of the Teacher by whom insight might be awarded him.
By illustration Figure 93-1, I clearly showed how the velocity of any wave driven by the magnetic constant is formed regulated - and - altered - by their angular moment as it must pass by a circular route.
It is therefore not only obvious but conclusive that there is but one single velocity, and one single velocity only. All waves of the spectrum travel with one and the same velocity through any and all densities. It is completely impossible for the movement of light etc., to slow down or speed up for anything as trivial as the densities in nature.
And this we may write as a law, since it is a law of nature. The speed that we record for distance in time is not really a velocity, it is an imposition upon velocity, an alteration by which the true velocity appears to be moving slower. And that also may be written as a law of nature since it is factual and indisputable.
The velocities that we have obtained by physically measuring the same, or obtained mathematically, are just that a mathematical entry of a variation, or alteration, or imposition to the one and only real velocity. The relative velocity of all waves are as such a factor of mathematics, measuring distance for time.
The term "Relative" thus is quite appropriate for all these so called velocities, seeing how they are a relative factor, a factor relating to - but not being the entity itself, the movement thereof.
Sight deception is what has us in a bind. When you are sitting in a train going 10mph and through the windows you see another train moving in the same direction at 20 mph, that train to you appears to be moving at only 10mph, and even if you physically measured that speed from your seat it would be 10mph.
But you are of course mistaken since you should have considered your own velocity in respect to the other train. In like manner we deceive ourselves with light for its movement and refraction.
Without insight and a proper understanding in the nature of things we are always prone to be misled by appearances, And for that we are in need of one to whom such knowledge and insight is given.
For of my own I never discovered anything, all that I am is a gift to me. Nor am I the first in this since it was previously revealed to King Solomon, but he made no record of it, since that was for me to accomplish.
In the question as to how and why light and other such waves refract; the best way to illustrate that is by a phenomenon called reflection drawn up by Figure 93-10. If waves came as lines like unto C in the illustration, they would not reflect but glance off into direction D.
But since all waves - as lines - travel by a circumference their so called point comes to a tubular area, and it is as such that they strike upon any given plane. If now a ray of light came upon a surface from direction "A," and there was no rotation, it would simply collapse or turn into the normal.
It therefore as such would not reflect and for all practical purposes be like unto the line at C. But because that tubular area is as such tubular by and in the rotation of that line in the circumference - our rotating line in all essence rotates itself into a new direction heading towards B.
It is by this that - as it turns away from the plane it must do so by a like angle in which it came. No matter what its angle of incidence happen to be, the reflected angle will always be the same - all because it is a rotating entity by and in a tubular configuration.
And thus to come back at our question in how and why waves refract or reflect, it is first and foremost by "incidence" that then comes paired with the rotational format of the wave, for without the latter no wave could possibly reflect nor refract as we know it.
Secondly, and this is by the entry of a wave into another density, the entry comes before refraction. And how did I figure that? Because a wave can not refract to take in a greater angle than what is foremost dictated upon it by its incidence.
The turn by its entry into the denser media has this additional dictation - to follow the track that is laid out for it, which for a diamond is more condensed that for glass or water. That turn thus, the angle of refraction as it is called, is secondly determined by and in its mode of travel. One could conceive it as a train upon a track, howsoever the track is laid out - so the train must follow.
And lastly our vocabulary could use some improvement. When for example we say that the speed of light in air is 299.702-km/sec, it is an ill conceived statement in that it fails to specify the particular wavelength to which that applies.
I was forced to take a pick, and I choose the 700-nm length by which in the velocity so noted - I was to discover its amplitude. The blue wave in air travels at less than 299.547-km/sec, while the 550-nm length is near 299.646-km/sec.
How therefore can the speed of light in air be 299.702-km/sec when that velocity pertains only to the red 700-nm length in air? Therefore when speaking of any velocity it is imperative to specify the wavelength to which that velocity applies.
SUPPLEMENTAL
How are waves moved? Look at two magnets how these will draw towards or away from one another, that is by magnetic power, the motion of magnetism. There are no charges there for it is not electric but magnetic, nor are there green Martians pushing nor pulling but simply the movement of magnetic, the motion by which magnetic is magnetic, the one and only entity called movement, the fundamental movement.
There are many movements but there is but one fundamental movement that in itself is an entity, and it not only powers everything in nature, but by its movement all things are maintained, formed, rearranged, separated, combined, held in place, moved from place to place, without it all physical things would cease to function.
It is at all times everywhere at full power and as it were at rest, yet when imposed upon it moves that imposition at the velocity of constant, or simply in place by rotation organized in grids.
The power that moves magnets is not anything super natural, nor are it charges as such, for is iy a charge? If we do not accurately define that term of charge, then let it be scrapped from our dictionaries, for in that event it has no meaning nor any place in the this world or any world.
The power of magnetic is none other than simply movement, the movement that in all respects is the power of and by magnetic. Like as the Creator formed atoms and molecules, He before all that established that by which they might become atoms and molecules, namely motion, that fundamental motion that I designated by the term of 3M.
Call it threefold movement or three dimensional movement, or perfect movement, in any case it is movement without which no atom would have its movement, nor therefore subsist.
As now I have spoken more than I ever planned to speak, it is only because I found man to be slow in perception, extremely slow. And how am I to educate man in the nature of things if I did not show on what that nature is founded.
And so it was that by His revelation unto me when I was yet in my twenties, I coined the words. Matter in motion by coordinates. And that it described nature and that it was nature in all of its forthcoming. Know then also this secret how I received these revelation from Him because my birth is not of this world, nor of man, but of the Most High, the Creator of all.
And like a father instructs his sons, so I was instructed wherefore do not ever credit me with any discovery, since all that I am, and know was given me by instruction.
I am no longer going to debate the impossibility of man's version of transverse waves, since that is so utterly childish and illogical, as well as in violation of all the laws found in nature. My judgment is - whosoever cannot comprehend these obvious facts, let him or her be as the blind, and as those bitten by a serpent the poison of which has already brought them into their graves.
And why should we shed tears over any snake charmer when he is she is bitten? They have done it to themselves have they not? The Lord warned the Israelites not to listen to their forebears, nor their teachers, but to listen to His voice so that they might be properly instructed and have life for themselves.
Well-on I in turn am warning all the inhabitants of the Earth not to listen to their elite, but to consider my voice seeing how my voice is a voice of wisdom and of understanding, the voice of one educated by the Most High, in Whom there is all wisdom, and whose understanding is without end.
If then you do not like my speech because I honor and glorify Him who created all that is, and you of course refuse to accept these obvious facts written in anything and everything that was ever made, you my dear one are committing suicide, you are killing yourself, and in due time will pay a dear price for that poison more than the truth.
Why now am I speaking all these words in an attempt to educate man in the physics of things? Because these words are the truth, and me having come forth from the truth why should I not speak the truth?
And it may be that in hearing these words there will be some to come to the truth, by which their lives may be saved, and not enter into that painful fire where everyone will come to regret not to have paid heed to my words.
