download the entire series of chapters in zip file
Join The energy 21 newsgroup for more information when at hand
SUNDRY TOPICS Q: Taking your theory that the light of the Sun repels bodies in space, and that the tides are caused by the force of this light reflected from the Moon, why is it that the Earth's velocity in orbit increases when the Moon crosses this orbit ahead of the Earth, and decreases when it crosses it in the Earth's wake? A: When the Moon is ahead of the Earth, it is obvious that the pressure of light gives an impulse to the surface of the Moon. As the Moon is within the Earth's magnetic field, this impulse is transmitted magnetically back to Earth as though it were impelling the Earth from the rear. This is like a system of transmission of forces. The opposite happens when the Moon crosses in the wake of the planet. When the light presses upon it, it is as though it opposed the Earth. Q: You told me that if a comet approached the Earth against the direction of the Earth's rotation, it would be shattered. However, it seems that comets avoid approaching other bodies, since those that come too close to the satellites of Jupiter are deflected. Why? A: This is again due to the force of repulsion which light exerts upon bodies. The light from the satellites does not only fall upon the planet, but goes out in all directions. Each satellite acts as a mirror on the comets, which are deflected by their joint effect, and are forced to change direction. One particular comet, for instance, approached the Sun and was at the same time repelled by it. This resulted in an acceleration of 1,400 miles per second. Everything depends upon the speed with which one body approaches the other, and the position of the satellites at that moment. If the direction of the approaching body is such that it receives the effective light of the satellites at an angle, then it will be deviated from its path, but if this light meets it anywhere near head on, then the comet will quite probably reach the planet, having sufficient acceleration to overcome the repulsive force of the light. This is what happened to Saturn. A comet entered the solar system, demolished a satellite in its path, and both satellite and comet were transformed into a huge ring. The fragments of the comet and of the satellite can still be seen in this ring, forming concentric circles according to the density of their matter. Q: You spoke, also, of an envelope of ether around the Earth; however, Michelson in his famous experiment found no ether. A: He found none, nor could it be found. The retardation which he thought to find in the speed of light, owing to the resistance of the ether, could not exist if the ether moves with the same angular velocity as the Earth. When two bodies develop identical velocity in the same direction, they remain in the same relative positions. It does not matter what the speed is to an observer outside the system; it is a question of relative velocity between two points in the same system. A mass M may rotate at any speed; the important thing is to observe whether two points of the mass move at different speeds. The most difficult problems can be explained with the simplest illustrations. If a fly takes off from the rear of a bus travelling at high speed, and flies to the front in is seconds, would it take more than is seconds for it to fly back to the rear of the bus? Q: No, it takes the same time because it is flying inside the vehicle. A: Exactly, it takes the same time. Let us now suppose that one person is seated in the rear and another in front; the one behind throws a ball to the other in front, who returns it. If the ball is thrown with the same force in each direction, it should take the same time to go as it takes to come back. You see that the speed of the bus is external, that is to say in relation to points outside the bus. Inside the bus there is no speed. Michelson should have reasoned his experiment out in the same way; light being like thr ball going from one part of the bus to another, without any loss of speed. It could no more be retarded in relation to the ether than the ball in relation to the atmosphere. It-is as though one were to say there is no atmosphere because it did not cause the ball to loose velocity when the bus was travelling at high speed. However, Michelson is not to be blamed. The blame lies with those who thought that the ether was universal and stationary in relation to Earth. On this false premise, anybody would have come to the same erroneous conclusion. If a minor premise in a syllogism is wrong, the conclusion is wrong, just as it is if a major premise is involved. False theories produce wrong results. As far as that experiment was concerned, it was a false premise on which the people of Earth have elaborated a whole theory. We must therefore go back to first principles. Michelson found a constant for the speed of light. Is this constant correct? The answer is no. If he found that the ether had no retarding effect on light, it was because: (1) There can be no retardation in the movement of a body if all points of its mass move with the same speed. That is to say that ether has the same impulse as light, less its velocity. (2) The medium was a homogeneous one. (3) The basis of measurement was very small (12 yd.). (4) Retardation of light due to the resistance of the medium should be sought by comparing two different media, say air and water. (5) Light is only visible on the planet if it has a speed of i86,000 miles per second. Let us take this a stage further; the resistance which Michelson sought and did not find is to be found in a mirror which reflects light, because a resistance is set up by the barrier, in this case the mirror, in the process of reflection. In water, for example, the reflection is never complete because part of the light is absorbed. This shows that there is pressure, resistance and absorption. On looking at the Moon, we notice that this reflected light is softer. In this case some of the visible light falls to a lower frequency and becomes invisible on account of this resistance by the barrier. It depends on what we call light. Something which is darkness for you may be flooded with light for me. A single pressure on the eyeball or the optic nerve can demonstrate this fact. There are species of animals which see in another frequency range and for them night is day and vice versa. Infra red rays are a form of invisible light and their speed is much less than that of visible light. Again, chemical, actinic or ultra-violet rays are invisible light and travel with much greater speed than visible light, as they have much higher frequencies; that is, always assuming that the speed equals frequency times wavelength. If we say that visible light travels in space with a speed of 186,000 miles per second, we should be right; but we should be wrong if we thought that this speed constant applied to waves of different frequency ranges. We must consider certain aspects of the problem. For their propagation, these rays require a medium adapted to their wavelength and frequency. Heat rays, or infra-red rays, require a dense medium, for they cannot pass through a vacuum. Visible light can travel in a semi-vacuum and in a dense medium to a certain extent, but not as well as infra-red rays do. In an absolute vacuum there is no propagation of light. This can better be seen in the so-called holes in space, such as the "Coal Sack" in the Milky Way. In a Geissler tube also, it can be seen that light ceases to cast a shadow when the pressure within the tube is very low. However, a vacuum is the ideal medium for the propagation of waves above the frequency of visible light. Looking at the problem in this way, the light that reaches the Earth's surface is modified. If this were not so, the chemical rays would destroy life on Earth. Behold the wisdom of God, who protects the planets close to the Sun by giving them a cloak of dense atmosphere and ether, and gives those distant ones, whose speed of revolution is low, a thin covering. The modification of solar light can be seen at sunrise or sunset, when it is red, whereas at midday it is white. This modification from white to red takes place over a distance of 6,758 km., equal to the equatorial radius of Earth, which is the extra distance the light must travel to reach the observer, compared with the light at midday. While the latter has to penetrate 400,822 km. of ether, the light of the rising Sun has to travel 407,200 km. Between white and red light there is a difference of 30,000 mgcs. per second. If the light loses 30,000 mgcs. in 6,758 km., how much will it lose in 407,200? If the wavelength remains the same and the frequency is considerably increased, this must mean that the waves from the Sum reach the Earth's etheric covering at a much higher speed as shown by the formula:
We can see the same thing in the difference of the speed of light in the atmosphere. and in water. It is only 140,000 miles per second in water, as opposed to i86,000 in the atmosphere. Therefore, density has a considerable effect on its speed.
Light which becomes visible on reaching the Earth's surface reaches the etheric envelope of the Earth at a speed of 6,250,000 miles per second; and light that is above the visible spectrum on reaching the Earth arrives at far higher speeds. For the Sun emits its energy at various wavelengths and at different frequencies. Its emission is never uniform.
We have reached a point where we can say that the light of the Sun exerts on
Earth a pressure equal to the weight of light, measured at the Earth's surface, plus the energy lost in traversing the 400,000 km. of etheric mass. If we consider that the effect is twofold, since this "fatigue" of light is progressive or in geometrical progression, we can arrive at an approximate idea of what that means.
Q: Why a twofold effect?
A: Because, as light loses weight, its frequency falls correspondingly and this, in turn, is a factor.
Having thus obtained the pressure of solar light, and reasoning that Earth's stability in orbit is due to the equilibrium between the forces of attraction and repulsion, it is evident that the magnetic field that causes the attraction must exactly counterbalance the force of repulsion; we can then determine the flux density of the magnetic field.
The Danish scientist Olaf Roemer established the speed of light in 1676. as the result of observations he made of eclipses of an inner satellite of Jupiter.
Together with his teacher Cassini he observed an eclipse of this satellite when the Earth was in conjunction with Jupiter and again when it was in opposition; the second eclipse taking place 1,002 seconds later than predicted. They came to the conclusion that the retardation was due to the Earth's position in relation to Jupiter, and that as the diameter of the Earth's orbit was 300 million km ,then the speed of light must equal this figure divided by the 1,000 second delay, that is to say 300,000 km. per second.
Waves above the visible spectrum may well have reached the Earth long before that, travelling at far higher speeds than the visible ones. The speed of waves in the visible spectrum is actually 300,000 km. per second, but this does not mean to say that energy of a higher frequency is limited to this low speed.
Light is therefore not necessarily the fastest moving energy in space.
The visible spectrum covers a band of several frequencies, there is a great difference between the wavelength of red and violet light. Chemical rays have a far higher speed of transmission than light. We must bear in mind that our power of sight which only operates on one octave is very limited. It is possible that certain birds are able to see on other wavelengths, which are invisible to us. A raven, for example, can see in complete proves that even at night there is energy in space. This energy may very well be beyond our range of perception. If man had the power of vision that certain animals possess, and then verified the speed of the light that he was seeing with, his results would certainly be different to ours. If he then built up a relativist theory with these data his conception of the Universe would also be very different to ours. Relativist science can therefore only show us the world as perceived by our senses, and never the ultimate Universe, where phenomena beyond our perception take place.
Man is an egocentric being. For a long time he believed the Earth was the centre of the Universe. When this theory was disproved, he came to believe that the Universe was the result of our limitations, as though wishing to impose his will on Nature by disbelieving anything beyond his senses. He believes that he is the ne plus ultra of Creation; there can be no intelligence superior to his, there can be no life outside the Earth, there can be no beings greater than he, man is the only god there is. There can be no other light than that which he sees, in fact nothing exists that does not come within the scope of man's arrogant self-assertion.
Q: Notwithstanding the explanation you have just given, Olaf Roemer noted that light took a certain time to cover the distance represented by the diameter of the Earth's orbit, and on this basis calculated its speed at i86,000 miles per second,which tallies with the results obtained by other experiments. How do you explain this?'
A: I have never studied Roemer's mathematical data, but as the results of his experiments are at complete variance with the facts, let us study the optical phenomena which appear to take place in space and which are in fact illusions. Roemer must definitely have taken one of these phenomena into his calculations.
In the first place we need to know more about the movements of the Sun. All the planets move in a given plane which we can call the equatorial plane of the system.
The Sun, however, revolves around the magnetic centre in a different plane which, to be exact, lies at an angle of 460 to the mean plane of the planets.
The first optical effect that this gives rise to is to make it appear to the inhabitants of a planet that the angle of the planet's axis in relation to the
Sun changes as the planet moves round in its orbit every year, giving greater illumination to its northern hemisphere when the Sun is rising towards its upper node, and its southern when the Sun is going down into its lower node; we are also subject to the illusion that the Sun describes a pendulum-like movement in space.
It is true that the orbits of all the planets are inclined to a certain extent, but for the most part this is optical illusion, due to the movement of the Sun.
The true inclination is due to the Sun exerting a downward pressure and pushing the planet down in its orbit, when rising in its own plane of revolution; and pushing the planet upward when going down in its plane of revolution. The remainder is optical illusion due to the fact that the displaced Sun is taken as a fixed point of reference, which gives the appearance that all the planets are also displaced.
The Sun moves around the magnetic centre in an orbit of 6,250,000 miles in diameter and completes one revolution in 355 days.
Thus it is that the ancient astronomers based their calculations on a year of 355 days. which is the true solar year, and not the movement that the Earth describes around the magnetic centre, which takes 365 days.
Roemer observed two eclipses of Jupiter at an interval of 2oo days. In this time, the Sun had moved though approximately half of its orbit, and was 6,125,000 miles from its original position. This shift in the Sun's position caused the eclipse to take place at a different time.
If a point or a satellite were casting a shadow on Jupiter, the change in the Sun's position in 200 days would have made a change of several miles in the position of the shadow. If the satellite revolves at a given distance from Jupiter, this would cause an apparent retardation of approximately 1,000 seconds in the time of the eclipse, depending on the satellite's distance from the planet. What I mean is that the satellite would still have about 1,000 seconds to go before the predicted eclipse would actually take place. This is why Roemer's calculation was incorrect.
In the second place, we need to take note of the angle at which Jupiter was seen from the Earth. If we had the exact time of the eclipse we could work out how far the planet had moved in that time, and we could then make our calculation with accuracy. But in any case the eclipse can be said to have taken place at a given time in relation to a point on Jupiter, but owing to the angle of observation we would get an impression of relative retardation. Let us take an example:
let us place two bodies in such a way that from the point of observation an imaginary line from the observer to them would touch the surface of each at a tangent. If we move the bodies from this position, the line also moves. In this case one of the bodies would have to move again for the imaginary line to meet it at a tangent. This is the second factor which may have passed unnoticed to any observer, however attentive he may have been.
Roemer could have made an error in calculation due to one of these phenomena, either of which would have brought him into error.
Q: Has the angle of the ecliptic any effect on the spirit of human beings?
A: None at all. External factors do not affect the spirit, but only internal ones. Good and evil derive from the heart. What virtue would there be in man being good if this were the result of conditions for which he was not responsible? The same thing would apply to evil.
If we give a man an injection which causes him to go mad, and he then goes berserk, no blame can be attached to him. How could God expect man to be good if He placed him in such adverse conditions? God does not tempt anyone. Evil is the result of arrogance and the audacity of man in disregarding the divine laws.
If what you say were true, other planets would be far worse off, the
Earth's angle to the ecliptic is 23 degrees 25',
Mars, which you consider very advanced, 25 degrees 12',
Venus 32 degrees,
Saturn 26 degree 45'
Neptune 29 degrees and
Uranus 68 degrees.
Uranus then, would be in a state of moral depravity. Spirit creates conditions, and never vice versa. The good people on Earth would be good even if the poles were reversed, and the evil-doers, even if there were no angle of inclination, or if they were in Paradise, would continue in the same way.
One should not confuse virtues with phenomena of a mechanical order. Good has nothing to do with gear wheels.
Q: Why is there a difference in the colour of light reflected from different planets. Mars is reddish and the others white, yet the light all comes from the Sun.
A: It is due to the chemical light.
Q: What is the chemical light?
A: Sunlight always maintains its direction of focus on its journey through space, whereas the other, chemical light, is diffuse. It originates from the passage of energy though hydrogen and sodium layers on the Sun. If one looks at a shadow, one will see an illuminated band which represents this diffused light.
If it were not for this chemical light, many planets would be invisible. At the distance which Pluto is from the Sun, its light would not otherwise be seen. The Sun, seen from Pluto, is small and the amount of energy it receives is insignificant. However, this little planet shines in space, giving off a light of 0.16, whereas Mercury, which is close to the Sun, only gives off 0.058."
This is due to the fact that Pluto's atmosphere is extremely sensitive to solar waves and sets up a violent reaction to this very small quantity of energy.
We should bear in mind that Earth, in spite of its relative proximity to the Sun, is considered by terrestrial science to be a very poor reflector of light.
The Earth's reflection is given as 0.039, but other more distant planets have a greater reflective capacity; Jupiter 0.51, Saturn 0.5, Uranus 0.66 and Neptune 0.62
The light that we see on planets is the modified light of the Sun and also the physiochemical light. The resultant light depends on the intensity of the latter. Pluto's light is not of solar origin as this light, on reaching the planet, drops too much in frequency to be reflected. The small amount of light that Pluto receives would be insignificant if it alone were reflected back into space.
There are other optical phenomena which would take us a long time to explain, but I can tell you that the function of light consists largely in creating conditions in space by which various phenomena can be perceived at a distance.
This is not the moment to discuss metaphysics.
*27 The amount of light that a planet reflects back into space is known as the Albedo.
Q: Although you do not wish to go into metaphysics, I would like you to give me one example, if that is possible. I gather from your words that light has to reach us for us to be able to see a phenomenon taking place at a distance.
A: I will give you an example: in an ordinary Geissler tube, electrons are unable to penetrate the walls of the tube, or, for that matter, any other material except alumimum. This has been proved experimentally by placing a cross inside the tube in the electron beam. This cross causes a shadow, showing that the electrons were stopped. Even if this cross were made of glass, the electrons would not go through it.
So, if light or electrons are incapable of going through glass, how, I ask, can one see shadows and Faraday bands inside the lighted tube. Light could not get out of the tube, yet one could see into it.
I could quote many other examples, but one is enough to disprove the theory. We should not confuse light and image because universal phenomena take place everywhere at the same time. It would take a very long time to explain this in detail.
Q: Some people say that the heat observed on Earth comes to us from the Sun. Is there any truth in this?
A: Heat comes from the Sun, but in the form of high frequency waves, which are then transformed into heat waves. This transformation takes place in the atmosphere of the planets. They do not come from the Sun in the form of heat because heat will not travel through a vacuum. Even the heat on the Sun is bearable, it is merely a field in which electrical forces operate.
A generator is cold, but the currents it produces can give rise to high temperatures. It is nonsense to say that temperatures of several million degrees exist on the Sun. Its luminosity is not related to its heat; on Earth there are also sources of cold light. A neon bulb shows that light is not always hot. Many insects develop cold light, as well as certain vegetables which produce a luminescence by bacteriological action.
Besides the heat that is developed by the frequency of the Sun s rays, heat is also developed by the pressure of the light of the Sun. At sunrise the oblique rays of the Sun do not exert any pressure and one has the impression that the Sun is a large red disc of no power; but when it is at its zenith one can sense the intensity of its rays pushing against the ground. That is why we feel colder the higher we go.
At the Equator, where the Sun's rays pour down at right angles, the heat is great. At the poles, these rays are to a very great extent repelled by the magnetic effect, and the pressure is very small. So, the polar cold is the result of obliqueness of the Sun's rays and their deflection by the magnetic effect.
Some aurorae are the result of electrical reactions in the ionosphere, but others are due to the deflection of rays at a height giving rise to luminosity in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
Q: You say that it gets colder as we go up, but this is not always the case. At a certain altitude the thermometer goes up to 22000 F.
A: The heat that is encountered at these altitudes derives from the physiochemical reaction that I mentioned. Various layers produce this reaction.
So you see, my friend, your science contains many errors. I am not surprised at this because things in life are not judged by the errors they may contain but by their truth. We are all imperfect, therefore perfection is an attribute which can only be found complete in divinity. In us, it is always mingled with defects, the defects often predominating.
What surprises and pains me is that scientists of Earth should continue to put their trust in their false science. In spite of all its errors they have been unable to rectify and to deny the supreme science which is God. They are like glow-worns enamoured of their own light, crying out to other glowworms, "The Sun does not exist; the light in my tail is the only light there is.