November 21 - 27, 2023
Glass, Not Light, Creates the Prism Rainbow
The Upside-Down Prism Holds Solvable Secret(s)
News Section Last Section
Let's do another science class, shall we? Have you ever heard of what light waves look like according to the utterly stupid evolutionists? Never respect these monsters. Always call them out for the destruction of the human race. They are the destroyers.
In their tabulations after discovering the speed of light, in the 17th century, the goofs reckoned that the aether needed to be extremely light in order to exist, and so they did their best to "prove" that aether was too heavy to propagate light at 186,000 mps. Such a speed, they argue, needs such light aether particles that it stretches credulity.
Achem, while they had brains enough to realize that the aether might be weightless, that idea was not permissible for open debate, we may assume. At least, I never hear about a weightless aether when coming across an article on the problems with aether theory. That's because the evolutionists don't even want you to know of the possibility.
The aether is in fact weightless. Enemies of the aether had no scientific justification to insist that the aether has weight, for, in that case, its particles would have fallen to the sun and stars long ago. If the aether exists, it has got to be presumed weightless, and there are two ways for a material to be weightless. If there is any microscopic material between earth and the sun that does not fall to the sun, it qualifies as the aether, providing that it can carry light waves.
In my last update (link at top of this page), if you are interested, I showed what the light-wave medium is, nothing but the solar wind that all of these stupids know about, and yet they refuse to identify it as the light-wave medium for absolutely no reason at all. The solar wind is not falling to the sun. The stupids will tell you that the solar wind moves away from the sun, in spite of solar gravity, due to its great speed, but have they even tried to discover whether it's weightless? No, because they absolutely do not want to know, even if true, that it's weightless.
You cannot find an article online telling why the solar wind cannot be the light-wave medium. That's because, as soon as the goons begin to argue against the solar wind being a light-wave medium, people will begin to realize: oh wait, it does look like the light-wave medium. Therefore, "hush" is the word amongst the evolutionist controllers of science.
The evolutionist tells you that a light wave is a wave-particle duality, an impossible thing, and when they describe the frequency of a wave, the photon suddenly is absent from their picture. It's like they get to choose between claiming a photon as fact, and then, when describing colored light, they get to show their version of a wave, which they draw in various ways, often as an S-shape to give the impression of waves to help fool you. And they then call this wavy thing the photon so as not to appear inconsistent. But this is silly and asinine. How can light travel at 186,000 mps in an up-down S-shape? Common sense tells you that something this fast is going to be straight as a bullet.
A water wave forms only because the water molecules have no where else to go but up when the water is agitated with motion energy. But a light wave carries in space and is not expected to form something like a water wave. It's desperation. They divorce themselves from reality in order to marry the big-bang farce, mother of sizzling speed, goddess of motion.
They then invented a "wave length" to define frequency of the wave, which they define as the time it takes for the top of one wave to become the top of the next wave as it snakes forward. What could possibly make their wave go up, and what could possibly make it go down, over and over again??? The goofballs are clearly trying to make a particle look like a wave on paper, like juvenile delinquents.
When someone draws a radar wave on paper as a small circle within a larger circle, it's only a drawing seeking to represent the fact that radar/sound goes in all directions simultaneously. The circles are not the actual waves. One circle drawn on paper is not representative of one wave. Rather, zillions of waves spike out from the source point, in straight lines in all directions. A single wave does not go forth as a spherical animal even though it does form a spherical shape. I'll explain further, but keep in mind that a light wave behaves exactly the same.
A sound wave is not a spherical entity that grows larger as a sphere as it gets further from the source point. The drawing may lead you into thinking so, but this is not how particle-propagated waves work.
If you tap your pen on the desk, the sound wave is the energy of the tap against atoms on your desk, and against atoms in your pen point. The atoms then carry the wave to every atom in the room, in straight lines. No matter where you are in the room, the atom-to-atom bumping goes to your ear in a straight line. This tap is not one wave moving outward. This tap produces as many waves as there are atoms surrounding the point on the desk that you tapped.
Let's assume that there are a million atoms surrounding the tapping point. The tapped atoms deflect/vibrate to all one million, and so one million waves go forth to the next atoms further out from the tapping point, and so on. The one million waves (ignoring that they spread out to more than a million atoms) all move at the same speed, and thus form a spherical shape, in a sense. After one second, they are all 343 meters from the tapping point, and thus they form a sphere 343 meters in diameter. The sphere grows larger with more time, but the sphere, at any point in time, is not one wave.
Ditto with light. If we flick on the light switch for a fraction of a second, zillions of waves SPIKE outward through the aether electrons situated all around the bulb/filament, and with these waves moving beyond in all directions, they form an expanding sphere (i.e. grows larger) as time goes by. If the light is turned on for a small fraction of a second, imagine this sphere shape as the lit-up part of space, with darkness both beyond it and beneath it. It's not truly lit up so long as its in space, but it's the energized part of the aether having the potential to form light if only an atom is in its path. A sphere shape is formed because waves go out at the same speed in all directions. I hope you grasped that.
If one leaves the light bulb on constantly, there is no single energized sphere shape. Instead, all of space around the bulb will be energized. The sphere illustration is useful to show how waves move out as units.
When one light wave strikes a surface, it's not striking as a rounded sphere. The sphere I'm describing is not the wave, but this illustration, I think, is where the old, pro-aether science schools got tripped up: they viewed the sphere shape as the wave. Or, at least, the evolutionists made sure to portray a light wave as this sphere, with its weakness in explaining photo-electricity, so that they could enthrone the photon particle as supreme.
What they didn't teach or realize: all light waves that constitute the outer edge of the sphere act like a spikes or torpedoes poking into an atom, and thus every wave is the true description of the "photon." We who accept the aether have the Einsteinian goofs beat hands-down. All we need to do is explain how a wave acts as a photon particle would; we do not need to explain how a photon acts as a wave, for that is a disturbing thing, a waste of Einstein's time, the exercise of a loony bird seeking a pot of gold at the other side of a rainbow.
If you wish to envision zillions of back-to-back spheres with the lights turned on constantly, just know that the spheres are not the waves. Rather, the waves create the spheres, and any one sphere is nothing innate whatsoever, but is the full accumulation of active waves formed (at a source) at the same instant. The same waves cannot abide in the same sphere shape always, but travel outward to create ever-larger sphere shapes. The energy of each subsequent sphere gets weaker, ask any ship pilot who can barely see the lighthouse light.
When we keep the light on, there's zillions of "sphere's" one larger than the next, each sphere situated one aether electron further out than the previous one. The entire circumference of each sphere has aether electrons. The smallest of the "spheres," if the bulb is clear glass, is the filament, meaning that the bulb's light is not forming spheres at all, but is rather forming shapes exactly in the shape of the filament. Still, the sphere analogy is a good one, and works perfectly when the sun is the light source, or when a bulb is spherical and frosted.
The smallest sphere is on the surface of the filament because aether electrons inter-repel, and thus push electrons onto the filament surface. The second-smallest sphere is one aether electron away, i.e. the first layer of aether electrons to hover above the filament. Etc. As the captured electrons are forced off of the filament by the push of electrical current through the electrical wire, they push aether electrons randomly. There is no aether electron in the vicinity of the filament that can escape being pushed away. The electrons coming out of the filament, as heat, add to the number of aether electrons, increasing the push power of the outgoing waves.
A wave length does not exist as a literal length of a wave. That's how the stupids define a wave frequency. They claim that the tops and bottoms of a red-light wave are further apart, in literal distance, than the tops and bottoms of a violet-light wave. This is just not the right way to describe a wave. Real waves don't have lengths. The best we can do is say that each electron-to-electron bump has a length of distance, but this distance changes with temperature, for temperature determines the distances between aether electrons.
A wave length should instead be defined by length of time = true frequency. The more that electrons come out of the filament per unit time, the more light waves there will form per unit time, and consequently the waves go out closer together in time i.e. more frequent.
Why do you think that a 24-volt battery pack makes a standard light bulb glow red while that bulb, made to take 120 volts, glows white with 120 volts fed to it? The weaker electrical flow doesn't issue as many electrons from the filament, and consequently there are fewer waves per second, yet this lower frequency itself may not be the basic cause of the red light because the fewer electrons from the filament are also spiking out more weakly. I think it's the force level of the electron spiking/jolting that creates colored light.
We could say that variations in frequency "causes" the different colors because lower frequency causes weaker jolting, but more correctly it's the jolting force, or spit-power, of the filament's electrons, that changes colors. If we increase the volts into the thousands, the electrons in a wire will jump (spark) across the air into a conductor, even into your skin. Higher voltage pushes the electrons out of the wire more efficiently, with more force, and each electron coming out creates one light wave, either weak or strong, red or white.
I own a 24-volt solar-power system. I lit a 120-volt bulb with it, and saw the red color of light. It taught me that increasing the electron jolts per second will not make the bulb go green, blue or violet (nobody says that it does). Instead, increased voltage makes the light go red > orange > yellow > white > more white. It's hinting, along with the sun, that there is no blue-side light in sunlight, and I aim to show you, soon below, why this is.
A single light wave from the sun is just the straight-ahead motion (not flow) of electrons outward from the sun. Each electron in the aether line bumps another, and these are the electrons making up the solar wind. The closer and faster the electrons are to one another when they strike the eye or other object, the higher the frequency of the light waves, duh. Is that too normal of a definition of frequency for the quacks? Do we need something more complicated to make them happy?
If light physics is easy to grasp, there can be no heroes, no "great men." The greatest men of science are the quacks who spend 20 years on math problems to "prove" or explain nothing but figments of their imaginations. If not for such men taking everyone off-track, true light physics would have been understood long ago as ho-hum. Atoms strike atoms to form a sound wave to the ear, ho-hum. Electrons strike electrons in a line to the eye, ho-hum.
You can't get a bigger, more-powerful electron-ejecting machine than the sun. I've realized (it took me a while) that there's not going to be electrons jolting there so weakly that they form red right. Now that I know that colored light is from the jolt force, I can't conceive of red light being formed in the sun. I suggest that all light in the sun is white, and weakens by the time it gets to the earth. I'm now starting to realize that there s no green/blue/violet light mixed in with sunlight.
When the solar wind enters the earth's atmosphere, it becomes the heat particles within the air. It's just so utterly simple, which is why the goons will not mention the idea to you, because you will then start to think that a sun-sourced wave medium allows light to shine on the earth's ground. Little bitties from the sun become the light wave medium BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OUR ATMOSPHERE, it's so easy to understand and realize. Eureka, we can now make idiots and liars of big-bang-worshiping evolutionists. But, if any repent, we'll be easy on them; we'll welcome them to correctness and sanity of mind. Hurray.
A "wave length" should be measured in length of time, but if we must measure it in units of distance, it should be in how close the jolting electrons are that form the waves. Yet this is not a good idea, and only complicates things. Jolting electrons are not yet the wave, but the cause of the wave.
I've got to assume that the number of waves, per second, traversing the low-density aether in outer space will be exactly the number of waves that traverse, per second, through the higher-density aether in the atmosphere. That's why the distance between aether electrons does not define frequency of light waves. The stupids want to make a "wave length" a unit of distance, and they do this to explain the different colors. It's just wrong.
The electrons that bump into the eye are not travelling anywhere near the speed of the wave. Think about that, it's tricky. As I write on this topic, and if you are still reading, you are inevitably going to imagine the physical bumping travelling at 186,000 miles per second, but this is not correct, the aether electrons cannot move that fast. Use common sense. It's impossible for any object to whiz through space at 186,000 miles per second. There's no force that can propel an object that fast, and no object could withstand such propulsion without suffering destruction. The fools want to make fools of you while getting praise from you. Don't do it, have some self-respect.
An electrons moving at 186,000 mps would go right through you, and light would disintegrate your body in short order if zillions of photon particles were coming at you that fast. Instead, an aether particle jolting into a material, as a light wave, barely penetrates the material's entry point, probably not going deeper than an outer atom. The wave goes deeper, but not the aether particle does not go deep, like when we throw a rock at a wall, the rock doesn't go deep, but the shock wave does, penetrating into the deeper atoms.
How fast do water molecules travel as the water wave moves along? Zero speed. Think about that, because it proves that the aether particles can move slow while the wave moves fast through it. Air atoms don't bump one another at the speed of sound when air atoms produce a wave. Air atoms bump each other harder when we hit a rock harder with a hammer, but no matter how hard we hit the rock, the sound wave always carries at the same speed through the air, and at the same speed (different than in air) through the rock. Something's going on in the mechanics of the wave to cause it to always take the same velocity through the same medium, no matter how hard/fast we set atoms in motion to produce sounds, and no matter how fast atoms bump one another to form waves.
An airplane striking air atoms at the speed of sound doesn't double the speed of sound in the forward direction. This is how you can know that the speed of atom-to-atom bumping has NOT to do with how fast the wave moves.
"Vibrations" cause sound. A vibration can be defined as atomic commotion. If we want sound frequency to conform to light frequency, each vibration should be defined as one atom jolting into the atomic aether. We would not define one vibration as the entire guitar string, for example, moving into one direction before it turns and goes into another direction, for that causes many sound waves per instant of time throughout the one vibration of the string. Yes, one vibration of a guitar string can be viewed as its motion in one direction, or as its motion in one direction and then back again to the starting point, but this does not describe the frequency of sound waves.
When you tap a pen on the table, a sound goes out in all directions from the vibrations in the table and pen. Let's assume that the tap consists of one vibration only. The sound goes out sphere shaped, but the one vibration causes many waves, same as the guitar string. It is wrong to view one vibration as one wave. If this is what physicists have done, they have confused themselves. They need to recognize, and teach, that a sound or light wave is a longitudinal spike through an aether, a medium of particles.
The frequency of light waves is the number of electrons ejecting and jolting per second, per square area of light source. If we view the square area as one atom, then the number of electrons ejecting and jolting from one atom is the frequency of the waves. One ejection = one wave, and one jolt = one wave. One ejection or jolt creates one longitudinal spiking. You can view the latter as a train in one direction, yet it could get complicated, sorry, because, with light and sound, it appears that trains can go through one another at all angles without disturbing, cancelling, or distorting each other. The waves are not all be going perpendicular to the surface of the filament, or to the surface of the sun.
If light waves moved only perpendicular to a light source, then the only part of the sun we would see is a dot at its center. This gets tricky because, how do we know that we see the full sun? What if what we think is the full solar sphere is just a dot at the center of the sun?
Assuming that we are seeing the full sun, and we must be, then there are train-shaped waves coming from even the edges of the sun, into our eyes. And these trains are therefore passing through the trains that go perpendicular to the solar surface, and at a million other angles from the surface. We can see any part of the sun or moon from any location, proving that trains are driving right through trains. Marvelous is God's creative ability. It really becomes fantastic to try to grasp it at the mechanical level. There is plenty of evidence that light and sound waves can pass through each other fairly undisturbed at any angle.
The distances between the ejecting electrons should be immaterial to wave frequency, especially as non-ejecting jolts cause waves too. To simplify, an ejection can be considered a jolt too. We can see that, the higher the number of electron ejections from any surface, the closer to one another they are, and so they jolt into the aether with greater force due to they're inter-repulsion increasing with closer distance to each other. They not only use the force of inter-repulsion to from the force level of the wave, but the speed at which they eject from atoms contributes to the wave force. It's complicated for human minds, I'm sorry.
I assume that the frequency of the ejections and jolts is the same frequency of the electrons landing into an atom at the end of the wave train (such as in your eye's atom). There are wave trains coming into your eye from every atom on the filament that your eye has a line of sight to. One wave does not go out as a sphere. One wave train cannot be a sphere. One sphere is formed at one instant of time by many waves issuing from the full surface of the filament. THE OUTGOING SPHERE IS NOT THE WAVE, but is rather the full accumulation of waves formed at the same instant at the same place.
You cannot deny it: an ejecting electron has motion energy that must travel-on through whatever it hits. Light goes outward from a vacuum in a light bulb because the vacuum has aether electrons. Unless you deny the existence of aether electrons, you cannot deny that one electron ejection is equal to one wave defined as the energy of motion. The motion of one ejecting electron can only go in one direction; it cannot go in all directions at once. Do you get it? The aether can change the direction of the initial wave, for example as a sound wave can curve much through the aether of air, but light waves go straight.
It's important to establish what a wave is mechanically, in order to understand why the photon was invented. But a photon is not the wave anymore than the ejecting electron is, and the last aether electron that spikes/jabs your eye is not the wave either, but just the last carrier of the wave. It's lacking understanding (and common sense) to maintain that the photon is the full wave moving along from light source to eye.
The harder/faster are the electron jolts, the harder the waves enter the eye. What do you suppose the harder jolts translate to at the eye's interior? The harder the hammer hits the nail, the more=-forceful the sound wave carries, the louder the sound at the ear, yet the sound does not change fundamentally in texture with varying forces of hammer strikes. It just gets quieter or louder. Does the harder electron ejection become greater light brightness, comparable to louder sound, or will it change in color hue?
To increase the density of sound waves, we need to hit two nails simultaneously. We then get twice as many waves, and we can assume that we get twice as many all at the same force lever because we've struck both nails with the same force. The result is more loudness. Increased sound-wave density is just more noise, and increased force of sound waves is just more noise. Have I got that right? Two nails smacked can create identical noise level as one nail smacked harder. Does the harder smack on one nail register as "color" of the wave? I don't think so.
Why does light have this extra thingie that sound apparently does not? Why does sound not come with some sort of special difference to distinguish sound-wave density from sound-wave force? Well, it's not true that sound doesn't have everything that light does, for it does, on the mechanical level. Both sound and light waves have varying wave forces, and both can have varying wave densities. But, apparently, the ear isn't built to hear sound-wave force as anything but a louder sound. On the other hand, the eye can distinguish brightness from color. Increased light-wave density makes red light (on a white wall) a brighter red, and increasing the density (with white light shut off in the room) yet more makes it a deeper red, I assume, never going to the yellow color no matter how much red light shines on the same location on a white wall.
Don't we increase the frequency of light waves when we shine many red lights to the same spot on a wall? Yes. Is it true what they say, that frequency of light waves changes the hue from red to orange to yellow? Not necessarily, for there can be frequency of two things: 1) wave trains; 2) train cars. Don't view the trains as literal trains, for the train cars do not move along a track from A to B, nor enter the eye. Rather, the cars (aether electrons) jolt the eye. Only the train enters the eye because the train is the wave. The aether electron bumps the outside of the eye, the wave goes in.
One train is one wave. The full train jabs into the eye like a long stick. The cars carry the increments of the wave. I'm using the analogy of trains to describe the longitudinal shape of the wave, and in the meantime the successive bumps against aether electrons can be somewhat compared to train cars because a wave train is made of many aether electrons. But the analogy has limits.
The harder the train jabs into the eye, the more the color changes, but increasing / decreasing the number of train jabs does not change color when the jabs are all at the same force. Increasing the jabs per unit time is an increasing of wave frequency, but, sorry, I don't think this changes color, sorry goofballs, you got it wrong again.
Their problem is, they have no varying force levels of light. They have only the photon that travels always at the same speed, and therefore they cannot teach the truth, that color results from the force level of the wave. Their photon always strikes with the same force, and in fact they say the photon has zero mass so that it cannot have any force at all, so stupid are these people.
Without variations in light force, they abandon themselves to the claim that color differences are from frequency of light waves, and then they go and do the abysmal, on top of their photon foolery, by screwing up what a wave frequency is, by making the wave look like a threaded screw flying forward. They define the wave frequency as the threads of the screw passing by. The more passing threads per unit time, the higher the frequency, they say.
A light wave is not a flying screw. The ejection of an electron from an atom does not form a looooong, flying screw from light source to eye, are we nuts? It does not form a set of short flying screws, are we nuts? How possibly could the ejected electron form the threads on a screw? Are we in cartoonland here? Forget the threads per second, and define wave frequency as the number of waves per second.
When two blue light bulbs shine into your eye from two different locations in the room, even right beside each other, the frequency of waves is doubled as compared to one blue bulb. Do the two bulbs change the hue due to the doubling of wave trains into the eye? No, both bulbs still look blue. All blue waves are striking the eye with the same hardness, meaning that the electron-to-electron bumping is coming in with the same force level. But if the force level of the bumps increases, so too does the frequency of the waves, and this is the second way to create wave frequency.
So, one of two ways (I can't conceive of a third) to increase wave frequency is by increasing the volume of light, which INCREASING THE TRAIN TRACKS, and another way to increase frequency is to increase the force of the ejecting electrons, which naturally increases the waves per second, thus INCREASING THE TRAINS PER TRACK. The first accumulates more trains by adding more tracks to the eye, and the second increases trains per each track to the eye.
To change color, we need to increase the trains per second on each track, which can only take place by increasing the force levels of the waves. This is due to the nature of the light source. That is, the more dense the jolting electrons at the light source, the more frequent and harder they produce waves. I can't conceive of an electron situation with more frequent but less forceful waves, nor of less frequent but more forceful waves. Can you?
We can't use a machine gun as an analogy because every bullet goes out at the same force no matter how fast they are shot out. When electrons are in higher density in situation B as compared to situation A, there's not only more of them so as to shoot more bullets in situation B, but they are closer together so as to shoot harder bullets (as compared to situation A). However, the true wave is not a literal bullet. Only the ejecting / jolting electron can be compared to a literal bullet. But it's not the wave. It only starts the wave.
Yes, a light wave involves particles, but the crazy bats do not describe their wave as a natural one we can comprehend. They absolutely do not want an aether of electrons as their wave medium. A literal bullet cannot be a wave simultaneously, even you understand that. A sound wave is not like a bullet through the air. If a sound wave were a bullet, it would go through a vacuum, but sound does not carry across a vacuum. Light does, not because it's a bullet, but because the vacuum is filled with aether electrons.
I'd light to try to explain why light forms a rainbow when passing through a glass prism. I do not think it is technically correct to say that sunlight carries all the colors of the rainbow that then become separated through a prism. A prism is not a machine that separates, for example, pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters when one tosses the whole mixed lot into the machine's hopper. Instead of pennies going in and pennies coming out, a prism is like a meat grinder that changes the texture of the meat.
See the spreading of light at this webpage, but know it's an illustration, not a photo (see youtube videos for photos):
When light hits a prism, it changes direction, same as when it hits a flat pane of glass. I haven't concluded any mechanism that could be going on at the glass surface to explain the bending of light, but I certainly ignore the explanation of the goofs.
The shape of the prism is such that one side of the light ray is forced to penetrate more glass than the opposite side of the ray. The ray that penetrates the least glass becomes the red meat, and the ray that penetrates the most glass becomes the violet meat. The latter comes out more compact than the red meat, or, at least, there's logic in this that warrants a closer look to check if it can be true. Does the violet path through the prism get more compact than the other colors?
The red light is indeed formed nearest the apex of the prism, where the glass is least wide. And the violet light forms nearest the base of the prism where the glass is widest. What happens when the wave trains get more compacted? How do we view a more-compacted wave? I assume the train shrinks in length, forcing the cars closer to each other. As the cars are electromagnetic electrons, this shrinking train becomes a spring wanting to spring back to its original shape, which it does when it exits the glass. Making sense? Choo-choo.
The red train becomes a spring not loaded as hard because it's not compressed as much. Which spring has the more force when it exits the glass? Choo-choo.
By "compacted," I mean that the captured electrons in the glass are forced to come nearer to one another because the light wave is straining to get through them. The wave finds resistance to the forward path due to the traffic jam of electrons surrounding protons. The protons have a grip on these electrons; they are thus captured, and thus not free to move as easily as aether electrons in free space do. The electromagnetic wave therefore gets compressed. A spring gets compressed too. Choo-choo.
Have you ever heard that a glass prism makes springs? It's interesting that steel springs look like screws. Steel springs have what look like threads, but of course a light wave is not a steel spring. The thread-like parts of a spring get closer to one another in the light waves that become violet light, and so the violet light has more power, more force, when it exits the glass, and this changes the color in the eye.
The important question is: why does the bottom of the prism wave exit with a violet color rather than the white light that entered? If we view the wave as a spring going into the glass, then getting compressed, and then becoming as springy upon exit as it was before entering, why isn't it white when it exits? I'm going to tell you why, I'm on a roll, choo-choo.
So, the longer the passage through the glass, the closer the captured electrons get, and consequently they become more frequent (per unit time) when they finally exit the glass. The violet light, having more frequency, was the light ray that penetrated the most glass. There you go, an alternative light mechanics through the glass that works in logic / expectation. The violet not only has more frequent waves per one track, but more-forceful waves.
Waves through prisms move as trains on CURVY tracks because waves take paths AROUND protons. Can you guess why this is so? Why don't the waves crash into protons and bounce back out of the glass where they came in? As waves clearly come out the opposite side of the prism, the waves must be going around protons. I can make this claim because I have the right view of light. I am absolutely correct in claiming that light carries on aether electrons, and therefore I have the natural, logical claim that light carries upon electrons in atoms too. I therefore claim, as indisputable fact, that waves through glass are going in circular form around the protons, a thing they cannot claim for the photon bullet. The Christian wins. Choo-choo on that, goofballs.
There are two things going on when waves get compressed in glass: 1) they come closer to one another; 2) they push each other harder. A light wave is nothing more complicated than one electron moving toward a second and pushing the second forward thanks to their mutual repulsion forces. The electrons do not make physical contact as they bump each other forward. It's known that magnets attract or repel with greater force as they near each other. Ditto with the electrons that constitute a light wave whether they are aether electrons or atomic electrons. As they are forced to near each other in the glass, they push with more force in the direction perpendicular to the forward flow. Making sense? The forward flow gets restricted, the electrons get more compressed, and they push sideways in the glass. Where's sideways?
Why do you think the light through the prism gets spread out thinner in the sideways direction? By "sideways," I mean perpendicular to the frontward flow, which is upward in the prism toward the apex, or downward toward the base. The evidence staring us in the face, from the prism, is that the waves change in the glass such that the wave trains destined to become the violet light push toward the red, spreading the waves thinner i.e. less trains per unit volume of glass toward the red.
The trains decrease in density progressively from violet to red. I maybe can't explain the mechanism that accomplishes this, but the evidence is: the light spreads out. Therefore, the light waves spread out, and consequently the trains spread out. On the other hand, the waves get more dense in the forward direction in the sense that the train CARS become compacted, closer to one another. The full trains get less dense toward the red, yet their cars, even at the top, where the red light is beginning to form, are more compacted than the cars in the white light outside the glass.
I of course have no idea how far apart the wave trains are, but, regardless of how far apart in electron diameters, it stands to reason that the compaction of atomic electrons will energize wave trains with more inter-repulsion force so that they all get onto new tracks. Each train will push the other a certain number of electrons further away, by which I mean that waves run through DIFFERENT ELECTRONS, and thus the trains run along different tracks. Make sense? The electrons and tracks don't get pushed over, but rather the waves come to run across different electrons, a changing of the tracks.
As the light in the prism changes through the colors toward the red end, the tracks should become more dense because the compaction of electrons in those colors is less, and thus the wave trains repel each other less, and thus the trains put less distance between each other.
I now feel confident to claim that light waves with MORE COMPACTED atomic electrons but with FEWER TRAINS become the violet color in the eye, while light waves with LESS-COMPACTED atomic electrons but with MORE TRAINS become the red color in the eye. It's a unique situation, all resulting from compacted light taking paths of different distances. The different distances provide different compaction rates.
Once the trains get to the exit point, all with electrons closer to one another than the original white light, the violet light spits out faster and harder than the red light, yet the red light has a higher density of trains. What might we get if the red light had a lower density of trains than the violet light? We can run the red light alone through a second prism, only this time we run it through where the glass is as thick as where the violet had been run in the first prism. The red light in the second prism should now get a lower density of trains, yet it will also get more compacted in train cars (atomic electrons) so that it should now change color. I'll show you a real photo below where the red light alone gets run through a prism, and it does change color. In fact, it becomes more than one color, not what the goofs predict.
There's no way for light waves to avoid the block walls that are the protons of air atoms unless the waves circle around the captured electrons of air atoms as they do around glass atoms. There's no way for sunlight to go through 50 miles of air protons unless light is a wave capable of circling protons. Give God praise. It's a masterpiece of an invention. As atoms are loaded with electrons, it proves that light waves carry across electrons.
There can't be a spreading ray of light maintaining the same power, per unit volume of glass, as exists in the unspread, white ray reaching the glass. The white light is more dense in power, and yet it cannot lift electrons from atoms as well as ultra-violet. Until I can see differently, I'll assume here that ultra-violet is a stronger form of visible violet, with more spit-power, after it comes out of the prism, than violet.
Did you hear what I said? Ultra-violet knocks electrons from certain atoms whereas sunlight cannot do so upon the same atoms. Everything said above told you that violet light gets more spit-power by being run through the prism, and thus it's expected to have more spit-power than the original white light. That claim seems to prove correct. What does it do to the goofball claim that white light already has ultra-violet within it? How dishonest have they been?
The quanta of waves in the white light equals the quanta of waves in all the colors combined in the prism. A quanta is nothing more or less than one wave, one train. The numbers of trains in the prism are not expected to change from the number of trains in the white light. The only changes are that the trains undergo alteration within the glass. This is not what the goofs teach in the standard textbooks. The goofs teach that the prism helps to reveal the hidden nature inherent in white light.
Putting a thumb over the hose end reduces the volume of water coming out, but provides a stronger squirt-power. The glass prism is the thumb. The prism slows the light passing through, but increases the squirt-power potential. The ability of light to do work upon objects is density of light trains combined with the spit-power of each train. Spit-power can knock electrons off of atoms to produce the so-called "photo-electric effect."
The science of Einstein's days viewed the light wave like a broad wall striking a surface rather than sharp projectiles. They viewed these broad walls, same as the spheres mentioned above, as having little erosion power, and so Einstein decided to espouse the light-particle theory to explain why ultra-violet knocks electrons off of atoms. But what he didn't stop to realize, or maybe he did but scrapped the idea, is that light waves are longitudinal across the aether, and as such the aether electrons that carry the wave strike atoms as projectiles would. It was the photo-electric effect -- the action of light like projectiles -- that helped to do away with the aether model of light, such a pre-mature act of brazen murder.
Surely, by Einstein's time, they realized that one sound wave is an atom-to-atom bumping that tends to go in straight lines, and that the only reason a sound is heard throughout the room is that there are zillions of straight-line waves. But if this did not come to mind then, why not since then? Surely, there was a name for this theory, now buried under the carpets of evolutionist headquarters.
Evolutionists may have conspired to propagate a ridiculous-sounding model of the light wave in order to pass the impossible photon off to the world for their big-bang needs. Sure, the light wave was retained with the photon, but it wasn't a true, comprehensible wave. It was a phantom monster that one cannot explain to anyone's satisfaction, still taught to this day. Along with the photon came the orbiting electron, opening the floodgates of a lunatic atomic model.
And by deciding wrongly that gas atoms attract one other, they sacrificed a gem, for it is the inter-repulsion of gas atoms that allows sound waves to propagate atom-to-atom at high speeds and with crispness. Sound is an electromagnetic wave, not some crazy ghost in a nutbar kind of aether, but motion energy propagated FAST thanks to the electromagnetism between air atoms. Push an atom over here, and the wave energy gets to your ear lickety fast. Air atoms are under pressure, and therefore blanket every object continuously, because they inter-repel one another onto every surface. The surfaces of your lungs are covered in air atoms. Your eyes are covered in air atoms pressing on. Why shouldn't the same apply to free electrons? All atoms exist in a sea of free electrons.
Here's a kiddy video that explains their idea fast:
Below, in the 2nd minute of the video, we find that ultra-violet light has more spit-power than white light:
Color does not exist but in the eye. The eye's sensors must be such that differing levels light harshness produces differing colors, magnificent is God. He turns electron jolts into vibrant colors that satisfy.
As a light ray does not spread out when penetrating a flat-glass pane, it suggests that the cause of light spreading in a prism is not due to any effect / mechanism at the entry point of light. The entry itself is not responsible for light spreading, and therefore the rainbow is not due to anything at the entry point. It's as simple as that. The shape of the prism is highly suspect as the cause of the rainbow effect. Light must spread in a prism due to the different amounts of glass that the ray is forced to traverse?
There is no light in the prism in the sense that light is a material, because light is not a material. As light waves go through the glass, it's like a phantom because the only thing that exists is the glass. But this light phantom is not their phantom. Light is not weird or complex or hard to grasp. Light is just motion energy traversing the glass, but as it's not a substance, not anything at all, something in the glass forms the colors. What do you think it is?
It is impossible for photons to get through the glass, why would anyone make such a fool of themselves with that theory? Do you know how hard glass is, and do you know how physically weak light is? The only way for something so physically weak as light to get through hard glass is across a material that has little resistance to motion.
Electrons are practically floating at the perimeters of atoms, where the attraction from the protons upon them about equals the repulsion from all captured electrons closer to the proton than they are. In fact, it's possible that light waves carry also across the free electrons in the atomic spaces of glass atoms. The density of free electrons inside the glass is the same as the density of free electrons in the air outside the glass. As light waves can carry on the free electrons outside the glass, why not also on the ones inside the glass? Its all electron aether, in and out of the glass.
We cannot see the waves passing through the prism. The colors appear when they land on a wall, table or other object outside the glass. Yet, in truth, the colors are not really on the wall either, but only in the eye. If a blind man were standing at a wall having the prism rainbow, the only thing that exists there is jiggling electrons in the wall, and some mild motion of aether electrons in the air that the skin cannot feel. Yet the inner pupil can sense these wave motions, and help to convert them to assorted brilliance, praise God we don't deserve this gift.
When the waves beyond the prism strike a white surface, the waves jiggle the electrons upon the atoms such that the jiggling sends light waves to our eyes. All colors of the rainbow are bouncing off of the same "white" atoms, and so the different colors are due to something in the waves before they reach the white surface. The electrons of the white atoms reflect differently according to the specific make-up of the incoming light waves. If waves strike the white atoms more frequently, they deflect out more frequently, but does this necessarily change the color? Yes, and no. If waves strike in higher numbers per square area, they increase in brightness, but no not change color (unless we define higher brightness as a change in color).
I'm not even close to being a novice with colors through prisms, but I can guess correctly that if we shine the violet from two prisms to the same spot on a white wall, the color stays violet but goes brighter. We have doubled the density of light-wave trains on the wall, but the eye yet picks it up as violet because, from both prisms, the harshness of the waves stays the same. We are getting twice as many spits at the same spit-power, but the frequency of spits doesn't change the color; it stays violet.
The HARDER the waves enter they eye, regardless of frequency, the more they register toward the violet, and the thing that makes the violet color is the greater volume of prism glass that light is forced to penetrate. What else?
The stupids are smarter than I, especially when all their brains are combined. If we assume for the argument that Muslims are the smartest people on earth by far, they are yet wrong about Allah being the correct God. They chose him because they wanted to war against the God of Israel and of the Christians. No matter how smart the evolutionists combined, they chose error in all sorts of physics fields because the STUPIDS chose atheism instead of God. It's that simple. All the brains in the world don't guarantee correct assessments because the wicked heart will betray truth toward destruction.
One big mystery is how light manages to go through glass but not most other materials. The photon absolutely cannot do it. It doesn't matter how small you imagine a photon, when one adds up all the protonic material in a glass pane a 1/4-inch think, there's no passageway open for the photon to get through. It's going to hit protons galore, and even if it ricochets its way to the other side, it's going to distort the picture from where it came. If there is a dog on one side of the glass, with you on the other side, the dog won't look crisp if the light is from photons banging around chaotically inside the glass.
Plus, if the photon can ricochet its way through glass, why not many other materials too? Don't worry, the wachos will come up with some explanation that you can't disprove, and probably won't understand.
They will tell you that glass cannot "absorb" a photon. Talk about changing the subject to deflect. What does inability to absorb have to do with the utter certainty of photons striking protons? Nothing. What would you think of me if I argued: plastic doesn't absorb water, wherefore water goes through plastic? That's how demonic evolutionists are.
Besides, it's not enough to say that glass doesn't absorb photons. It's necessary to show why not, because the alternative theory, the wave theory, can well explain how light gets through glass. The question is whether photons will strike protons and electrons, and thus go bouncing their dizzy way back out the glass. Once a photon enters glass, it has a MUCH GREATER chance of bouncing back out as opposed to bouncing around within the glass and coming waaaaay out the other side. If you put the photon 1/3 the way into the glass, it has two times the chances of coming out the glass edge that's closest to it, but if you have the photon entering the very edge of the glass, it has thousands of times greater chances (= certainty) of exiting at that edge.
To "help" explain how photons get through, the fools tell you that glass is almost all empty space. WACKOS! There are idiots world-wide who ape this idea.
Evolutionists are far worse than demented. They are evil incarnate, seeing their errors but refusing to abandon them, teaching them to unsuspecting minds, ruining minds for the sake of killing God.
If one removes all electrons from the glass, and if the glass then becomes 99-percent empty space, there is yet no clear path for photons to get through without striking protons. You can't tell me that photons have radar and rudders in order to curve around all the protons.
Removing 99-percent of the space is like having 1 proton per every 100 empty spaces, each space one proton wide. Yet, in a glass pane a quarter-inch thick, there are zillions of layers of atoms so that each strip of glass, the length of those 100 spaces, is going to have zillions more of such strips, back-to-back, by the time we get to the other side of the glass. There's going to be a zillion / 100 protons for each photon to evade.
To put it another way, but the time we put 100 strips back-to-back each consisting of almost all empty space, with each strip having one proton only, the strips will create a wall of 100 protons so that a photon is sure to hit one no matter where along the strip it's trying to get through the glass. And the photon will hit another proton by the time it gets another 100 strips deep, meaning that it's going to have millions of collisions with protons by the time it gets to the other side of the glass...if it can survive even one collision.
And of course, at the speed the goofs make this thing, it could absolutely not survive one crash, are you kidding me? They make this thing fly seven times around the earth in one second, are you going to try to convince me that it could survive a crash into a glass proton? It would put a hole clear through the proton while self-destructing during the penetration. What do you take a photon for, an indestructible fantasy? It's just incredible that they make it the smallest thing of all, and then claim that it's the most indestructible bittie in all of creation.
Evolutionists have taught us one truth: it's easy to deceive people with the straight face of an educator.
Sunlight arrives through space to the earth. Solar electrons fill that space. Light waves move across electrons in space. All atoms are surrounded by (covered with) electrons. What does this tell us? Light moves as waves across the perimeters of glass atoms.
Waves inside of atoms can be expected to move best where captured electrons are held loosely (by protonic attraction), at the perimeters of atoms. It makes no sense that waves can get through glass if the waves strike all protons. Duh.
The mystery is why light waves piggy-back around the atoms of glass but not around the atoms of opaque materials. I've never come across clues enough to give an answer on that question. As oxygen atoms are transparent, I assume that light travels around the oxygen atoms in glass. Glass is made of silica, which is transparent probably because it consists of oxygen. I can't be sure why opaque materials block proton-avoiding passageways for light waves. There's options for theories, but the complications in the varied ways that atoms bond don't give a clear path to solving this mystery.
Light waves could not get through glass if electrons orbit atoms. The orbiting electron is the idea of a jackass wizard. Only a magician's fool believes such a thing. If electrons do not orbit while captured by protons, the only alternative is that electrons are mildly-moving / stationary atmospheres covering protons. Literal atmospheres. The light wave can work with such an atom. If the light wave can get through many successive air atoms in the earth's atmosphere, it can get through the many atoms of a solid, if the electron atmospheres of the solid don't disallow it. There's far fewer atoms in a half-inch pane of glass than in one straight line through earth's atmosphere.
In the dark, captured electrons tend to stillness. When light shines on them, the outer electrons jiggle, or jumble, or swerve...or when something like a hammer hits them, they can circle atoms like greased ball-bearings, though this circling is not an orbit (they will revert to stillness). Their inter-repulsion force is the best "grease" known to creation. But deep into the atom, electrons are held more tightly and may not move much at all when light strikes the surface of a material.
When sunlight falls on a red object, we can assume that the atoms are reflecting light of lower spit-power than when sunlight falls on a blue material. The glass prism can teach us this. The same sunlight upon different targets produces different colors depending on what the target atoms give up to the eye.
If red color sends out weaker light, we expect that red atoms (so to speak) absorb more light-wave energy than blue atoms. Perhaps the waves enter deeper into the red atoms so that more wave energy gets lost within the material. If that's correct, then red atoms could be holding their electrons less strongly than all other colors. Or, red atoms could be amongst the largest, because atoms with the largest electron atmospheres can be argued to have a greater abundance of loosely-held electrons, making it harder for light energy to strike protons and bounce back out as reflected light. Can any of this help us to understand the key(s) to transparency?
Why does light energy into transparent materials avoid protons? Do the loosest electrons cause the avoidance, or is perhaps due to the electrons held more tightly, of a certain tightness that enhances light-wave flow around protons? Or, is it the specific arrangements of the atoms? Or, is it the size(s) of their atomic spaces? What clues should we be looking for?
As black sends out no color, it can be regarded as a deep-red atom i.e. perhaps black atoms are the largest of all opaque atoms. I claim, for very good reasons, that carbon is the largest opaque atom, and it can indeed be pitch black. Black opal has carbon. Black obsidian is due to iron oxide i.e. deep-red color verging on black. Black titanium is from the addition of carbon.
Outer electrons hover above the proton, what else? That's why they are affected by so little friction. The very-outer electrons are breezy, attracted by the proton by roughly as much force as they are repelled away from the proton by all electrons beneath them (i.e. those between out outer layer and the proton). The outer electrons are so easy to move that they allows electricity to flow almost instantly. Light waves striking outer electrons cause literal breezes in them. There get high pressure regions and low, and move accordingly from high pressure to low.
But now we reach a conundrum. For it stands to reason that electrical flow is the meandering of captured electrons around / across the perimeters of metal atoms, and yet this process does not take place in non-metallic atoms. How does a metal allow electrons to move across its atoms like greased lightning? And why are metals not transparent if indeed the definition of transparency is an atom allowing waves to move across its perimeter? If light waves can move around glass atoms, why not electrical flow too? What could be the difference between electrical flow and light flow across atoms? I hang my head in shame, I still don't know. Shouldn't there be a simple answer here? Yes, but only if one knows what atoms look like, and the goofs do not, even as they claim they do. I laugh whenever they show what molecules look like.
One key could be that electrical flow cannot move across too many captured electrons held too loosely because there is formed a "dust cloud" of electrons which inhibits a clean forward flow. It's known that heat makes electrical flow harder, and heat at the wire is in fact the dust of aether electrons. That heat is held less tightly to protons than the outer captured electrons.
But if metal atoms have few loose electrons on their perimeters, there can perhaps be a decent flow. We can then suggest that metal atoms have an insufficient bulk of loose electrons for light waves to pass across. That is, light passage needs loose electrons in solids; electricity doesn't want loose electrons. It's my shot in the dark.
Transparent acrylic plastic is made of a hydrogen-carbon-nitrogen molecule, or two transparent atoms joined to some carbon atoms. We can then ask why carbon atoms shouldn't be transparent too since both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxides are transparent, as can be diamond (pure carbon). Yet coal and graphite, both pure carbons, are black.
I would love to know why carbon can be both transparent and black. As many metals can't scratch glass even when they have sharp edges, we could get the impression that transparent solids require deeply-merged atoms so strongly bonded that they don't easily move aside. Carbon can be placed under great pressure (i.e. atoms pushed closer together) to turn it into transparent diamond, and of course diamond is the definition of a hard material. Great pressure, I assume, merges atoms more deeply, what else? My atomic model tells me that the atoms most-deeply merged are the ones having most of their outer electrons lost.
By merger, I mean that electron atmosphere sinks into electron atmosphere (atoms are bonded as liquids / solids). During merger, the loosest electrons at the atomic perimeters go free from the atom, and convert to heat particles in open space (yes, they become part of the aether). Perhaps light waves cannot propagate around the outer-most electrons held to protons too weakly. Perhaps wave propagation needs electrons deeper than the very-outer ones, and thus the atoms need to be merged deeply enough to allow waves to flow through those deeper electrons. Maybe it's the other way around; what clue can there be to indicate which?
Glass may be hard, but is brittle, cracking even with fast temperature changes, or cracking even with sound waves. Could this indicate a shallow merger of glass molecules? Yes. It could. Could this indicate that transparency needs shallow-merged atoms? Maybe. Can material hardness be due to something other than deep merger, such as molecular make-up / structure? Yes. Do I have the time to look into all of these things? No. I can only scratch the surface. Choo-choo.
One would think, the deeper atoms are merged, the harder it will be to bend materials. But maybe not, it depends also on he power of the atomic bond. Glass won't bend much, and so we might reason that glass molecules are not deeply merged. Bendability means, for sure, that atoms roll on each other a little. Their atmospheres are rolling a little, or a lot, on each other, perhaps suggesting a weaker atomic bond. Why won't glass bend much? Maybe it would bend more, if it didn't snap first. Maybe the atoms are so shallow that, during bending, they snap apart at the first part of the bending process. Maybe high bendability requires deeply-merged atoms that don't snap apart until the bending gets to a large degree. That makes sense.
Thus far, it looks like glass has shallow atoms so that there are more outer electrons (as compared to other materials) easily bumped forward by light-wave energy. It could be that all transparent materials / atoms have a deep quantity of loose outer electrons. My atomic model claims that gravity arranges all outer electrons to be held by the proton with an identical force, but that most metal atoms have far fewer outer electrons than oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, for example.
My atomic model claims correctly (no doubt about it) that gravity's negative charge strips away all outer electrons, of all atoms, until the outer layer is attracted by the proton with identical force to that of gravity (at that location). This means that all atoms weigh the same, and explains what Galileo proved at the tower of Pisa, that all atoms fall to gravity at the same speed when dropped from the same height. There can be no other explanation other than, all atoms weigh the same. The goofs really goof on this one, shame.
The fewer electrons that atoms possess, the weaker their protons, the smaller the atoms, and the closer their protons tend to be. That's why metals weigh a lot, but so does granite rock. Glass is made of oxygen and silica; as the latter weighs about 1.5 times as much as water, it's not a heavy material i.e. not a small atom.
Protons are what weigh, because electrons are repelled by gravity. The substance having the greatest weight, per unit volume, has the greatest number of protons, and each atom can only have one proton. A substance that has twice as much weight, per unit volume, has twice as many atoms, twice as many protons. This is a super clue to the atomic make-up of all materials.
The stupids are goofs for suggesting that the carbon atom is amongst the smallest of atoms. They have goofed big time on their "atomic weights." In my 4th update of last September, I try to explain why their list of atomic weights is backward. I explained, in the 4th update of last August, why all atoms weigh the same, and it's this fact that allows one to find the correct atomic weights relative to one another. If you're interested.
I've been able to understand what the melting point is: when gravity attracts the atoms of a solid more than the atoms of the solid attract themselves, gravity begins to pull the atoms down to the lowest point possible, which defines melting. What could it tell us that glass has a high melting point, about the same as iron? It suggests that glass molecules have a strong atomic bond. But if glass atoms snap apart so easily when bending, how possibly can they have a strong atomic bond? You can't break quarter-inch iron with an easy swing of a hammer, but glass, no problem.
Perhaps the weakness of glass is not in the specific depth of atomic merger, but where the oxygen atoms bond with the silicon atoms. Perhaps it's vice-versa. One difference between glass and iron is the size of their atoms. Iron's atoms are much smaller, and so, maybe, the small size of atoms can unexpectedly produce the sort of strong atomic bonds that metals tend to have, a deception because, while small atoms cannot have strong bonds, the vast accumulation of them could back them up with "spine."
There are multiple definitions of "strong atomic bond." This is an interesting area of science to get into, but I've never had the time to tackle it. It proved very complicated from the get-go. It would take weeks of solid investigations just to lay the various mysteries / scenarios on the table for further investigation. google is anti-education while disguising itself as pro-education; it has become utterly horrible for doing such investigations. Asking google for specific information is asking for a concrete roadblock thrown into your face mixed with visibility for the highest $penders.
Solid oxygen needs very little heat to bring the atoms under gravity's control, but as glass needs much heat to accomplish the same, might we credit the silicon atoms in glass for making glass molecules so hard to disbond using heat? Heat enters a material and pushes its atoms apart. Glass molecules can take lots of heat before their bond strength comes down to the force level of gravity. Silicon is a rock that itself has hardness, and so, yes, it appears that the strong molecular bond of glass is from its silicon atoms while the brittleness of glass can be due to the weak silicon-oxygen bond.
But even if correct, what can this tell us about the ability for solids to become transparent? Can you see how complicated this can get? Especially if you follow the goofball view of atoms. You need first to correct their errors, then plunge alone into a new sea of discovery. How much can one brain take? How deep into the new sea should a Christian venture? I'm glad to go deep enough to make fools of God's enemies, and this motivation may net God's help in clearing up the new sea so that I can see clearly into it.
The atoms of all solid materials merge more deeply with colder temperatures, and do the reverse with higher temperatures, everyone can understand this as depth of atomic merger. Materials expand with increased heat, wherefore it's obvious that atoms of solids unmerge a little with increased heat. There's no other explanation. If materials grow larger, their atoms must be coming apart. Something is getting between atoms and pushing them apart, and of course this is the heat material -- free electrons -- being forced into the materials. As electron invaders push one another apart with greater force when they get closer to one another with increasing temperatures, they also push atoms apart that get in their way. What else? The new sea of discovery is very clear in these parts.
The strength of the atomic bond depends on how many electrons of the neighboring atoms each proton can keep a bite on. The deeper the merger, the more electrons there are for each proton to bite into (attract). Therefore, as atoms unmerge, the atomic bond weakens. The melting point is when the atoms have unmerged by such a degree that they attract each other less than the pull of gravity upon them. Have you ever heard such a definition before, of melting point? Why not? It's so logical and so obviously correct.
The melting point is also the freezing point. When a material is cooled to the point where the atoms attract one another more strongly than gravity attracts them, the material can no longer change shape as it does when it melts. Gravity changes the shape of a solid when the atoms drip down across other atoms.
They say that glass is made up of SiO2 molecules. That symbol is incorrect where the goofs define it as one silicon atom merged with two oxygen atoms, but in many cases, the similar names that they give molecules give a correct understanding of the relative amounts of gas needed to make the molecule. In this case, two volumes of oxygen mixed with one volume of silicon is probably correct mix needed to form SiO2 = silicon-oxide, but this molecule is not to oxygen atoms merged with one silicon atom.
They assign the "atomic weight" of silicon as 28, almost double that of oxygen's 16. If these numbers can be trusted, and they probably can to a fair degree (they can stretch-lie to protect their erroneous theories in this regard, but not by very much), what they really mean, without knowing/admitting, is that 28 silicon atoms are in one volume of gas as compared to 16 oxygen atoms in another but equal volume of gas.
Therefore, when we mix two volumes of O atoms with one equal volume of Si atoms, the make-up of SiO2 (= silicon-oxide = glass) becomes 32 O atoms per 28 Si atoms. We obviously can't have such a mix where all atoms merge, suggesting that SiO2 should be more like SiO1.9. I would interpret a mixing of 32 per 28 atoms as one O atom mixing with one Si atom to form an SiO (not SiO2) molecule, which is one silicon atom merged with one oxygen atom. I would further interpret that situation wherein a little oxygen gas is left over, unused, after the two O volumes react with one of silicon gas to produce this silicon-oxide.
How can we envision one silicon atom merging with one oxygen atom to form glass, but by alternating atoms, i.e. each O atom right next to one Si atom, and repeated throughout the glass? One might envision full rows of O atoms beside full rows of Si atoms, and this could allow the light waves to flow straight down the "tunnels" of O atoms, from one side of the glass pane to the other.
The question then becomes: in what directions are the tunnels, when new glass is poured molten and left to freeze in a flat position? Can this freeze process explain why light enters glass at an angle? Is it because the O tunnels don't freeze perpendicular to the two glass surfaces? Can there not be rows of O atoms in more than one direction? Yes, for every O row would cross paths with other O rows, both sets perpendicular or near-perpendicular to each other.
If light strikes at one angle upon the glass surface, the waves could be bound to taking the one set of O tunnels, and if light strikes the same surface from the opposite angle, the waves would be prone to taking the other set of O tunnels.
Carbon solids do not turn into liquids with increased heat. Instead, they go directly to the gas state. The latter is defined, for all atom types, as atoms repelling one another more strongly than they attract one another in the solid state. The carbon solid (ignores pores in coal) must have a very strong atomic bond because it doesn't turn into a gas but at several thousands of degrees.
I'm going to suggest that the gas-turning point of carbon is when gravity finally starts to get the upper hand over its atoms, but, while the carbon atoms are starting to drip downward to gravity, there is so much heat in the space outside of the carbon that the atoms fly off into the space instead of dripping into liquid form. Or, something else (shape of carbon atoms?) during the drip process, when one atom migrates toward the one beneath it, causes the atom to pop free into the air.
So, carbon atoms seem deeply merged while black and non-transparent. In being a black and large atom, it can predict deep absorption of light waves, rather than jolting sufficient waves back out as visible color. No matter that we shine bright-white light at coal or graphite, they stick their tongues out at us, swallow most of it, and remain black to our eyes. Carbon must be the symbol of the devil. Isn't carbon the agent of historical fire?
They can add oxygen and hydrogen to carbon to produce graphene-oxide, but while oxygen is transparent, graphene-oxide remains shamelessly black. Graphene-oxide, highly magnetic (due to the oxygen, I assume), is a solid. I keep reading that graphene-oxide material is one atom thick, but I don't believe it for a second.
I suggest that the goofs err when assigning the carbon atom an atomic weight of 12, nearly the same as the 14 for the transparent nitrogen atom. It makes no sense. They can easily err because carbon gas is so hot that it can mislead the facts when they extrapolate down to the low temperature they use for STP. In extrapolating, they might follow their erroneous textbook science on gases rather than go with the experimental facts to net their 12 figure.
The solid carbon-oxides (very cold) are either gray or colorless, similar to water ice. Solid carbon monoxide (colorless but not transparent) refuses to become a liquid when heated, but goes directly to a gas. This time, the carbon atoms are merged with oxygen atoms, and still there is a refusal to become liquid. It again speaks to some force pushing carbon atoms apart prior to their reaching the unmerged condition.
That force could be heat particles due to the large sizes of both the carbon and oxygen atoms. The larger the atoms, the more push power the heat particles can exact when pushing atoms apart, which is why the tiny metal atoms have high melting and evaporation points i.e. they need denser heat particles to get the job done.
New Discovery: How To Make Black with Spit-Power
Why are carbon-oxide solids not nearly black due to the carbon atoms within them? Color is such a huge mystery on the atomic / mechanical level. Don't you think that God was deliberate in what type of atoms he would create, for various human purposes and benefits? And even for showing how super-intelligent He is? God wants to be loved for his supremacy, but evolutionists instead hate Him, because the fools are jealous and wish to replace Him as God. Have you ever thanked God for glass? What would your house be like without it? Dismal, painfully sickening.
Black color must be when light goes deep into atoms but cannot find easy passage to the next atom in order for the material to be transparent. In other words, black materials may be the closest things to transparent. Push black carbon atoms a little closer together, and they become transparent diamond. How does that work?
A circular saw blade with diamond teeth cuts ceramic tile with some ease. Imagine how much wood one can cut, of how many houses, with such a saw blade, without even one sharpening session. Could we regard that as a benefit? To whom will we credit most, the diamond miners / manufacturers, or the Creator of diamond from mere wood? Can you do that? A diamond-fitted circular saw cuts mega-piles of wood with teeth made of hardened wood, imagine that.
To make a black paint, they say to mix blue, red and yellow paint, the same as mixing purple with yellow. Nobody thinks to make black with yellow, it's completely unexpected. Perhaps we need to re-think what black is. Perhaps it's not the absence of color after all, or at least not always.
I think I can explain purple by going back to the red light having the weakest spit-power while blue has the second-strongest, second only to violet. If we ADD the second-strongest with the weakest, we logically get the strongest. It's like math ADDITION: red spit-power + blue spit-power = violet spit-power. It's a good theory, let's continue to see where this goes.
I claimed above that blue has slightly more density in wave-train density as compared to violet, while red has much more wave-train density as compared to violet, and so when we add red to blue, the wave-train density is much more than what violet has, which can explain why purple is a deep violet. I had defined wave-train density as causing brightness levels rather than a change of basic color. I suppose that lots of brightness -- many superimposed, identical colored lights -- can create DEEPER color. I'm pretty sure that two blue lights shot at a white wall create deeper blue as compared to one blue light.
The problem now is a breakthrough solution, I think. Every problem poses a solution, and sometimes we stumble on a major discovery. How possibly could adding yellow paint to purple get a darker, black color? Yellow light has a fair spit-power, and spit-power is what knocks electrons out of atoms to form color, and yet we get black with the addition of yellow??? Help me here.
I then added up all the spit-powers from blue, red and yellow, and realized that they amount to a spit-power higher than that of violet!!!! INCREDIBLE. Why didn't this dawn on me before. Adding the three spit-powers gets us into ultra-violet zone, INVISIBLE light, which can explain why we get the black color in the eye when mixing those three colors, because invisible light from atoms looks black!
They say that black is the result of mixing purple and orange (or brown), and that too has an accumulated spit-power beyond violet into the invisible region. We are now learning, apparently, that black is not necessarily the weakest "color," the weakest reflection from atoms, but the strongest reflection from atoms! Zikers, who would have guessed? The brain tends to go to the weakest light for black. The idea here is that the eye's sensors can't register light brighter than violet, and so it looks black.
Into the Upside-Down Prism
In the video below, you see how the goofs explain the formation of the prism's rainbow. They claim that the entry itself of the light, into the glass, is what causes the bending of light, but also what causes the different directions of the colors. This cannot be correct, or it would take place in flat glass too. Plus, as you can see, the goofs view each wave as a horizontal wall rather than a logical, longitudinal train. If this video were done correctly, the incoming light waves would be shown as small dots travelling in straight lines, each line a train, each dot a train car:
Let me explain how a light wave must work, at least rudimentally, God could have added all sorts of extras / intricacies to these bitties, and I won't explain this process absolutely perfect for the sake of not getting too complicated with motion details.
Imagine one electron, ejected from an atom, bumping aether electrons in a train all the way to what I'll call, last-aether-electron, at the surface of the prism. Last-aether-electron strikes toward atomic-electron 1. This is the birth of the light wave in the prism. Let's assume that the last-aether-electron travels one-quarter the way toward atomic-electron 1 before the latter starts to move forward toward atomic-electron 2. Time passes before atomic-electron 1 starts to move, and it too will spend time in moving toward atomic-electron 2 before the latter starts to move. TIME HAS PASSED.
The reason that some time goes by without any motion of atomic-electron 1 is that the latter finds some resistance to motion due to the attractive force of the proton that has it captured. As each successive electron in the wave train is likewise captured by a proton, the initial speed of bumping will slow down in spite of last-aether-electron repeatedly bumping atomic-electron 1.
The light-wave tap is always on, but the restriction through the "water hose" is always at work. As in electrical flow, restriction to flow builds with distance down the wire. To calculate electrical resistance to flow, you will be directed to combine wire diameter with wire length, because restriction adds up with distance down the wire. Build-up of resistance must be the case also in the prism.
The full resistance to wave flow through all of the glass determines the AVERAGE speed of the wave train, for speed is time and mileage combined. I say, average, because the wave slows with each electron bump.
Let's assume that all atomic electrons are an inch apart to begin with, and motionless. If last-aether-electron starts to cause atomic-electron 1 to move when it approaches a 1/4-inch toward it, the two get COMPRESSED to 3/4-inch apart, and will get closer as the wave continues forward due to the backward work of the resistance to flow.
Last-aether-electron does not go backward to become one inch away from atomic-electron 1. The compression is permanent because last-aether-electron is being hit from behind with steady waves through the aether. I'm trying to convince you that compression of waves takes place, and am trying to show a little of what it must look like. I can't be there, of course, to snap photos.
To show that the level of compression builds with each successive electron bump, I've got to add that there will be kick-back between atomic-electron 1 and atomic-electron 2, for the latter always repels atomic-electron 1 backward is it comes forward. For the entire time that atomic-electron 2 does not move forward due to resistance to flow, it will push backward toward aether-electron 1 as the latter comes forward for the squeeze. In other words, the resistance to flow is transferred through the repulsion forces to the electron coming forward. Every electron going forward will be frustrated to a small degree, losing some speed, therefore, that would not otherwise take place if there was zero resistance.
If there was zero resistance, ZERO TIME would pass between bumps. All electrons in the glass would then bump through the full width of the glass in zero time. The wave would be instant. Time passed is therefore the counter-effect to forward motion.
It's got to be true that with this loss of velocity by atomic-electron 1, atomic-electron 2 will go slower to begin with, as soon as it starts to move, than atomic-electron 1 was moving when it first started to move. Moreover, atomic-electron 2 will lose more velocity as it approaches atomic-electron 3, for the same reason as atomic-electron 1 lost velocity.
However, when considering how fast the light penetrates the full prism, and how many zillions of bumps there are to accomplish it, you can begin to see how utterly small the time increments are when one electron is not moving. You can't even imagine how short the distances are over the course of one electron approaching the next while the latter is not moving. Essentially, there is almost zero time and distance involved at each bump, and yet this slowdown amounts to different-colored light depending on how much time and distance is involved at each bump. Or so I'm claiming until I see that prism color results from some other means.
The ultimate result of the resistance is that each atomic-electron down the track gets progressively closer to the next, and with the violet track being the longest, it gets the most-spit power when finally the wave exits the glass. Spit-power is what washes the mud off you car with your pressure nozzle. It's not hard to understand. Spit-power of light is what makes a commotion in the atoms on the wall.
The different spit-powers coming out of the prism make different levels of commotion each translating into a different color, as the eye is able to pick up different colors. The eye cannot pick up every difference of commotion, which is why the violet strip is so wide, and why the blue strip is so wide, etc. If the eye were more sensitive, there would be more colors visible in the prism rainbow.
The way to prove or disprove my theory is to shine the white light lower on the prism so that the bottom of the white ray is forced to go through more glass. If violet continues to show at the same track of the prism as was the case when the white light was shone higher on the prism, then my theory is proved correct. But if all the colors can be made at any part of the prism, then this theory doesn't look correct, though it might yet be useful.
The video claims that violet light gets slowed down more by the glass than red light does, and consequently the violet light gets bent more. It seems like a convenient concoction. Anybody can make one. Duh, the violet bends more, therefore, duh, the violet goes slower. Oh really? How so? If the violet has more spit-power, and they agree, shouldn't it go straighter into the prism, just as a faster bullet into water gets bent less than a slower bullet?
Here's the thing. The path of a round stone coming to the water surface at 45 degrees should "bend" into the water in the opposite direction as compared to light entering glass. If you've skipped stones on water, you know that the water tends to deflect the projectile upward away from the water, yet light waves get "deflected" downward, deeper into the glass. Perhaps light doesn't get a literal deflection. Maybe something else is going on, something electromagnetic.
The video claims in vain that violet light moves slower through the glass because it strikes the atoms more often due to having a higher frequency. But I would argue that anything coming with more frequency, such as the bullets of a machine gun, is expected to plow through obstructions with more efficiency. Each bullet opens the passageway for the next bullet, having the eventual effect of making the path straighter rather than curved.
The video ignores what it is that makes violet light have more frequency, and the answer to that is more spit-power from the light source. Violet is a stronger light wave, not expected to plow through glass slower than red.
This is a good place to remind you that I'm not claiming that violet light passes through the prism. I've been claiming that the white light going through the most glass evolves into a violet color by the time it has gone through sufficient glass to do so, and that the white light going through the least glass evolves into red light. It's not colored light to begin with inside the prism. The white waves may be in the prism for quite a ways in, and may even become a different color along the same strip that eventually makes the violet waves. If we could cut the prism width in half, we might find no violet light at all.
I'm sure that there are different-sized prisms all providing all the colors, but these may have been made with different glass types, and some may form stronger wave compression with less glass. Prism light is not my forte, so I just wouldn't know.
We can't trust drawings of rainbow prisms because different artists make the light spreading and light angles differently, not always true to reality. At the page below, scroll down to the diagram (the fourth scenario) that has two side-by-side prisms, but with one prism upside-down. You can clearly see that the artist is not being true to the photos. Why not? He's been meticulous with the positioning of the prisms and the angles of traversing light, but he has colored light reaching the wall in the drawing when in fact it's white light that reaches it:
When the colored lines pass through some air toward the upside-down, second prism, the red line is now nearest the base of the prism while the blue line is nearest the apex, the opposite of the first, right-side-up prism. In other words, while the to-be-blue light goes though most glass in the first prism, the same line/strip goes through the least glass in the second prism. Okay, I really like that, a very good enhancement on just one prism alone.
We need to ignore the colors of the lines in the second prism if we're trying to guess what colors they develop into by the time they exit the prism. Clearly, they exit all white in color, wherefore the artist is being deceptive in making them colored lines through the prism and beyond. But we can forgive this if he's just showing the progression of the original colors.
On the other hand, if he made the drawings in an attempt to deceive, planning on not showing the photos with the drawings, then we can't forgive it. If the photos were not included, we could definitely get the impression that colored light reaches the wall. In the drawings, the wall is called a "screen," but I'll call it the wall to remind that it's the final result of the light.
Or, maybe the diagrams and their explanations don't belong to the owner of the webpage. Maybe the owner set up the prisms in his own place to test what the diagrams showed, finding that the diagrams are deceptive. Note the "Not Secure" that google put beside the URL to his page, which is an indication that someone asked google to lower traffic to his page. This usually means that some goon doesn't want fakery exposed.
The two photos show that white light is the final result after the colors go through the second prism. Notice that the experiment seems to have the second prism positioned such that the light traverses as much glass in it as the light does in the first prism, suggesting that white light would not be the result from the second prism if the latter were positioned differently, for example higher or lower on the page.
Therefore, I would interpret this situation as meaning that all effects to all the light in the first prism is counteracted and canceled in the second prism, which explains why the light reverts to white. For example, the blue line goes through the most glass in the first prism, but then goes through as much glass in the second prism as the red went in the first prism. It would be the same as having the blue line in the first prism go through the track of the red line in the first prism to result in white light. It's a new realization for me.
Similarly, the red line in the second prism goes through as much glass as the blue line goes in the first prism, which is the same as having the red line in the first prism going additionally across the blue line in the first prism to get white light as the result. Doesn't this get explained by the spit-power differences? Maybe.
The prisms under discussion have no violet light. But we can do this exercise as if it did. A violet strip develops more spit power than the white, but if we put the violet light back through the prism where the red strip penetrates, the strip power is reduced to the spit-power of white light, and therefore shows as white. That's theory one, and may deceptively suggests that the red strip has less spit-power than white whereas I claimed above that even red should have more spit-power than white.
If all we do is deal with the spit-powers, it appears that violet has as much more spit-power than white as red has less than white. However, we need to enlarge on the theory to include the differences in wave-train densities (= brightness level). Let's repeat from above but include the wave trains:
The violet strip develops more spit power and less wave-train density than the white, but if we put the violet light back through the prism where the red strip penetrates, the strip power is reduced and the wave-train density in increased to the spit-power and wave-train density of white light, and therefore shows as white.
This can work because in an unexpected way. Sticking to my theories way above in another section: when we add the spit-powers of violet and red alone, the final light has stronger spit power than white light so that the final color is expected, by me, to be a stronger violet than the violet strip. In order to convert that strong-violet light to the original white light, the final result needs to be altered in wave-train density, and as we are increasing it when putting the violet light through the red strip, the final light can be expected to be brighter strong-violet. Brighter won't make the strong-violet invisible, but will, I assume, make it white.
Can that be true? If we shine multiple strong-violet lights at one spot on a wall, will it turn white? I think it could. Magenta (which some call purple), which could be considered the strong-violet, is the result when mixing red and violet. When we pass the violet of the first prism through the through the red strip, the wave-train density is, according to my theory, the density of the yellow-green light (the middle between red and violet). Then, I've just found this: "Purple and yellow [light] mixed together can result in magenta or white, depending on the ratios."
Keep in mind that mixing colored lights on a white wall don't usually give the same results as mixing paints. I don't think that mixing red light with violet light on a white wall (gets purple) should have the same result as running the violet light through the red prism strip (gets white). Perhaps the difference is that mixing the two colors on a wall gets a combination -- TWO together -- of spit-powers and wave-train densities, while running the light through a second prism strip gets a final, SINGLE spit-power and SINGLE wave-train density.
Plus, there could be a difference in results when shining two or three lights through each other in air/space as compared to shining them on the same spot of a wall. Not meaning to clutter your head, but it would be interesting to see whether red and violet shone through each other in air give white rather than a purple.
The enlightening beauty: this result of re-funneling the rainbow colors through a second prism works also for the yellow and blue lines, both at equal distances from the spine of the white ray. The photo showing light penetrating two prisms is such that the yellow in the second prism moves through as much glass as the blue in the first prism to produce white light, and indeed we read:
When mixing blue and orange in the light spectrum, an astonishing event unfolds that might just challenge everything you thought you knew about color.
Unlike the world of paints, where blue and orange blend into a grounding brown, in the realm of light, these two colors dance together to create a completely different visual spectacle. The results may surprise you — they merge to produce shades of white
Orange isn't quite yellow, but another page: "Blue light and yellow light can be combined to produce white light". Likewise, the photo at the webpage above insinuated that white light is the result when blue light out of a prism is re-tracked into an additional trip along the yellow strip in the same prism.
For your added information, we can read: "Mixing red light and cyan light at the right intensity will make white light." Cyan is between blue and green and thus one step down from blue, and red is one step down from orange. We saw that orange and blue lights combine to white light, yet the middle between orange and blue is not exactly the middle between cyan and red, but close. Likely, all two mixes resulting in white light get different tints of white.
However you cut this in mechanical terms, it's not correct in saying that white light REQUIRES a mix of all the colors of the prism. By mixing them all, the result should be a brighter white, and yet I'm going to claim that, when all colors are mixed, some of the white becomes invisible in the ultra-violet strip.
That is, when red and violet are mixed, the result in spit-power is a strong-violet spit-power, and so if we run strong-violet through any other strip for a third trip through the prism, the result could be an invisible, or near-invisible (dimmer), spit-power. That's what I mean by some of the white becoming invisible when all colors are mixed. That tricky, invisible light can deceive us when evaluating what goes on in the prism. The importance of understanding spit-power may be in catching this trick, so that it doesn't trick us.
Another possible way to put this, which may not be quite correct (I have only so much time and desire too consider these things), is that whatever one color on one side of the spine loses and gains, the counterpart color on the other side gains and loses. They need to be rejoined to get back the white light.
Before going on, it's important to point out that the drawing under discussion does not have the spreading lines in the second prism correctly drawn. The photos are telling obviously that the lines should converge to a point (rather than spreading) so that they are the exact reverse of what the first prism shows. You can clearly see that the white strip of light in the photo is very thin, which demands that the lines in the second prism converge to a point, at the exit of the prism. You can even see some of the thin strip of white light inside the prism in one photo, which photo exactly has the set-up in the diagram. (The prism must have "impurities" in the glass to show a bit of the colored light passing through it.)
In short, the lines are not drawn correctly in the second prism, and, besides, all drawings on the page have no violet line, but start instead with a blue line. I suggest that this is due to the smallness of the prisms i.e. not enough glass to form the violet light. The prisms are inside of a box, not in a room as it could appear.
For proof that lines converge in the second prism, see the diagram at the 3:00 point in the video below (diagram not fully reliable). Nothing I say below this paragraph is to this video; all references below are to the webpage above.
The write-up above the drawing tells that the colored rays are "parallel" after exiting the second, upside-down prism. And that is the case also when the white light is approaching the first prism, meaning that the second prism does indeed UNDO everything that the first prism does. And that tends to prove that the light in the second prism must be converging to a point, the opposite of the first prism. It also tends to prove that the light is formed, in the first place, by the amount of glass it's forced to penetrate...I feel good, choooo-choooo.
At some point, it should be said that my suggested reason for light spreading in a prism may be wrong, when appealing to wave-train repulsion. Possibly, both spreading and converging can be alone due to something going on at entry. If that's true, then wave-train densities might not be as I've portrayed them, with least density at violet and most density at red. If, for example, the light spreads at entry from the middle yellow region to both sides, then yellow may have the most density of wave trains with both sides equally diminishing in density with distance from the middle. I had pondered that possibility.
It could take a deep, long delving into the intricacies of mixed prism light to discover which theory may be true. Perhaps the similarity of color between red and violet indicate that both have thin wave-train density, noting that also that yellow is a bright color while wave-train density should define brightness level. In this picture, with blue and orange having the same wave-train density, the only difference between them would be their spit-power levels.
If no amount of prism-grade infrared piled on infrared ever turns into a color, even though we are piling up the wave trains, then it tends to prove that spit-power alone creates colors. Ditto if no amount of ultraviolet piled on ultraviolet turns into a color. I've never heard that adding infrared and ultraviolet lights gives a visible color, which can be explained where adding the infrared only increases the spit-power of ultraviolet, making it more invisible. To prove further that spit-power changes color, adding infrared to a high degree of violet may get a modified form of invisible ultraviolet.
Infrared in nature is probably not identical to infrared in a prism.
The mystery I'd like to understand is why the light in the upside-down prism converges rather than diverging. The nice thing about the drawing is that is has the full color ray perfectly horizontal so that the red line goes upward (first prism) on the page while the blue line goes downward. But this is reversed in the upside-down prism (ignore the drawing's lines). There's only one difference that I can see between the two prisms, for the angle of entry into this both is essentially identical, and the glass thickness in both is about the same. Besides, I can't see how the glass thickness could possibly determine the angle of entry.
The only easily-discernible difference is the angle of the glass surface at each entry point. The angle of the first prism's surface is 30-degrees off of vertical, and the other prism's surface is about 30 degrees off of vertical but in the opposite direction. What I would like to see is the exit colors of light traversing only one upside-down prism, but so far I haven't seen one.
This angle difference forms another difference: the to-be-blue light enters first into the first prism (before the other colors-to-be), and the to-be-white red light enters first into the upside-down prism. Then, the blue, the last to enter the upside-down prism, likewise becomes white light along its track. But I can't imagine why these differences cause an opposite change in directions for all colors.
As I proposed that the wave trains spread out in the first prism due to electrical repulsion between them, I may as well give a pot-shot: there is electrical repulsion set up between the wave trains in the upside-down prism that, instead of spreading the ave trains, brings them closer together. This repulsion is not necessarily due to the different angles of entry, and not necessarily due to which color enters the glass first, but perhaps due to the fact that only colored light enters the upside-down prism, whereas only white light enters the first. The colored light is both spread out thinner (less light volume), and has more spit power than white. Why should any of the two, or both together, cause repulsion toward wave trains?
I have an idea. If the colored waves knock electrons off of all glass atoms involved in the waves, the atoms become less negative than the atoms to their sides in both the infra-red region and the ultra-violet region. So, the atoms in those two regions push the waves closer together as they traverse the glass. It doesn't happen in the first prism because the white light doesn't have as much spit-power, and it's spit-power that knocks electrons off of atoms.
In fact, wow, it's not necessary for all colors in the upside-down prism to knock electrons off of glass atoms; it's sufficient if the violet end alone does so, because push from one side only will cause all wave trains to converge! I like that. The blue train gets pushed toward the red train so that both trains meet at the end of the road through the prism. Glad I stayed with the problem long enough to form a theory. I really like it lots because it shows again that violet light is stronger in spit-power than white light.
As the blue light entering the upside-down prism is expected to evolve into white light because its track is shorter through the glass than it was through the first prism, I imagine that the track is curved, with the highest angle toward the red in play while the light is highly blue, then curving progressively less toward the red as the blue light becomes less compacted and therefore less blue. It becomes less compacted because the track is shorter then the track that first made it blue in the first prism. The length of the track near-instantly determines the compaction (or compression) force for the whole wave train. The lower the compaction force, the less dense the train cars, i.e. the more distance between train cars, i.e. the weaker the train cars for knocking electrons off the glass atoms.
The second scenario on the same webpage has the colored lines spreading throughout the journey, right up to the glass wall. The lines spread progressively further apart even through the second prism and beyond. In that scenario, the light goes through two UPRIGHT prisms with the apex of each at the top of the page.
The spectrum is a little wider in the second scenario than in the first scenario (on the same page) perhaps due to the angle of entry into the second prism. Surely, one can change the width of the rainbow (and thus be deceptive) with a change in the angle of entry. The drawing claims that the two prisms are at 106 degrees, but the photo looks like a perfect 90 degrees. A change in that much angle of entry could be enough to make the lines converge in the second prism rather than spread out.
Or put it this way: if the framer of this set-up is deceptively trying to hide that the lines converge inside the second prism, he would arrange the final rainbow to be a little wider than the rainbow in the first scenario. But if in fact the rainbows are the same width, or if they can be made the same width with a twist of the second prism, then I could argue that there must be converging lines within the second prism...which is not supposed to take place according to how the goofs claim that violet light bends more than red upon prism entry.
If the two, end-result rainbows (on both walls, scenario one and two) were identical in width, the width of light at the exit of the second prism can match the width of light at the exit of the first prism in the first scenario, because both walls are six inches from their respective prisms. As the light entering the second prism MUST OBVIOUSLY be larger than the light exiting the first prism (same scenario), the light in the second prism MUST CONVERGE in order that, at its exit, it becomes as wide as when light exited the first prism in the first scenario. It's as simple as that.
To put it another way, the light exiting the first prisms in both scenarios are the same width, and this would be the same width again of the light at the exit of the second prism, if both rainbows were the same width, and if the spreading of light out of both prisms, in both scenarios, is at the same angle.
The point is, it's feasible that colored light into the second prism could be made to converge. As you can see, the second prism has only colors entering it, same as the upside-down prism. If both prisms can get converging wave trains, it seems that, when colors alone enter prisms, wave trains can all be pushed toward the red trains so as to all come closer to one another...so long as they consist of a color with enough spit-power to make glass atoms less negatively charged than in the violet region (that's what does the pushing).
Even if the rainbow is wider after the second prism, as compared to the end result in the first scenario, the light within the prism could yet converge. For example, if the rainbow after the second prism were as wide as the light entering the second prism, the light could converge through the prism, then expand outside the prism to satisfy the top of this paragraph. The artist may have merely assumed that the colors in the second prism spread out, perhaps because that's what he's taught.
Convergence of colored lights in prisms absolutely blows apart the theory of the goofs wherein violet light always bends the most due to something inherent in the violet light. In the first prism, the violet end moves away from the red, which the goofs use to prove their theory. But if the opposite takes place in the second prism, then it absolutely cannot be explained as violet bending more than red, for if the violet end is bending toward the red, it can't be bending more than red.
Or, it can be said that violet is yet bending more than red, only toward the red. However, as the light enters both prisms at roughly the same angle (second scenario), the goofs cannot explain why the violet does not bend away from the red, for if it does in the first prism, it should do likewise in the second prism. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. If anyone owns two identical prisms, and if you can make the light converge as it enters a second prism, you can use this argument against the scientists, and moreover you can thus blow up the basis of their red-shift / blue-shift theory, a theory that's a fundamental leg of big-bang trash.
A curiosity in the second scenario is that the colored strip can be seen curved (top-to-bottom) through the prism in the PHOTO, and regardless of what prism surface that rainbow strip has its source in, the curvature should stay the same through all prism surfaces and finally to the wall. Yet the curvature on the wall is in the opposite direction.
Plus, the blue color on this rainbow, as it shows through the prism photo, is on the viewer's right, with the red on the viewer's left, but the strip at the wall is the opposite, with the red on the viewer's right, and blue on the left. It seems that there must be a good explanation for this, but after some good study, I can't see it.
Next, scroll down to the third scenario on the same webpage, where the red light alone penetrates the second prism, and where it does not stay red upon exit of the prism, according to the photos. Instead, in the photo reflecting the set-up exactly of the diagram, we see the near-full rainbow coming out of the prism. To the contrary, the diagram reads, "ONLY ONE COLOR," at the wall! That looks like a brazen lie. It's wanting us to be taught that red light through the prism stays red.
Note how the red color alone passes near the apex of the second prism. Why should red alone, that close to the apex, form a rainbow from red to blue?
My prediction is that, if we let red light penetrate more glass than it does in the first prism, it should change color toward the violet, the final color depending on how much more glass is penetrated. But in this case, we also have a second prism entry of the red light, which may (or may not) alter the original waves. I have no idea how wave color might be altered, specifically upon entry, in ways different to changes due to its path through glass.
In the first prism, we can say that the red ray is restricted from spreading toward the yellow by the yellow ray, but there is no other ray in the second prism when the red enters there. With the red alone there, we would expect it to spread freely so as to form other colors by the fact that spreading forces tracks through more or less glass. Where the new tracks go to the one side of the red, the color will be invisible infra-red, and where the new tacks go to the opposite side, the colors should form yellow, green and maybe even blue too. And that's what we see on the wall, though the rainbow there is dimmer than the rainbow results of the other two scenarios.
Should the rainbow in the third scenario be dimmer than in the other scenarios? Yes, because the light is spreading through two prisms while the first scenario has only one prism while the second scenario has one upside-down prism that doesn't dim the colors due to spreading, because they don't spread in that prism.
The caption of the diagram (third scenario) implies that the blue and yellow mistakenly slipped past the light blocker, but I can't be sure about that explanation. How easy would it have been to adjust the light blocker slightly to knock out the yellow and blue? Why wasn't that done? I suggest that he couldn't knock out the yellow and blue no matter how he tried, because the red-alone ray created the yellow and blue.
Another Upside-Down Prism
Back to the fourth scenario with upside-down prism. The man said that the light came out that prism "parallel," which can only mean that he moved the wall to different distances from the prism, but the light remained white and at roughly the same width. On the other hand, by using a different-shaped glass instead of the second prism, the rainbow comes out converging to a point, not at the exit of the glass piece, but the point takes place OUTSIDE THE GLASS, a small distance beyond that glass. You can see this at the second minute in the video below:
When the man moves the wall even further away from where the colored lights converge, they begin to diverge (spread out) so that the rainbow colors reappear, now in reverse order (blue where the red once was, and vice-versa). No violet appears in this set-up. We can easily see what's taking place due to the shape of the second piece of glass. It's causing a convergence unlike the reason for the convergence in the upside-down prism. In the latter, the light converges INSIDE THE GLASS, and then the glass at the prism exit bends all the light such that it continues parallel, instead of spreading out through the air.
Moreover, the man is not dealing with a distinct difference between his rounded piece of glass and the prism. Into the rounded glass, all rainbow lights enter a flat surface struck at 90 degrees so that no bending of light takes place at entry. The red light penetrates as much glass as the blue light before the GLASS EXIT ITSELF, its convex shape, that is, bends the light AT THE EXIT, to make it converge outside the glass. There's no evidence that the light converges inside of this glass.
I'd expect that all light inside of the rounded glass increases in spit-power due to further compression of the waves. I expect that the middle colors, yellow and green, will get extra spit-power as compared to the red and blue. But if the colors are not converging, I see no change in wave-train densities for any color.
The man is trying to prove that the colors of light are inherent within the white light before it hits the first prism, but this is not proof at all if the prism creates the colors. Just because the colors can be mixed to produce white light doesn't mean the colors existed in the original white light. Just two colors alone can produce white. Blue and yellow WITHOUT RED OR VIOLET can produce white; how does that prove that all colors are in white light? Red and Cyan WITHOUT YELLOW and VIOLET can produce white. Hello?
We can't say that blue already has violet and green light within it, for it obviously does not as it exits the prism. We can't say that green already has yellow and violate, for it obviously does not when it exits the prism. What are we going to conclude from the mix of blue and orange, that white light is made inherently of blue and orange light? Ask cyan and red about that, and they'll tell us differently.
Again, white light cannot cause the photo-electric effect while violet light from the prism can. It speaks to the prism giving colors more spit-power = more force of bombardment.
At 4:00 minutes, the video above does the upside-down prism scenario, showing that the light out the second prism is indeed white. The speaker thinks it's a white result because the prisms are so close together, and I can't disagree. Due to the closeness of the two prisms, the spreading light from the first doesn't get spread much so that the light through the second prism is able to converge to a point while still in the prism.
When he puts the upside-down (or flipped around, to be more accurate) prism further away from the first prism, the light from the first gets to spread more so that the light within the second prism can't converge inside the prism, and so I assume it converges to a point outside the second prism (unless per chance it starts to spread out outside the prism due to the bending at the exit glass).
In the 5th minute, he shows that the white light out his rounded glass stays mainly white when put through a second prism, BUT, note that he lets the light go through ONLY THE TIP of the prism i.e. little glass penetration. This proves what I had figured earlier in this update, that white light through a prism stays white for a fair distance before it forms visible colors. Choo-choo.
It's a shame, though, that he doesn't show the white light from the rounded glass going through the middle of the prism, where it has more glass. I'd have to assume that a rainbow will then form. What else?
I don't want to lose the video below because, in the 5th minute, the man allows us to see the light coming directly into the eye through the prism, instead of landing on a white wall. Instead of the red light being closest to the apex, it's blue. Talk about sending me for a loop. What am I to think, that the blue light coming out the prism shows red on a white wall? Maybe it's not light from a light source, maybe it's from a flag or something similar on the wall.
The photo in this video shows how little the colors spread out through the prism due to the shortness of glass distance. The light is touching the white surface as well as penetrating the glass/
It appears that zero light-spreading is taking place in the glass. I've not seen this type of view before. Could it be that the rainbow begins at the exit point? If true, could the deceivers be that deceptive, to claim that the rainbow is inside the glass? It's hard to say, but the rainbow could be forming at the last leg through the glass. This photo tends to verify my claim that the light stays white through a good leg in the prism. I guessed that it might be that way for less than half the trip, but this photo makes it appear that it could be more like three-quarters the way.
When the light exits the glass, some white is still visible for a good ways into the middle green-yellow. Only the red and violet are absent this white light out of the glass. However, nearest the glass, the red and violet are very light (mixed with white), getting deeper in color with some distance from the glass. There might be just a small sliver of red and violet just inside the glass from the exit. It appears that the white forms the green and/or yellow spine while the other colors get less wave trains on both sides of the spine, though I can't be sure of this assessment.
This prism shows the violet color with perhaps no blue at all, and lots of green but little or no yellow. Other prisms show little green. Different-colored rainbows could be due to both the light source and glass type.
Note that the light is made to traverse the middle region of the prism; I've yet to see anyone putting it through the base of the prism so that the light penetrates much glass. If different rainbows come out of one prism with only one source light, and if the angle of light to the prism remains the same no matter where along the surface the light enters, then it suggests that the various lengths of glass cause the colors. Yet this photo under discussion indicates that the exit plays the biggest role in spreading colors.
Look at the deception in this short video, using computer diagrams rather than photos. It has the colors separated from the entry into the glass, WRONG. This error is repeated and repeated:
In the video below, a rainbow is formed by shining white light into a water-filled cylinder i.e. a ROUND shape, indicating that the colors can be due to differences in the amount of water penetrated. The rainbow may not appear when shone through a water-filled square container:
Starlight in Prisms
If one can change the color volumes out the prism just by allowing the white light to land in a different spot on the prism, what might this do to ruin the claims of cosmologists bent on using red-shift / blue-shift spectroscopy to push a big-bang scenario? In this science, the goofs absolutely rely on where certain black lines specifically appear upon a spectrum, but if the spectrum colors, and maybe the black-line positioning too, can change with a little shift of the incidence light, could that ruin the entire science?
Suppose that there are choices in spectral lines per one star. Would they tell us? Or would they decide which of the options to go with, then spread that option to all the textbooks and science journals without telling anyone that they chose the spectral lines from amongst different options. Is that science, or is that fitting the "science" to big-bang needs?
If the goofs don't understand prism light properly, might they need to re-vamp or trash their methods of measuring whether stars are moving toward or away from the earth? They use the spectrum of starlight to make their determinations on this aspect of cosmology. The star spectrum is the colored light of starlight after it's "separated." But if white light doesn't separate into colors, might their spectroscopy be worthless? I don't know yet. I haven't looked into it.
I can tell you this: they claim that white light moving toward the eye will change toward the blue color, and that white light moving away from the eye will change toward the red color, and the faster the white light moves, the more the color changes either blue or red. There's no evidence for this theory; it's an assumption based on the idea that a light source moving toward the observer has more spit-power due to the speed of light combined with the motion of the light source.
I know enough about star spectroscopy to know that it's imperative for the goofs to claim that white light has all the colors of the spectrum already imbedded, otherwise stellar spectroscopy, as they use it, will be useless. Now you know why the goofs are so excited to lambaste the public about the idea that prisms separate white light into it's innate colors.
Stars are made of hydrogen, and so they use the hydrogen spectrum as a marker for indicating a star that's neither moving away from earth, or toward it. A hydrogen spectrum is made by shining a light through hydrogen gas into a prism. The resulting spectrum (same thing as the rainbow) has dark lines in it at positions different as compared to spectrums made by shining light through other types of gases.
They claim that the dark lines in a hydrogen spectrum are the missing colors because hydrogen atoms have gobbled up those colors. Is there any other way to interpret those black lines? Give me time. It's Sunday night here, and this update is due tomorrow at noon.
So what they do is to pass the light of a star through a prism or device that records its spectrum. You can imagine how difficult it might be to get the light of a wee-wee star to show as a discernible spectrum, and who knows what sorts of tricks could be had in doing that alone. To make the star's light larger, they magnify it, but that's defined as spreading out the light wider such that the light gets much thinner on the final backdrop of the photograph. Does that process infect / affect / ruin the work from the get-go? I wouldn't know.
Once they have the star's spectrum recorded, they look for the whole set of hydrogen lines within it, checking to see whether the set is closer to the red end, or to the blue end, of the spectrum as compared to hydrogen gas on earth i.e. the hydrogen-spectrum marker mentioned above. And that's it, that's about all. If the star shows the hydrogen lines closer to the red end, the goofs say the star is moving away from earth, and they will probably venture a guess at its speed, and from that they extrapolate or mind-bend or pull rabbits out of hats using their big-bang farcities to claim with straight face the star distance from earth.
Perhaps the hydrogen spectrum from stars changes when they magnify the star in size. By magnifying the light, they are altering the light, are they not? They are making it dimmer because they are making it wider. That's why magnification makes things look more fuzzy. There's light missing, that's the fuzz. My magnifying a face 100 times, your spread the light of the face, and also the skin of the face. It gets distorted.
And so the cosmos goofs are distorting starlight if they magnify it enough to get the rainbow colors visible enough to find the hydrogen lines. I don't know whether it's a big problem, but if it is, they wouldn't tell us, anyway, if their main goal has been to use spectroscopy to prove that the universe is as big as their big-bang bosses demand it to be.
The hydrogen spectrum is always the same, they may claim in order to make the public trust in their science, but maybe it changes at temperatures of stars, could that be possible? google offering; "The primary reason that stellar spectra look different is that the stars have different temperatures...Stars of different temperatures, therefore, exhibit different spectral lines."
What about the differentials between the specific light-emitting forces of star bodies in combination with differences in their gas atmospheres? The latter produce the spectral lines, but how many differences may there be in gas atmospheres, in thickness, density, and temperature, for example? There's just going to be a lot of guess work. These differences, in combination, may bring to earth different hydrogen spectrums not rooted in anything having to do with, or having only a little to do with, star direction to or from earth.
In any case, I would love to be able to solve why black lines appear in prism rainbows when light shines to them through gases. The first thing coming to mind is whether the black lines are so powerful in spit-power as to be invisible colors rather than the claim that these black lines are absent of color. These lines are so thin, how could anyone test whether they are black due to super-low or super-high light frequency?
Then there's the question of whether the black lines develop from the entry point of the prism versus further into the glass due to something going on with the spread of wave trains. If their view for black-line formation is correct, then the lines must begin at prism entry.
It makes no sense to me that a "frequency" of light should get gobbled up (absorbed) by a hydrogen atom, when light waves of all frequencies strike the atom and pass around its electrons. Their definition of "frequency" amounts to my spit-power. Why should a relative few waves get gobbled up by ALL hydrogen atoms just because the waves have certain levels of spit-power? I've got to quit for this week.
I hope you thank God more than just on Thanksgiving Day. Lord, I've been a disgusting non-Christian, and a partly-wilting tree of a Christian, but if I'm forgiven, and if you are happy to give me eternal life in spite of me, I should be extremely happy. Thank you, even though you won't answer the prayers I repeat always, and thank you also for my daily bread and the continuation of life in this body.
Late in the next update, I solve the mechanism of spectral lines in prisms, and prove their theories are incorrect. See the section, "Eureka," and the section before that.
Here's apparently a false-flag operation on the canada-US border that went wrong. It was apparently staged as an attack from Iranian forces zealous for Gaza. Why was it done at the Rainbow bridge?
The man in the video below says he heard no explosion, even though he claims to have seen the car fly. We expect no explosion in a faked crash, meaning this guy could be a false witness paid off to give this testimony. There's no car where we see the smoke, and it's partially in a garage-like building (belonging to U.S. Customs) where someone could have arranged a diesel-fuel fire on the pavement/cement. If this was faked, I suggest there was no car crash, just a flying car doctored into the picture.
The fire looks like it's from a long line of gasoline whereas we'd expect fuel scattered widely, more circular, not in a strip, with a car crashing at that speed. There's no evidence on the ground that a car slid into that garage-like building. There's no cold-car shot shown by a news organization, nor a tow truck come to take it away.
The newsman in the video below says that the explosion was fierce, yet the witness above heard no explosion, proof-positive that this is a faked / staged event, perhaps intended to increase Homeland Security powers at border crossings:
In the video above, we see the supposed explosion blowing a piece of paper into view, but no car parts, no nothing else. From the opposite view, from the other camera, there was no damage visible to the garage-like building. Apparently, they changed their minds midday about making this look like a terror attack.
I eat cereal everyday, and always feel good after eating General Mills Oatmeal Crisp (my favorite), but it has BHT, which the video below says has been banned in Japan for fear that it causes cancer. I'm reading at google, "General Mills started removing BHT from their cereals over growing health concerns." But my box of Oatmeal Crisp has BHT in the ingredient's list. It sounds like BHT causes the same kinds of ailments that some the COVID vaccines do. This chemical is in other cereals, such as Quaker Oatmeal Squares and Rice Crispies:
The video below is not the only one showing trees burned from the inside out from a weapon in the sky not generally known to the public. The one below is in Hawaii, but other videos show trees burned from the inside out in many places, as well as showing proof of microwave radiation from a sky-bound weapon, either from a plane or satellite (I'll pick the plane as most likely):
Here's some evidence below, starting in the 2nd minute, that some January-6 prisoners are fakes. It's an idea I've suggested in the past. It seems to me that these jail terms are so ridiculous that they must be faked, and one motive for faking them is to dissuade Republicans from gathering in protest in the future, for the deep state plots to do many things that would arouse Republicans to protest. It looks like this trick has worked:
The reason I think the prisoner at the 2nd minute is a fake is that he claims he's calling from his jail cell.
Whatever happened to Alex Jones being sued for almost a billion dollars, if I recall the figure correctly? If that court case wasn't faked, why is he still "on the air" in social media? By soliciting funds from his viewers, isn't he asking them to pay that gigantic fine? Is that moral? Should his viewers be sending money to the deep state that rigged the shooting? Won't the court fine go to that deep state? If the court case was faked, then Jones is a fake. I'm not saying either way, but the court case, what I saw of it, struck me not as reality.
Fakery is everywhere, and some choice crisis actors may even be propped up as political candidates, pretending to be anti-globalists when it seems that their "opponents," pro-globalist candidates, are sure to lose elections. More fakery appeared in the U.S. congress with higher-ups claiming the U.S. military has bodies of outer-space creatures who flew to earth. Don't lose grasp of reality. It seems the deep state is trying to confuse us, and dress us in fear, so that we may believe the lies for finding some sense of (false) peace.
The January-6 event was clearly police-facilitated fakery. The Capitol police knew that the congressmen had gone into hiding, and yet they welcomed and escorted protesters through the halls of congress. There can be only one explanation: they were directed by a higher authority to welcome protestors so that the same police force, in cahoots with leftist media, could frame this as an invasion and even an insurrection. If there were 20 or 30 pro-Trumpers who exchanged rough words with police, and even if it got a little out of hand, that happens commonly at protests, it doesn't rise to the level of an insurrection. This fakery serves to show the world what a demonic beast the American government has evolved into.
Maybe they exist, but I haven't seen one video from Fox news, on youtube, with the story of Speaker Johnson releasing the January-6 videos. Isn't anyone at Fox happy about this? Yes. Then where are the stories showing the new footage that prove again that Tucker was correct in his assessment? Ahhh, the Fox boss is curled up in his chair with his snout at his tail, scared, because he didn't allow Tucker to continue airing the January-6 videos, and he had Tucker fired shortly after he did his first and last show on that topic. Even Fox has become fakery. Truth will be thrown to the ground, says the Bible, shortly before Jesus appears on Surprise Day.
The Hill reported on Monday (Nov. 11) that Speaker Johnson made the videos available only at the Capitol Building, and if this is true, then Speaker Johnson is being half a liar for the impression that he's released the video to the public. Everyone who goes to the Building to see the videos will be identified, we may assume, and who-knows-what they are being told (intimidated?) when they go. It may be that nobody can walk out with ALL of the video (44,000 hours) at one visit. This has the makings of a crime scene itself where the government continues to break the law, not giving the people that which they own.
By now, from when Kevin MacCarthy agreed to release this video several months ago, the government has had time to splice out or destroy the most-damning video. Just the same, most of the video footage will show a mix of police and demonstrators, the latter doing nothing wrong, just walking through mildly, and with the police mostly relaxed and comfortable. We should expect faked scenes with faked pro-Trumpers causing faked damage / messes to/in the building. google refuses to show me easily where I can download the video.
Here's an online page where the video is being spilled out, supposedly, but on my first attempts to load four videos, both failed (didn't try for a fifth), which appears deliberate for obvious reason. At this time, late November 11, there are five pages only of videos, about 50 videos in all, with the largest video not larger then 500 MB, and many under 200 MBs. The page appears very prone to errors, perhaps random, programmed "errors," not surprising. The buck stops with Johnson with this foolery:
Speaking of hoaxes, how possibly could NASA go to the moon with the best camera available and not plan to take pictures of the stars with earth in the picture? Astronomers would have demanded this because it would have helped them to map the solar system. Achem. They brought back no star pictures because they were on the earth faking the landing. Then NASA claimed that it "lost" the technology to go to the moon, as the reason why it never returned. But the most laughable part, if you think the hoax above is funny at all, is that Trump and Musk want men on Mars prompto, hahahahahaha, what a couple of hoaxsters.
This Musk is the same guy who, in cahoots with NASA, faked backward-landing rockets because people were telling others that NASA did not have the capability to land moon landers backward on their butts. And they still don't have that technology, or the military would be using it, for rescue operations, for example, where planes cannot land, and where they need faster-than-helicopter speeds. Landing a rocket backward is dangerous, and was absolutely impossible with the computers of 1970. No man could do it manually, or without a computer to control the tilt of the rocket using jets spitting fuel or gas on the side of the craft.
The lunar landers did not have such jets, or at least nobody has ever talked about them. The astronauts were incapable of steering the ship manually backward, especially having never done it successfully on earth first. Besides, with what did they steer? A craft shooting burning gas straight down is going to tilt immediately, and the driver has no idea which way it's going to tilt, or how it will tilt again after he tries to correct a tilt. He's going to crash without a sophisticated computer to control the tilt. We never heard that the lunar landers had so much as a plumb bob on board.
The American government has long disrespected the people with lies, because a democracy gives power to the people on the wide road to destruction. Duh, the majority is on that road, and a democracy is ruled by the majority. Absolute free speech, duh, gives the devil the opportunities to control a nation with lies masked as truth, and once he has sufficient power, duh, he takes free speech from his adversaries.
This video owner below may accurately be claiming that Israel has created a propaganda news piece, and the news org doing the story looks a little complicit due to the added drama of the newsman:
Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.
For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:
Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture