Light to Radial Velocities
An Essay send to Journal of Astrology
They would not publish it.
Abstract
This essay provides an in depth review into the computations for radial velocities, furnishing us with new ways to find the real velocity of any way in space and in any media. Additionally it illustrates how and why the expansion and contraction of the waves of the spectrum are not always proportional to the change in velocity for all lengths.
It varies from short to longer waves for obvious reasons. The index to retardation can therefore not be used for length nor for velocity, nor is it applicable to full lengths but only to halflengths.
Key words
Light, density,
velocity
Essay
How is the speed of light calculated? It appears no one to date has found a means to calculate the velocity of any wave; instead it was measured and currently accepted at 299.792/km/s in space. That particular measure however fails to provide at what wavelength that was.
Although understandably when the waves arrive at all lengths once cannot just pick one unless we make our readings with a single wavelength. As then all waves travel with an angular moment in conjunction with its linear movement it must pass by a certain width, amplitude.
And how much shall that be, and /or how does one go about discovering that
amplitude for a specific measure thereof? For the velocity of any wave can
always be found mathematically as long as we have its particulars, length, width
and constant. A wave is never a line, or else it is not a wave, wherefore its
amplitude is as important as its length.
I now am enabled to show how simple it is to mathematically obtain the velocity of any wave for its distance in time, along with its correct amplitude. I did so utilizing the largest of wavelength in the optic range by our reading of 299.792/km/s.
Since then that is a
velocity for distance in time we must also have a velocity whereby the waves are
factually transported, like that of magnetic that we have taken at an arbitrary
measure of 300.000/km/s. That is the velocity of a straight magnetic line
without any angular moment.
Consequently
when we come to calculate a wave of that line, its net velocity will always be
less to the constant since it must pass by a wave formation that adds its
angular to its linear, reducing its constant into a velocity for distance in
time.
And so now we have two of the three factors, the length that we wish to have our data on, and the constant for our calculation. Then comes the amplitude that we have yet to discover. And taking the 7000a length its amplitude must correspond to the velocity of 299.792/km/s, if not our amplitude would be in error.
And
it must be large enough to pass around all the atoms in the air, for we know
that the 7000a length always passes through air without any obstruction but not
so upon the surface of the earth where the atoms are too large for light to
pass. Or even the water molecules in the air to block the waves showing us the
clouds
And so I came up with an amplitude in the diameter of 1.5414a that times 3.14 comes to a circumference of 4.84a. Here we add that angular moment to the nominal length of 7000 to 7004.84a that then divided into the constant the result of which comes to 42.8275etc, and that times the nominal length of 7000 comes to 299.792/km/s.
That circumference therefore is correct – as it must be correct  since it is just large enough to pass the atom/molecules of the air, and in glass as well as in water. Except in water and glass the oxygen atoms have several atoms at its side, at which the light in circumventing the main oxygen atom sooner or later come to strike at the connecting points of these hydrogen atoms hanging at its side.
Therefore in
water, like the ocean, the waves of light may pass around billions of those
molecules yet sooner or later it is bound to strike upon the connecting points
and be terminated, wherefore the shortest of all may reach down as far as 600 ft
in water at which time all of the light waves will be terminated.
Now
that we have the 3 primary factors by which to perform our mathematics, figure
1; will help to illustrate just how that comes about
Figure
1. Light’s mode of travel having to go around atoms by a constant velocity is
reduced for distance in time called its “relative” velocity when measured
straight on.
From
“A” to “C” (the crest to crest measure) is the nominal length of the
wave as it rotates forward around the perimeter of the atoms in its path. The
reason that it rotates is because all wavelets are at all times formed in that
manner, and are at all times singular wavelets, like a code or indent
transported by the all pervading movement that as such is called the fundamental
movement of nature, and since; as far as we can determine; it has a constant at
the rate of 300.000 km/sec.
The
same is often referred to as the magnetic motion that is throughout the whole
universe forming and upholding all the mass within it, stars, galaxies, planets,
and all else. That fundamental movement in velocity then is procured by what is
yet more fundamental by which all atoms come to their nature of being. But that
is deep seated.
As
thus the format of the wave proceeds from point “A” to “C” it does so
over “B” passing around a perimeter being driven at the rate of
300.000/km/sec. As thus the format passes around a circumference (A/B/C) the net
velocity of the whole is reduced compared to that velocity it would have
traveled in a straight line from “A” to “C:
Light
therefore cannot be thought of nor calculated on any single line because it
is a wave, and a wave presents an angular moment to be
incorporated in the calculation for its net velocity.
The formula by which to find that velocity for distance in time called its “Relative velocity” is simply to add the circumference to the nominal length (as the real full length) divided into the velocity of constant, that then multiplied by the nominal length.
Conclusively there are always two velocities
of any wave, nor therefore can the notation of the speed of light be written as
c. It is Vc, the notation for the velocity of constant, that never needs to be
calculated residing at 300.000/km/s, with its time in distance velocity as Rv,
meaning relative velocity. The term c therefore is abolished as it must be, with
the formula as follows:
Length
7000/angstroms, amplitude 1.5414a X 3.14 = 4.84 + 7000 = 7004.84a into 300.000;
resultant times 7000 is 299.792 km/sec. Or 4000a at 4004.84 into 300.000 times
4000 = 299.637/km/s.
The diameter at 1.5414a is correct for those of light, anywhere from 1000a to about 10.000a . Any other wave like those of radio is then bound to travel around thousands of atoms within its amplitude, while for light it is around single atoms.
If not then light could pass through
walls like those of radio, and we would never see the surface of anything. I
then estimate the increment for larger and larger waves to their diameter to
come by a factor of ten. A 10/meter wave would thus come to a circumference of
4.84/cm at a velocity of 298.554/km/s.
Calculating spectral shifts.
Now
that we know how to accurately calculate the (Rv) velocity of any wave let us
see how that applies to some of our spectral readings. Below are the reading how
the astronomers came to a radial velocity. Quote:
Absorption lines of hydrogen, normally measured to be at 4861Å
and 6563Å, were measured in the spectrum of a particular galaxy to be at 4923Å
and 6647Å.
And
so: The speed of light, c,
has a constant value of 300,000 km/sec. Therefore this galaxy has a red shift of z = [(4923  4861) / 4861] and z = [(6647  6563) / 6563]
z = [62 / 4861] and z = [84 / 6563]
z = 0.01275
Now
let us calculate this in the proper way rather than Hubble's way, and
utilize the waves circumference at 4.84A as a standard for it.
The
laboratory velocities as noted for hydrogen are:
4861
+ 4.84 = 4,865.84 : 300.000 x 4861 = 299.701km/sec.
6563
+ 4.84 = 6,567.84 : 300.000 x 6563 = 299.779km/sec
Then
the spectral shifts are:
4923
+ 4.84 = 4,927.84 : 300.000 x 4923 = 299.705km/sec
6647
+ 4.84 = 6,651.84 : 300.000 x 6647 = 299.782km/sec
Comparison:
(299.705
minus 299.701 = 4km/sec) (299.782
minus 299.778 = 4km/sec)
The
comparison of the laboratory from the factual shifts come to no more than
4/km/sec, and not anywhere near the 3,826/km/sec that the astronomers came up
with. How therefore were they so much in error, since we  as we know  in
this case cannot be in error?
To put it factually in order to use light as a measuring tool one must foremost have a good understanding of it. And this we lacked because the Almighty Creator of man did not furnish them with that understanding. This kind of wisdom the Lord teaches only to His sons, and then only to very few that those in turn may teach his fellows.
Solomon was one of them, and it pleased the Almighty One to
grand me that wisdom and knowledge as well. Nor therefore was I taught in vain
but that in turn I may teach others. My degree is not of any earthly standard,
but of a much higher order; a masters degree in science as well as in
philosophy.
The error of the astronomers was in not understanding their measuring tool leading them to the wrong calculations; to use a two dimensional calculation failing to include the angular moments in the wave. I now could upbraid us to say. “Did we not know that “a wave is a wave”?
Meaning, that it is a line with angular
moments wherefore these angular moments are at all times to enter into the
calculation? But that is not totally fair, seeing it is enough for us to learn
the truth.
A
percentage in expansion is not for a wave in its movement, or else it should not
be called a wave. Moreover, the light as
it was traveling away from that galaxy was moving at a clip of 299.701/km/s. If
then the galaxy receded from it by 3,826/km/s, that adds up to 300.027/km/s, a
velocity faster than the constant of all magnetic when it is a straight line, and
that is in violation of our known laws.
In
answer therefore to those many persons that obviously question the validity of
any star or galaxy or anything moving faster than the speed of light; “don’t
be fooled by those who are unaware of the mathematics by which radial velocities
may be obtained. The sample herewith is evidence.
But how can we be so sure that indeed that galaxy is even receding at a clip of 4/km/s? It may very well be at an idle with us, or even approaching on us all because that light as it traveled through space for let’s say one lightyear, how many red and/or blue shifts did it go through in that year?
How many stars did it graze, and what other galaxies did it pass through? And who knows how many refractions it went through by which to determine its true position in the sky; that as such may be way off. In other words; our findings are at best speculation.
The only thing that we can be reasonably sure of are those measures
and velocities in our own backyard, our solar system.
Another example
If
for the example we apply our calculations upon one of the most distant objects
found, measured by the Lymanalpha emission line at 1216a shifted by 8300a,
their calculations came to a radial velocity of 287.000/km/s. (Ref 2)
The 1216a wave has a velocity of 298.810/km/s. Its expansion to 9516A brings it to a velocity of 299.847/km/s. The increase in velocity of that wave thus comes to 1037/km/s. That mind you is not anywhere near to 287.000.
If thus we add the 287.000 velocity to the existing 298.910 (km/s) velocity we arrive at a radial difference of 585.910/km/s.
That mind you is nearly twice over what could possible exist for any magnetic movement. Obviously Hubble’s formula does not work, nor does any credit belong to Georges Lamaitre. (Ref3)
Both were wrong.
Nor is there any credit due to me since I was taught by the all time
Teacher to Whom belongs the credit.
Radial
velocity
Now that we seem to have a good understanding in how light travels and how radial velocities are to be calculated, we have as yet to hear the full of it. Below is a Radial Velocity chart, highlighting five readings. The first column shows the radial velocity obtained by man in his calculations.
The second column shows the change in wavelengths. The third column shows the
velocities of the first noted lengths of the waves. The fourth column shows the
velocities of the expanded waves. The fifth
column shows the true and correct radial velocities.
Notice
how it is from 3/km/s to 6/km/s while the difference in the expansion came
to 35a, 36a and 40a. The last one on the list is the one really out
of bounds, a radial velocity of no more than 77/km/s that is interpreted into
some 274.000/km/s, which of course is absurd.
Radial Velocity chart
Radial
velocity 
Calcium K diff  V/normal/l  V of shift  Radial V 
0km/s 
39333968/35  299.631km/s  299.634km/s  = 3km/s 
100km/s 
39343969/35  299.631=km/s  299.634km/s  = 3km/s 
1000km/s  39433981/35  299.629km/s  299.635km/s  = 6km/s 
10.000km/s  40644100/36  299.643km/s  299.646km/s  = 3km/s 
274.000km/s  35606620/40  299.703km/s  299.780=km/s  = 77km/s 
Then to draw our attention to the expansions in the shifts verses the radial velocities. For each of the 35/36a in wave expansion there was an increase of 3 to 6/km, while the one with the greater expansion of 40A came to 77/km increase. And why may that be so?
The answer is  because it is a longer length,
and as the lengths are greater and greater so the increase in their lengths must
be greater to account for the same value in velocity
This
may be demonstrated by figure 2. If the angular moment in the light is
shifted from 20 to 30 degrees there are (for the example) 5 points expansion in
wavelength. From 30 to 40 it becomes 6 points. And to increase the angle
by another ten degrees it becomes 9 points.
Where
then from 50 to 60 degrees there are 15 points, another ten degrees will
multiply that to 40 points.
When
therefore a receding object pulls on a wave by some 20/km/sec, if it be the
shorter one like at 50 degrees, it must expand the wave more than if it were one
at 30 degrees. And that expansion in the wave becomes greater and greater for
the longer lengths just to keep up with the receding velocity.
Figure
2. Radial velocities verses wavelengths
And
so it becomes obvious how a shift in wavelength is
not directly proportional to the change in radial velocity. Yet we
are quite able to determine the correct relative velocity of any wave as long as
it is computed by its three dimensional format. And for this we need the correct
diameter of the wave into its circumference that varies for each octave of the
spectrum.
I
then came to the correct diameter and circumference by which light travels by
using our own reading of the speed of light at 299.792km/sec that I applied to
the red length at 700/nm since that being the longest and fastest is first to
arrive, that then came to 4.84A in the circumference.
The protractor in figure 6 depicts the reality in how waves are formed. Remember how all atoms are in rotation and when we impose fluctuations, or vibrations upon them to in all essence impose indents.
Those indents are in the angular by and in the natural rotations, that then as such become circular indents, a wavelet on the move rotating around a fixed diameter, a diameter implemented by our equipment, or in and by the composition.
Electricity upon a filament in a standard lightbulb will not generate radio waves, but the resonance is high enough for lightwaves. For a radio wave our impulses need to be much longer for longer lengths and on a greater scale; that is a larger diameter.
Wave
production
At
this time it warrants us to behold just how waves are implemented.
We used to do so with tubes etc.; that is now replaced by diodes and
transistors. But old or new it all
comes down to switching devices together with the speed at which that is done
and in what frame of reference. High or low, long or short the principle in wave
production is one and the same illustrated by figure 3.
It all starts out with nature’s fundamental movement that at all times moves at the velocity of 300.000/km/s, our Constant. That movement is not like any other movement, it being the fundamental one seen with all that is magnetic or electric, or any wave of the spectrum all belonging to what is termed “Magnetism.” (Ref3)
Then there
are the atoms in nature that are driven in rotation by several reasons, first
and fundamentally by that movement of constant in conjunction with what is yet
more fundamental that as such I must leave to speculation having taken an oath.
In reference to figure 3 there is the ever fundamental movement to the left as indicated. Then as we with our devices create impulses by oscillation, vibration, or resonance, it is like driving an angular momentum from X to Y.
When therefore the diameter across which we are creating our drive is 10/mm, and
we did so at the speed of 10.000/km/s X to Y, our belt moving at 300.000/km/s,
the forward point of our impulse instead of arriving at Y; came to Z. This may
be compared to a transport belt at which packages are places going down the
line.
Figure
3. Waves implemented by impulses upon the constant of velocity
Our
wave would then have a halflength of 30/mm with its full length at 60/mm
passing around the circumference of 31.4/mm. The faster the impulse is driven so
much the shorter the wave becomes, or slower to longer lengths. Point X then is
the central point of the protractor.
But
am I convincing? An electrical current with its rotating north and south
polarities will obviously cause the atoms in an element to vibrate that then as
such produce lightwaves. (Ref4) Or when we do the same thing with whole
molecules, a million pack of them we will have much longer waves at much greater
diameter. And why should they be rotational, why not flat on through space and
air?
A
flat on wave would be stopped at the first atom it encountered. If rotating
waves have at least a 98 percent chance of getting around an oxygen atom in
water, the instant it strikes upon the connecting point with the hydrogen atom
it is history, how much less when for its width larger than any oxygen atom it
would attempt to pass between atoms.
A wave as a flat entity is simply preposterous, not only because it has no way to go, but it can never attain to the speed of light. And even by driving a single atom linearly into two other atoms as a fluctuation it by all logic becomes a rotational impulse.
Our driving mechanism being rotational upon other rotational factors can only produce a rotational result taken away by the ever constant of velocity. Consider how a straight line is never a wave, but a line passing along atoms that when it circumvents these atoms appears as a wave.
Only a rotating wavelikeline is able to pass through the media without any real obstructions other than as mentioned. Moreover; a wavelet of 5500a in length traveling at a diameter of less than 2a – when viewed by us in real time appears more like a straight line, its ratio being 2750 to 1.
No wonder therefore that its velocity
comes so close to the constant of velocity, while its high rotation provides for
a straight trajectory.
More to the protractor
Now that we have noted wave production that at all times follows in the way illustrated by the protractor we might wish to see more evidence. Therefore below is a "Comparison chart."
Note when a blue color wave is expanded by 40/a, it required a 3.6/km/s velocity, the same expansion by an 8000/a wave came to only 0.9/km/s. At 6800/a with a 200/a expansion comes to 6.1/km/s, but at 8000a it will only be 4.4/km/s.
As the length of a wave is greater,
so much the more it needs to be increased in length for the same value of
velocity.
Comparison chart. (4.84a circumference)
4000
to 4040A 
299.637.4
km/s to 299.641.0
km/s 
=
40a = 3.6km/s 
6800
to 6880A 
299.786.6
km/s to 299.789.1 km/s 
=
80a = 2.5km/s 
6800
to 6900A 
299.786.6
km/s to 299.789.7
km/s 
=
100a = 3.1km/s 
6800
to 7000A 
299.786.6
km/s to 299792.7 km/s 
=
200a = 6.1km/s 
8000
to 8040A 
299.818.6
km/s to 299.819.5
km/s 
=
40a = 0.9km/s 
8000
to 8200A 
299.818.6
km/s to 299.823.0
km/s 
=
200a = 4.4km/s 
Another chart shows the lengths from 1500/a to 8000/a by an increase of 500/a, and their velocities. When therefore there is a 500/a red shift into any wavelength, what must the radial velocity be in order to accomplish the same?
It by no means is a straight line calculation, but fixed to the protractor, in its angles towards a line upon it. In other words, by the degrees illustrated here.
The
velocities and consequent increase or decrease in radial velocities, with the
increments as shown all in itself confirms how
light is generated and send on its way in that manner.
Wave 
Relative/V 
Radial/V 
Increments 
Red
shift 
8000A 
299,818km/s 
12.
km/s 

500A 
7500A 
299,806km/s 
14.
km/s 
>
1.73 
500A 
7000A 
299,792km/s 
16.
km/s 
>
2.12 
500A 
6500A 
299,776km/s 
18.
km/s 
>
2.65 
500A 
6000A 
299,758km/s 
22.
km/s 
>
3.38 
500A 
5500A 
299.736km/s 
27.
km/s 
>
4.39 
500A 
5000A 
299,709km/s 
32.
km/s 
>
5.85 
500A 
4500A 
299,677km/s 
40.
km/s 
>
8.04 
500A 
4000A 
299,637km/s 
52
.km/s 
11.48 
500A 
3500A 
299,585km/s 
69.
km/s 
17.21 
500A 
3000A 
299,516km/s 
96.
km/s 
27.52 
500A 
2500A 
99,420.km/s 
145.
km/s 
48.55 
500A 
2000A 
299,275km/s 
240.
km/s 
95.20 
500A 
1500A 
299.,035km/s 



For a short wavelength of no more than 1500/a to be red shifted by 500/a; a radial velocity of 240/km/s is required. Whereas at the other extreme when a 7500/a is red shifted by 500/a; a mere 14/km/s will accomplish it
Or looking at
it the other way around, a radial velocity of 145/km/s will red shift a 2000/a
length by 500/a, while the 6000/a length will receive the same 500/a increase in
length by a mere 18/km/sec.
And notice
how the increments from 8000/a to 1500/a graduates from 1.73 to 95.2, all
because of the nature in the protractor. (Degrees in the circular to a fixed
line.)
Conclusively, the longer the length, so much the smaller the radial velocity will be in order to come by an equal proportion in the expansion of the wave.
Or putting it
another way, a longer length must be expanded more for the same radial velocity
compared to any shorter length. All this because waves of all kind and size are
formed by the manner illustrated in the protractor, that is the same as saying,
into the angular from zero to 90 degree, in the full relevance thereof.
A wave that goes once around the circle in a distance of 2000/a, will travel slower by 543/km/s than a wave going once around the circle in a distance of 8000/a. The more turns a wave must make for any given distance so much more its velocity for distance in time will be decreased.
That is how and why a blue color wave is always slower for distance in
time compared to the red color wave. And this holds true in any and all
media inclusive so called empty space – that is never empty. In the manner
by which all waves are propagated every different length can only and must
always travel at its own relative velocity.
In
my estimation the first segment of the waves range from 100/nm to 1000/nm, all
of which are formed on the atomic level, by a circumference to fit around the
atoms. When thus the lengths come to exceed 1000/nm, these can no longer
be formed on the atomic scale, since then they would come to be more of a
straight line, too close to the 90 degree mark.
The
next segment of waves for their circumference must be produced on the molecular
level, for as the circumference increases so longer lengths may be produced.
What we need is to perform some research, like for the example, taking a 1/mm,
or 1/cm wavelength, and somehow accurately measure at what speed that wave will
travel. With that information we can then find the correct amplitude, or
circumference by which it traveled.
We know that waves on the atomic level, such as light  do not pass through a stucco wall, yet a radio wave does. And that as we conjecture is because it travels on something greater than the atomic scale, wherefore I pronounced to say molecular.
But how exactly is it for a radio wave to pass so easily through
a stucco wall? That is something we ought to apply our minds to. Or again, what
is it that will stop or divert a radio wave, or a microwave? If we correlate all
that information along with it, we may come up with some answers.
By
my calculation a 1/meter wave might travel by a diameter of nearly 5/mm, but if
this be correct or not is as yet to be established. The principle may be
correct, but the figures used are but to convey the principle, and will require
a factual reading of some waves in different segments to come to more accurate
figures.
Will
I now be taken at my word, or will it be said; "We
can't tell if he be right"? I do not expect anyone to take me
at my word, but I do expect man to consider and
accept such facts as are obviously displayed for their reality.
Waves never continues
This too may come as a revelation that the waves of the spectrum are never continuous waves. (Ref5) The obvious reason as to why is because they are at all times momentary impulses that as such means, a switching, a back and forth movement, a stop and go, a form and cut,
And since the speed of nature’s constant is at all times higher than any other
of the atomic realm, it is utterly impossible to connect any one wavelet to
the one ahead of it. In the
calculus alone it is that we can find the maximum number of wavelet to fit in
any length. And it as such is only expedient in the calculus, never at all in
reality.
Example: If a 5/cm carrier wave is produced it will travel at the diameter of 0.004584cm its relative velocity then will be 299,138/km/s, if then we wish to imbed an 8/cm wave upon it as our code, the 8/cm will have a relative velocity of 8 plus 0.004584 X 3.14 = 8.01439376 into 300,000 = 37437 X 8 = 299,461km/sec.
The 8/cm wave then cannot possibly be imbedded because it will and must travel 323/km/s faster than the 5/cm wave. Conclusively we can never at any time attach or imbed any wave upon another wave of any different dimension, since each different wave always travels by its own relative velocity.
Nor is it possible to generate any wavelength to its maximum frequency. The 5/cm wave has room for 30 billion wavelets end to end in 300.000/km to pass in one second. If then we could turn a switch on and off at the speed of light, meaning 30 billion times in one second, the on would be 15 billion times, with off 15 billion times.
Our frequency would then be 15 billion, only half of what it can contain. Nor therefore can these many wavelets be continues, but each individual is spaced by the distance of another individual.
We however have no device to make anything turn off and on at that rate,
or even to speak that fast. If we generate 15.000 voice impulses per second on a
5/cm band there are 2 million open spaces between wavelets, and that can hardly
be considered a continues wavelength.
The waves of the spectrum for all its octaves are never at all continues, these come as individual wavelets, like a code placed upon a line, and they can serve us as codes in much the same way as done with the old telegraphs, and that can be done with any of them inclusive those of light. The common way is to set up a standard frequency, then to vary the impulses, modulation as it is called.
These impulses as codes serve us and nature in many ways each in their own way for size and multitude. For just as a picture can be converted into wavelets, it by the same token can be reconverted into a visible picture again.
Light and microwaves from the sun serve us for warmth simply by their rotation that as they strike upon the larger atoms cause an increase in their rotation that in turn spells heat, a higher temperature.
The greater the number of them falling
upon any one spot will increase the temperature, like a magnifying lens to start
a fire. For that is also why we sweat at the equator and freeze at the polar
region, the quantity of waves at any one area.
As now the electrical wave is at all times a “continues” format, and that obviously so since it is at all times connected to a source, and likewise those of the linear magnetic flow always connected to a source or inhibiting one, yet the latter shows itself in circles rather than conventional waves.
The electrical as a rotating magnetic format
(Ref 3) first of all shows itself in the same manner like any magnet, but
because it rotates it alternately brings its north and south polarity to our
probes that then can be imprinted upon a screen at any rotational speed that we
desire making its up and down polarity appear as waves.
All other waves are like momentary indents imbedded upon the fundamental movements and at that instantly taken away by the constant. And since we can’t very well observe a single wavelet traveling at the speed of light these waves can never be seen, nor displayed.
Atmospheric prism
The
sky is blue, not because it is blue, but the shorter blue wavelengths are cast
upwards to give the sky its blue deception.
And by the same token, the red sky in the morning, or at evening are
again a phenomena of light in its refraction which produces a dispersion of the
waves each according to their own wavelength.
This is not something I should have to teach; handheld prisms and the rainbow in the sky are well defined subjects unto us. Yet with all this common knowledge in our backyard where the grass is green  we fail to realize how over the fence in our neighbors yard  the grass is also green.
And so I
am talking about how naive we can be, and how easily we are taken in by smooth
talking salesmen  to let ourselves be led upon stray paths with the stroke of a
pen.
In reference to Figure 4; the sun shining brightly, that for good reason I placed within a prism in order to prove a point. By what phenomena of nature now is that light of the distant star refracted to give us the illusion as if it is located at what is noted as  the apparent location from its real location? (Ref6)
Figure 4.
Light from a star curves by reason of the atmosphere, just as the sun appears to
be above the horizon when it is below the horizon.
Do I have to spell it out? The sun has an atmosphere just like the earth, all because it is a magnet showing forth gravity just as the earth is a magnet having its gravity. As thus the light of the sun is refracted by our atmosphere, so it is refracted in passing through that atmosphere of the sun.
And even the
rainbow is evidence of light’s refraction, as is every man made prism, and the
blue sky, as well as the red sky in the morning and evening.
Light is a magnetic coordinate on the move, while gravity finds its attraction by and upon the inertia of matter, (Ref2) wherefore light and gravity are two very distinct entities, neither one having anything to do with the other.
If
light were to bend by the gravity of the sun; as someone erroneously proclaimed;
then it would do the same upon the earth, and no straight line of light would be
found. But just as an apple falling from a tree has nothing to do with a vehicle
rolling down the road so gravity is totally oblivious to the nature and movement
of light.
Conclusion
Once we understand the nature of light, and adapt the right mathematics we can at last hint at the radial velocities of an object in the sky. Refraction then plays a devastating role in finding any object at a straight line of sight.
And when we combine changes in velocity with the change in direction there is literally no way to determine a real velocity of any object in the heavens, or its distance from us. Our calculations therefore are estimates.
We then ought to conform
ourselves to the reality in nature not only with waves but with the atom in its
whole and Hubble’s law being quite in error.
References
Ref1:
http://astro.wku.edu/astr106/Hubble_intro.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity
Ref2:
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/expand/expand.html
Ref3:
: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/propercreditwhodiscoveredhubbleslaw/
Ref4:
http://gsjournal.net/ScienceJournals/Essays/View/6071
Ref5: https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/536
Ref6: Relativistic
Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light