CHAPTER 89             Link to other pages


  1. When there was the model T, or the first word processor we came to improve upon them for newer and newer models abandoning the old ones

  2.  And when I was young I was influenced by the science of the day as is obvious from the first number of pages herein, but I likewise by coming into age and knowledge increased in me, so some of the things that I held in that day also became obsolete.

  3. Am I therefore to go back and change them, or abandon them, or shall I leave them as they are to show how a man progresses?  I also am a man to say to myself; how stupid Leonard could you have been, you should have known better.

  4. Like a child develops into its mothers womb by a space of time, so it pleased the Lord to develop me as well.  He could just as well cause any person to come forth instantly, or bring a whole race of persons into their bodies in an instant of time as it will be in the day to come.

  5. But we cannot possibly measure up to His wisdom and ability, and yes it is far wiser that at first we should grow into manhood, and have our time in the sun for the light that is seen by the eye to also enter into us.

  6. Whosoever then will accept His instructions will be blessed accordingly, but selfish pride and arrogance must bear its own convictions to their own end, that as such will not be for a blessing unto them.

       AN INDEX

  1. There is something odd about the index as it is called for refraction, while its figures are for density and retardation, a retardation whereby to compute velocities. But no-one seems to refer to that index for what it describes.

  2. It is almost exclusively used in and for optics for the alteration of light into its direction of propagation.  Like it is said; quote: "For the splitting of white light into its constituent colors." unquote.  But again it is said, quote: "For the ratio of the velocity of light in a vacuum to that in a medium." unquote.

  3. That index then as it is called for "refraction" to imply refraction, namely - the change in direction of, for its figures so noted - is anything but correct since these vary with each different wavelength.  And why then is it called for refraction when its figures are for retardation into a velocity of?

  4. I presume man has not as yet figured out that index, or he does not have an understanding of waves in general, nor therefore how to make a calculation or index to encompass all of its phenomena.

  5. We therefore before all else should first by number list the different factors of that phenomena's of which there are four. And to go by a more appropriate term for that index let it be called, - the index to Alteration.

  6. No 1, is; The Alteration in density.  No 2, is; The Alteration in wavelength.  No 3, is; The Alteration in velocity. and No 4, is; The Alteration in direction of movement.

  7. Numbers 1, 2, and 3, always go together, while number 4 only comes in when a wave strikes a surface out of the normal, meaning out of a straight line.  All four of them thus are in conjunction with one another, and cannot be separated.

  8. As number 1 is altered, so will number 2, and consequently number 3. But it is only for number 3 that the index has its listing. And why then is it not called; the index to velocity? 

  9. As thus numbers 1, 2, and 3, are the main course, by which the index is listed, with number 4 as mere gingerbread, and not applicable to these numbers so listed - why are we so determined to name the whole course after the term of refraction?

  10. If we are to set a true index to refraction it should reflect the wavelengths to which these apply, and/or the calculation how to find the right index for each different wavelength.  If we do so then I will not frown on the fact of it being called - the index to refraction.

  11. But as it is with its reflection upon velocity, we ought to come to a proper vocabulary for it.  It may be called, the index to retardation, and true as that is, that only applies when from a lighter medium we enter into a denser medium.

  12. And yes it is rated from a vacuum on down, but it should be functional in reverse as well, as the index to expansion, or greater velocity.  We cannot here use the word "acceleration" at any time with any wave of the spectrum, in any which way that one may look at it, since that simply does not apply no how.

  13. The term "Alteration" as I coined for it - does in fact apply not only to the first 3, but to all 4 of its factors. But now comes the real problem, as to how to construe an index that applies to all.  And that my dear friend we will not be able to do.

  14. The index as we have it applies to velocity, and velocity only, it is not relevant to wavelength in any shape or form, all because wavelengths are altered by a different process in a different progression of, as I illustrated on page 80 by the protractor.

  15. Nor is it applicable to density since we are using a vacuum as our base of calculation, and that by a velocity that is mere hearsay, something of an arbitrary measure, not any real measure.  If anything we should have used 300.000 as our base for the index, and that with a fixed wavelength.

  16. If then we take that 300.000, and we affix a certain wavelength we must also affix the correct amplitude to which it applies.  If we leave any of it out (as we do now) we are bound to go back to our square one.

  17. Then we must specify a wavelength for it with its proper amplitude that by any calculation will come to that so called space velocity of 299.792, as the velocity of light in the regions beyond our atmosphere, and not as any deep space velocity, nor as anything in or by a vacuum.

  18. But we still are not there, for since this index does not work for wavelength, it will equally not work for velocity. For as the change in velocity is less for the longer lengths but more for the shorter lengths, so there is no direct comparison, no straight two dimensional line or calculus..

  19. And since the index does not work for either one how is that to be computed with density? And since none of the 3 can be trusted, who is to trust number 4? And so my question becomes - how we obtained these figures in the index to alteration?

  20. Were they taken by the angles in refraction? For that seems most likely rather than by density or velocity. For if they were taken by velocity, as is normally the case, all of them are in error because the velocity is different for each different wavelength.

  21. What velocity thus are we using, and at what wavelength? For the index to be correct in any calculation by velocity it must specify the wavelength to which it applies.  If on the other hand we use simple measures then we may come to a fair estimate.

  22. And so in hind sight it is understandable as to why it is called the index of refraction, since it was established as such.  As then it is also used for velocity it can never as such be accurate but no more than a rough estimate.

  23. The only thing that we can be accurate about is the relative velocity of any wave by its length and circumference.  And once we have in fact established of any two of these factors, the third factor will also be found, so that at long last we may be fully truthful, with nothing at all arbitrary.

  24. As then the basis of Snell's law is in error, and Mr. Huygens as well in his version of refraction, as long as the data is obtained by factual measurement, we should be okay.

  25. Snell has it that quote;  "The ratio of the sine's of the angles of incidence and refraction is equivalent to the ratio of phase velocities in the two media." unquote.

  26. First of all, I just showed how with the use of the index no velocity can be deemed accurate.  Secondly, velocity is "never" a "cause"  but a "byproduct," the cause to refraction for its degree in alteration lies in the "second" angle of "incidence."

  27. This we may take for a law - how light or any wave of the spectrum never at all slows down for anything as trivial as density in any shape or form. That is also why it is called - the constant.

  28. And for another law - how the refraction of a wave out of the normal is directly proportional to its angular incidence. and that coupled with the general oncoming incidence.

  29. The Snell's law then does not even mention that second most important angle by and in which refraction will occur. He attributes the white streaks of steam behind an airplane as the cause by which it moves through the air, rather than the engines that propel it.

  30. But then he was not educated as I was educated nor were any of man's masters in the sciences educated as the Almighty One was pleased to endow upon me.  So how can I blame them? Nor will I do so unless they refuse to accept what is given of a higher order as well as it being obvious.

  31. Like I once said; "Ignorance is not for a curse unless one refuses to be educated."  Then it becomes arrogance which - is - for a curse. In a nutshell it is as the Lord said; "I called, but you would not answer, therefore now death is upon you."


  1. How for example did they come to the number 1 for the index of their vacuum velocity? Do you notice the obvious contradiction here in that vocabulary?  Is it not called vacuum velocity? And are not the figures in the index set by it?  How then did they come to call it by the term of refraction?

  2. I will leave that as is, but when we take the 299.792 (vacuum) velocity and divide it by 299.702 (air) velocity the result is 1. And when we divide 299.792 by the index of air at 0.0003, the result comes to 999 million.  

  3. If then we multiply it, the result as a decrease in velocity comes to 90. If then we divide the 299.792 by 1.0003, as in vacuum to air the result is 299.702-km/s.

  4. That number 1 as the vacuum velocity, or the density of space, is thus an arbitrary number, but by its calculations it implies space to be nearly as dense as our air.  This implication comes by the fact that the velocity in air varies only by 90 km/s to that of space.

  5. As then we make our calculation for water, 299.792 divided by 1.133 comes to 264.600-km/s, which is a reduction in velocity to the tune of 35.192 minus 90 for the air where it came from - is still 35.102 km/s

  6. This conveys to us that the density of water is 390 times as great as that of our air. (35.102 : 90 = 390) As therefore space is reckoned for a vacuum, our air in comparison to it should come to an endless number and not the mere 90-km/s.

  7. Light travels at all times dependent upon a medium. This is an absolute fact shown and confirmed to us by and in untold many ways.  Anyone who can not see these absolute facts is either blind from birth, or the poison of the serpents among men has blinded him.

  8. There are no two ways about this, nor is it debatable, the facts are far too simple and much too abundant by which there is no choice for any human person not to accept it as factual.

  9. No my dear reader I do not condone any margin of error here, not in it, nor in that lie concocted by man for electricity to be a flow of none existent parts. 

  10. My statement is - believe man and die, or come with me and live. And if you must know - the first fundamental does not require a medium, while the second most fundamental (3M), brings medium to life. 

  11. All 3M waves thus are partial to the medium. And that - in these words - is just about enough to confuse the minds of the unwise.

  12. Another fallacy of man is to assume that waves transport energy, for it is not that a wave transport anything, but itself is the energy, the movement to power. For here again we must learn and never forget that energy is motion, and motion is power.

  13. It is not the cart pulling the horse, but the horse pulling the cart. This is a first grade lesson for all who wish to  have an understanding in the sciences.


  1. To come to a final of this; No 1; the density of any medium varies by its degree of internal movement, better known as temperature. But that is not always true, for as any metal or rock is heated there is little or no change in its density.

  2. Any computation thereof is thus never any straight forward line with its variation to temperature alone. For this cause each different medium must be rated on its own, each by its own calculation.

  3. Then for No 2; Wavelength as it is altered by the degree of density is never any straight line either, and yet it has a fixed measure. For regardless of what the length of the wave may be - its reduction is equally proportional to its length.

  4. But that equally proportional is greater for the longer lengths and shorter for the shorter lengths, wherefore as such there is no single calculation to go by, other than to incorporate the protractor into it for its varying degrees.

  5. As then the Almighty One may endow someone to be good at these things, we may as yet have that calculation from such persons, since I for one am not that good at mathematics, nor does that interest me.

  6. As for No 3; The protractor must also be incorporated with the change in velocity for any change in wavelength, for as wavelengths vary by it, so the change in velocity varies by it.

  7. For any true velocity then to find the relative (distance in time) velocity of any wave, use the the three dimensional calculation that I have shown, and you will always be correct.

  8. Then for the real velocity, to establish the absolute correct speed at which all magnetic waves are transposed, the velocity known as the constant that we currently have arbitrarily set at 300.000-km/sec, we need to do some testing.

  9. If for an absolute fact we can determine the absolute correct relative velocity of any specific wavelength by its known diameter to circumference, then our constant may also be discovered as the factual velocity rather than arbitrarily.

  10. Factor No 4; For the alteration into a direction of, known as refraction by the angle of incidence, which as such is twofold, is by the first and second incidence into their angle of refraction, I deem it a simple matter to measure the angle by any straight line of reference.

  11. This also however is never any single calculation other than to incorporate temperature in with it by the various compounds to their varying degree of expansion. And I believe that we do have these formulas.

  12. Conclusively, nothing of the above is simple to go by any straight line.  All of them are to be found three dimensionally because nature is three dimensionally, and all of these operate three dimensionally.


  1. To illustrate that pattern by Figure 89-1, by "A", first and foremost is the circle of movement.  But in a circle there is only angular movement and no linear movement.  How therefore is linear movement to be acquired from the angular movement?

  2. It is done by taking that circle of movement and twisting it over by one half of a turn so that it will become like unto "8" . That circle has now become after the pattern of a number eight. Nor therefore is it two circles joined at a center, but the single circle in the pattern of eight.

  3. And now there is linear movement, for that single circular movement as it progresses onwards, now at point "N" presents a single direction of movement coming from both directions.   And that as such becomes a linear thrust since it is twofold, the thrust of one counter balancing the other.


By this illustration the circle "A" to "B" is turned over by a full half turn that as such comes to the full power of a magnet, the full amount of linear trust. When however it is turned by only a quarter turn the magnetic entity as such loses much of its linear capacity. Accordingly, by varying the degree of that turn in relation to its surroundings that so called magnetic entity may show itself from partial magnetic to fully neutral. One such example is our air, how two Oxygen atoms bound to one another seem neutral to all others. Or Water where three atoms are well bound to each other yet seem neutral to all others. but with a decrease in general movements like freezing they become more linearly magnetic to all others.



  1. When the hydrogen bomb was detonated its scientists interpreted it as if hydrogen was turned into helium, but since they were devoid of fundamentals, they did not know any better.

  2. And when they interpret the heat of the sun as also due to hydrogen being fused into helium, they are no less in error, all because they lack an understanding in the fundamentals of things.

  3. And to first of all define these fundamentals before we come to the proper explanation of it, take a look at the power lines that are strung along the roads, and tell us why some are lightly shielded with others highly shielded.

  4. It all boils down to the atom and its field of force verses their rate of movement, their rotational mode of movement.  By Figure 89-3, I drew an illustration of the hydrogen atom at high speed and at low speed.

  5. Notice how at higher speeds its magnetic field of force expands. And of all the different atoms those of the lighter elements expand more than those that present a field of force that is more dense, like those of metals.


  1. This for its nature of is quite obvious as well as logical, for when metal is heated these atoms also wish to expand their fields as the atom of hydrogen does, but because their fields are more dense and therefore also stronger than most others - they join more strongly with one another.

  2. These atoms therefore when raised to a higher degree are not so able to expand their fields since they are locked together each one by its field of force serving as a brake to all others for its expansion.  

  3. And so it is that an atom must be free to expand its field of force, like oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, helium, and other such lighter elements.

  4. These elements are not joined together like the heavy atoms are, nor are their fields as dense as those of the larger atoms, or one might term it as flux, a dense flux, or the lighter magnetic flux.  For as the density of the flux increases, so much the stronger the magnet will be.

  5. And this goes for all atoms in all elements, and it is equally true for any other more permanent fields of force like that of electricity since it also a magnetic field of force.   By the illustrations here, Figure 89-4 represents a low speed, with a revolution not exceeding 300.

  6. By Figure 89-5, on the porcelain holders it can be as high as 17.000, while at Figure 89-6 it can be as high as 300.000. The higher the speed so much larger its field of force will be expanded, by consequence of which we keep those currents further and further from any conducting source.


  1. When therefore we cram a container full of hydrogen and surround it with an explosive the strength of an atomic bomb, we in all essence are super heating that hydrogen. 

  2. And it being the lightest of all elements - it comes to the greater expansion of any other element, the result of which must obviously come to a tremendous expansion, that for its instant is the likes of a tremendous explosion.

  3. This my dear friend is what occurred by testing such a device at an island in the Pacific Ocean. It is not that the hydrogen was turned into helium, or perhaps a degree of it, for by an expansion the hydrogen is not likely to fuse together.

  4. The same thing now is not true for the sun, since it does not consist of an endless store of hydrogen to be converted. That which man's scientists have concocted about the sun is but fantasy. If at all there was hydrogen in the core of the sun, and its heat was maintained by nuclear fusion, it would be long gone before we were ever born.

  5. It in fact would be gone within a moment of time by simple chain reaction, just as the gasoline in our combustion engines is gone within a split second of time by chain reaction. Man's scientists seem to forget how the sun is a very powerful magnet.

  6. And power within a magnet also translates into a denser flux of that magnetic. Since then the greater atoms have and present such densities, while the lighter elements do not, how will you construct a strong magnet?  Shall it be of helium that is inert, or not rather make our choice for the heavy elements?

  7. Helium as an isotope can be as powerful as hydrogen since of course it is second lightest, as long as it will react to its own and other elements. If I am not mistaken I surmise that the fusion of hydrogen into helium must be under pressure and not while it is expanding in which case it binds with Oxygen.

  8. Hydrogen at normal temperature has the unique coordinate of shielding its polarities similar to nitrogen and oxygen also at normal temperatures, but when the speed of its coordinate is raised that coordinate of hydrogen opens up by which it fuses together like with oxygen to become water.

  9. And while it did so, for the instant a great expansion took place, a magnetic expansion, since it were magnetic fields being expanded. But as soon as the fusion was completed, its rate of movement decreased rapidly, with nothing left but water at a rate of movement far below that of steam.

  10. This also is obvious and most logical, for since these atoms are in a gaseous state, there is a great deal of freedom for them by which to expand, and by that same freedom - with no other movements to maintain their high degree of revolution that speed decreases rapidly.

  11. Water on the other hand when raised above a certain momentum evaporates into steam.  In this case no molecule is ripped apart, but by the extreme expansion of their magnetic fields they consume a lot more space.

  12. That spacing then is compressible just as magnets can be forced together against their opposing directions of movement. This came in handy to drive the old locomotives, whom thus were driven forth by magnetic force, not too much different from how electric cars move by magnetic power.

  13. Remember thus how when atoms are strongly bound to one another their own force with that of others serves to curtail the degree by which they are able to expand their magnetic fields.


  1. If I may make a quotation, it reads;  "One of the abiding mysteries surrounding our Sun is understanding how the corona gets so hot.   The Sun's surface, which emits almost all the visible light, is about 5800 Kelvin's. The surrounding corona rises to over a million K, but the heating process has not been identified."

  2. The answer to this ties in with how and why the sun is a potent magnet, and continues to remain burning hot.  I could begin by letting you take a hammer, and hit hard upon a piece of metal. You may not dent the metal but it will increase the temperature at the location where you struck it.

  3. And why may that be so? It is because temperature is a rate of movement, a degree of speed, and/or the general velocity of internal movement be it linear or angular. With your hammer you applied pressure upon the atoms so struck, and that pressure translates into accelerating movement.

  4. This is one of the reason why the sun is hot and remains hot for the intense magnetic pressure upon most of its body. And why then is it still hotter at its corona, a heating process that we have identified and are about to identify. 

  5. Most of the suns interior is a dense mass of various elements with the lighter ones more to its surface.  As then 5800 Kelvin is a certain degree of speed, or movement in general, a million Kelvin's is a much greater degree of movement.

  6. If then we wish to know the difference, simply explain why a million rpm is greater than 5800 rpm.  And to go back a little in this page where we spoke of densely packed atoms with an equally dense degree of magnetic flux upon them, how these are prevented from being raised too high.

  7. At the corona however the atoms are not only of the lighter elements but also more free to expand, and as such their rate of movement can increase drastically over those packed more tightly towards the core.

  8. And so now that heating process has again been identified, or at least it should be.