Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-13-2011, 01:47 AM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
Is E=MC^2 the inverse of reality and the exact inverse of True and Pure physics?

A monumental law in Pure and True Physics that Albert Einstein did not realize is that equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always include and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution. Here's an exact example. The formula for the kite below is;

Flight = kite x Velocity of wind



The equation above and the image that portrays it, possesses two whole and separate solutions because the equation has not been reduced to its smallest possible factors. This equation can either portray;

1. A stationary tethered kite with air moving past it. or

2. A moving kite being propelled through stationary air.

One of the above is the true "realm" of the Physics and the other is the inverse half correct solution that occurs as a result of the equation not being reduced to (Acceleration x Time). Yet both produce the same solution of Flight.

We cannot tell whether the kite is tethered or whether it is being propelled. We cannot tell if the air is moving past the kite "or" if the kite is moving past stationary air.

Due to the fact that the equation has not been reduced to its smallest factors, the specific "realm" of the physics is not determined and so the equation then enables two possibilities. However the Flight (the left side of the equation) the numerical answer to both possibilities will be the same for both realms 1 and 2. Flight occurs whether the kite is moving or whether the air is moving past the kite. This is why Einstein's equation gave a correct "numerical" answer for energy and yet an incorrect "realm" answer for the very Physics of Energy.

And it's because of this fact that un-reduced formulas provide two equal yet opposite possible realms that Albert Einstein's error has been hidden for so long. The error has been hidden because E=mc2 gave a correct answer for the numerical value of energy and yet it gave a completely in-correct value for the realm of the actual Physics.

However now when we reduce the equation and write it in its true format;

Flight = kite x (Acceleration x Time)

the Acceleration is now directly connected to the kite. The above equation absolutely declares that for a period of Time the kite Accelerated. And when we write the equation in this manner the image, the specific realm of the physics, is then transformed into this;



We now know for fact that the kite is moving past the stationary air as opposed to the line being tethered and the air moving past a stationary kite. If the kite was tethered the equation would be;

Flight = Kite x (Air x Acceleration x Time)

With the Pure and True equation of the Acceleration of the kite we can then unify the Flight of the Kite with the Boat in a way that we were unable to do in the first image. Albert Einstein could not unify his energy equation with Gravity because his use of Velocity kept the very "realm" of the physics of Gravity a mystery.

When the two kite equations are then placed beside the two Energy equations we can clearly see how their compared realms of Physics are exactly parallel.

The incorrect equations that also provide inverse possibilities.

Flight = kite x Velocity of wind;
(possesses the inverse possible realm of air moving past a tethered kite)

Energy = mass x Velocity2;

(E=mc2 possesses the inverse possible realm of Mass being Energy)

The correct equations that portray the true physical realms.

Flight = kite x (Acceleration x Time);
declares for certainty that the kite is moving past stationary air.

Energy = mass x (Acceleration x Time)2
(declares for certainty that Light "within" Mass is Energy)

Unification Of Electricity Finally Discovered?

GB
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 05-13-2011, 03:33 AM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
Here's a question I posted in another thread, Does light have to reach us, for us to be able to see a phenomenon taking place at a distance?

Here's the response I gave to the above question. "We should not confuse light and image, because universal phenomena take place everywhere at the same time." What is this universal phenomena? This universal phenomena is "Expansion Acceleration"!

For thousands of years man has been thinking that light has been "beaming" from the sun and traveling past the earth and hitting the moon in the night sky and then reflecting back into our eyes.

Absolutely Not So.

One of the biggest misunderstandings regarding light in the last 500 years of optical science is the belief that light reflects. The belief that images are formed upon the human eye due to light traveling and entering our eyes as opposed to our eyes, via Expansion Acceleration, encountering stationary light.

Without question it is impossible for Light moving in a straight line from the sun to reflect off of the "curved" surface of the moon and to then transfer that complete image of the moon (the complete circumferential area facing the earth) back to one spot (your eye) on earth.

In the picture below, if light did travel (which it absolutely does not) the only reason that we would see this globe would be because light is approaching the globe from every direction and then reflecting off the globe and into our eyes, giving us a full and complete image of the globe. And this would only be possible due to what we call "diffused" light.



However, what if light was only approaching the globe from "one" direction, would we still be able to see it? Exactly like it does when we see the moon at night.



The light that is illuminating the moon in this true picture is NOT diffused light. It's direct light coming from the sun (from behind us) and "supposedly" reflecting off of the moon in straight lines and into our eyes. Well Not So!

Think about this. How can a "curved" moon surface reflect light back towards only "one" spot (to your eye). It Can't. A curved surface only shows one small spot of direct reflection. Just like the highlight spot on this sphere below that is a reflection of an overhead light bulb.

The only reason you see the whole sphere (B and C) is because of "diffused" light. But what if the light bulb was the only source of direct light exactly like the sun's direct light on the moon? Then you should only then see "A" right?



In a well lit room of diffused light (which doesn't exist) we see the sphere above as it is.

However if this sphere was the moon in space, and light actually traveled (which it does not) we would not see this sphere as it is. We would only see the highlight spot where light is coming at us in a straight line according to the exact correct angles.

When light is coming from the sun it is not diffused light. Light is only coming in one exact straight line from the sun. Therefore if the above sphere were in space we should only be seeing spot "A". If the above sphere were the moon in space, spot "A" would be the only exact proper angle to reflect the sunlight back into our eyes on earth.

In space, light is only approaching the moon from "one" exact direction, only one exact straight line from the sun. So if that light is hitting the moon from only one direction then all of the "curved" area on the moon outside of that one small spot (A) would be sending the light off into space at different angles and only the one small spot of "A" (proper angle) would be sent into your eye.



This is exactly what you would see, if light did in fact travel.



One small spot where the sunlight hits that exact proper angle in order to be reflected back to your eye on earth.

And even more than that, because the moon is moving in its orbit around the earth, it is continuously moving through that beam of light coming from the sun, therefore the light and its angles hitting the moon are always changing.

This is what the moon's surface would look like as those angles of light are continually changing due to the moon moving through its orbit. All those trillions of changing angles of light on the surface of the moon would look exactly like this.



The real reason we see the whole moon is because light does not travel but is stationary in space. And our eyes are encountering it via Expansion Acceleration.

Read this next paragraph very slowly.

The real reason that we see the shaded parts B and C on a sphere is only because, via the Expansion of all Mass in the universe, the sphere pushes the stationary photons of light (held stationary in space via their electromagnetism) into the shape of the sphere and that image is held stationary in space. Then via Expansion Acceleration our eyes come into contact with that stationary image.

Via mathematical proof (EinsteinElectricity.com) mass has been shown to be moving past "stationary" light via Expansion Acceleration (the true definition of Gravity) (the exact inverse of Einstein's velocity of light). And via further discovery an incredible reality has been unveiled.

Light in the universe does not move unless continually pushed by Mass!! We see light via our physical expansion past stationary light that then enters our eyes. A mathematically proven fact.

For those who may be interested, here's more details on Einsteins Light.

GB
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-13-2011, 03:42 AM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
Unification

Unification.

You decide if E=MC^2 is the inverse of reality and the exact inverse of True and Pure Physics.

GB
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-13-2011, 03:49 AM
Neight's Avatar
Neight Neight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 322
Absolutely interesting stuff here!!
It makes total sense, which is always nice
thanks for posting, now you got me thinking!!
N8
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-14-2011, 03:59 PM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
The kite moving past stationary air in post #1 is analogous to mass moving past stationary light, via expansion acceleration of all mass.

The biggest thing that we need to come to understand, is that by inverting Mass and Light, Einstein gave us the "Inverse" of the True Energy equation. And he did this simply because he had no reason to believe anything other than that Light in the universe was moving past Mass. Which of course is the exact opposite of reality as Mass is moving past stationary Light via Expansion Acceleration.

GB
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-15-2011, 12:16 PM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 286
This is really interesting. Give me a few days to think about it all and I'll post some thoughts.

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-15-2011, 06:33 PM
clueless clueless is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 95
Our eyes don't see

in images. In fact our eyes don't see at all. Stimuli in the visual spectrum are interperted by electrical signals in the brain to form an image we expect to see. In the dead center of everybody's eyes is a small grid devoid of optical cells. That means that any object you "see" has a blank spot in it. Why is it then we don't see that dead spot. Our brains fill in the details is why.
In my opinion light relecting or not reflecting; reflecting off a curved surface in a straight line or curved has nothing to do with E=mc2 or its inverse equation.
All our 5 sensory stimuli are interperted electrically by our brain and that forms our understanding of the environment. Since our brains are part of each of us and we are part of the environment I don't see how any observation we make can be objective. That is any observation made by the 5 senses alone.
Now what that has to with Einstein's equation I have no idea. Just thought I'd point out we don't see with our eyes but its our brain.
-RG
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-15-2011, 07:34 PM
Farmhand Farmhand is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by clueless View Post
in images. In fact our eyes don't see at all. Stimuli in the visual spectrum are interperted by electrical signals in the brain to form an image we expect to see. In the dead center of everybody's eyes is a small grid devoid of optical cells. That means that any object you "see" has a blank spot in it. Why is it then we don't see that dead spot. Our brains fill in the details is why.
In my opinion light relecting or not reflecting; reflecting off a curved surface in a straight line or curved has nothing to do with E=mc2 or its inverse equation.
All our 5 sensory stimuli are interperted electrically by our brain and that forms our understanding of the environment. Since our brains are part of each of us and we are part of the environment I don't see how any observation we make can be objective. That is any observation made by the 5 senses alone.
Now what that has to with Einstein's equation I have no idea. Just thought I'd point out we don't see with our eyes but its our brain.
-RG
clueless, I think that is correct, I seen a documentary that explained that when we look we never really decifer all the information availiable in real time only the relevent changes or something like that. It is a more efficient or faster way to process the relevent or immediately important visulal info. That is why sometime's things seem to be not there "like car keys" when you look one time but are there when you look again. It's just unprocessed info or data, so the brain recieved the data but did not process that data into a visual image to be veiwed by our conciousness. A similar thing happens with memory I think.

I suppose this is how some people miss so much of what is happening around them.

Not trying to argue against GB I just thought it is all very interesting, I'm enjoying GB's thread very much. Not sure i understand it all very well but I am trying. Light is interesting.

Cheers
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-15-2011, 08:05 PM
Slider2732 Slider2732 is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Muskogee, Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 1,006
Regarding brain sight perceptions:
Back in the early 1990's, I had a job as a baker of pork pies. It was on a rotation basis, part of the job as a delivery driver. The baking entailed going in to work at 2am, on my own and cooking thousands of said pies, to be readied for morning delivery. There were many stories created for newbies, haunting sounds, creaks and moans...that we all knew were normal expansion and cooling effects, but newbies didn't. Everyone had weird tales, due I would think to working on their own in a quiet factory in the middle of the night.
One night, it was my turn to bake and I turned up at 2am to the factory. Part of the job entailed pushing huge baths of gelatin to a steam heated tank.
I rounded one corner with the bath and for a split instant saw a dangling rope, like a hangman would use. Instantly following that, the rope disappeared from view, then it reappeared and carried on this flashing a number of times. I looked away and then returned my gaze. What was actually in front of me, was a piece of pipe that the janitor guy had hooked up to the steam bath. It was there to collect steam before it condensed into water on the roof above !
My brain had done its best job to remove the vision !


The probably erroneous thought when reading this fascinating theory of E=mc2 being the inverse, was that we may write the original as:
perE=mc2
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-15-2011, 08:41 PM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by clueless View Post
in images. In fact our eyes don't see at all. Stimuli in the visual spectrum are interperted by electrical signals in the brain to form an image we expect to see. In the dead center of everybody's eyes is a small grid devoid of optical cells. That means that any object you "see" has a blank spot in it. Why is it then we don't see that dead spot. Our brains fill in the details is why.
Our brains have no reference point of us moving through space, thus it's perceiving light to be moving while we are stationary. The brain is mis-interpreting the facts in this case, and is the reason for Einstein's misuse of velocity in his equations and kept him from unifying gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clueless View Post
In my opinion light relecting or not reflecting; reflecting off a curved surface in a straight line or curved has nothing to do with E=mc2 or its inverse equation.
Light doesn't reflect off a curved surface in a curve. There is only 1 spot and proper angle on a curved surface, such as the moon, which light from the sun will be reflected back to us. All other angles of the incoming light from the sun will be reflected in a straight line and at an angle which is away from us, thus the complete circumference of the moon wouldn't be visible to us if light is moving and reflecting off the moon. However, we would see the complete circumference of the moon, if light is stationary, and our eyes see it via expansion acceleration of all mass. This shows us what has velocity, so we can correctly apply it to get the true reality of things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clueless View Post
All our 5 sensory stimuli are interperted electrically by our brain and that forms our understanding of the environment. Since our brains are part of each of us and we are part of the environment I don't see how any observation we make can be objective. That is any observation made by the 5 senses alone.
Our brains can also be used to reason. We can't rely on our 5 senses alone, but we can reason and analyze what we perceive through our 5 senses in order to come to a better understanding of the true reality of things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clueless View Post
Now what that has to with Einstein's equation I have no idea.
This has everything to do with Einstein's equation, for it is the very reason for his misuse of velocity in his equations, which inverted the true reality of things, and kept him from unifying the fundamental forces of nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clueless View Post
Just thought I'd point out we don't see with our eyes but its our brain.
-RG
The brain can be tricked in what it's perceiving through it's 5 senses. It has no reference point of expansion acceleration when everything around it, except for light, is undergoing this same universal phenomena, thus our brains mistakenly and wrongly declare we are stationary and light is moving.

Anyways, it's good to see this being discussed and people sharing their ideas and opinions on this fascinating and interesting topic.



GB
__________________
 

Last edited by gravityblock; 05-16-2011 at 12:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-16-2011, 01:17 AM
clueless clueless is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 95
GB it is fascinating.

Whether or not Einstein is correct or not has no relationship to how we percieve light. At least in my opinion.
I think we all can agree that our 5 senses limits what we "know." I know I have saw things at times which are paranormal. I also know that if I saw those things all the time my senses might become overwhelmed. Regardless though whether those things are visible or not does it affect whether those things are real?
Equations were never my strongpoint and a heart attack weakened that area even more during by-pass surgery. So whether E=mc2 is accurate or not I can not tell. And what its relationship to light is I also don't know. All I do know is that images carried on light are interperted in the brain and may or may not be accurate.
-RG
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 05-16-2011, 02:16 AM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
@RG,

I don't want this to be a one-sided discussion, so I welcome and respect your thoughts on this subject.



GB
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-16-2011, 06:24 AM
Neight's Avatar
Neight Neight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 322
I don't think you guys are disagreeing on anything fundamental here. you are both saying that how we visually perceive light is or at least could be different than reality. you both acknowledge the fundamental short-comings of our 5 senses to take in accurate information.
neither of you are really debating the accuracy of Einstein's e=mc2 equation either, the only real difference is one of you is saying that it is clear that Einstein's equation is incomplete and is that way because of the way we perceive light, and the other one is saying that it doesn't matter how we perceive light. if you think about it, both are correct. in either case, wether visually or mathematically, Einstein did not have all the information needed to make an accurate mathematical equation. you are really just pointing out two different halves of the same side of a coin.
just my 2 cents here,
N8
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-16-2011, 07:59 AM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
1 million dollar prize offer!

The below quote is a copy and paste from Al Zeeper's website.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Zeeper

Are you connected to a Mathematics Journal?

The Clay Mathematics Millennium Prize is offering one million dollars as a prize to the solution to the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap.

The solution to this dilemma is specifically found within the Unification of Gravity and Einstein's E=mc2. And the mathematical solution is found on EinsteinElectricity.com

However one of the stipulations (rules) to receive the prize is that the answer must be "published" in a Mathematics Journal for 2 years.

Therefore if you have a connection to a Mathematics Journal and can assist us in getting this solution published, we would greatly appreciate to talk with you immediately.

We appreciate any assistance in this matter, Thank you.
Rules for the Millennium Prizes

GB
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-16-2011, 02:36 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 918
Hello guys,

I have been looking at that webpage for several days now. It poses some really interesting concepts, and is definitely worth a look.

I have a question, for anybody here who has maybe solved this.....

In the website one of the most important equations given is

"Energy = Light x Heat"

I dont think I need to explain why this just makes no sense at the moment! Is there something Im missing?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-16-2011, 03:11 PM
clueless clueless is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 95
Assuming E=mc2 is true

what does it mean? In other words if the energy in a mass is equal to the speed of light times itself exactly how is that helpful? Or even if the inverse equation is true how is that helpful? Here is what I mean; use a 1lb ball and light squared and you have a lot of energy tied up in that. I assume the amount of energy in that ball is the same regardless of the ball's material. But how do you release that energy? I assume for a lot of materials/suitation the energy needed for that may equal the energy released. I don't see how that helps.
As I say though math is not my strong suit but I would like to ask a question. I assume Einstein and most mathematicians use Euclidean geometry as their platform when my gut tells me that fractal geometry holds the real key to understanding nature's wheel.
I'm just wondering is all.
-RG
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-17-2011, 04:11 AM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
Hello guys,

I have been looking at that webpage for several days now. It poses some really interesting concepts, and is definitely worth a look.

I have a question, for anybody here who has maybe solved this.....

In the website one of the most important equations given is

"Energy = Light x Heat"

I dont think I need to explain why this just makes no sense at the moment! Is there something Im missing?
This is an excellent question. IMO, in order for us to understand some of these concepts, it may require us to acquire and accept a completely different way of thinking. I found a page on heat via the sitemap on his website. This stuff is completely different from the way we have been taught. I have always said TPTB has inverted every truth imaginable to mankind. I truly hope the rabbit hole doesn't run this deep. Let me know what your thoughts are on Energy = Light x Heat after you've had time to study the above link. This may not help to make sense of this, but it may be a start.

A few things I have always liked about you, is your open-mindedness and persistence.

GB
__________________
 

Last edited by gravityblock; 05-17-2011 at 04:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-17-2011, 04:47 AM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by clueless View Post
what does it mean? In other words if the energy in a mass is equal to the speed of light times itself exactly how is that helpful? Or even if the inverse equation is true how is that helpful? Here is what I mean; use a 1lb ball and light squared and you have a lot of energy tied up in that. I assume the amount of energy in that ball is the same regardless of the ball's material. But how do you release that energy? I assume for a lot of materials/suitation the energy needed for that may equal the energy released. I don't see how that helps.
As I say though math is not my strong suit but I would like to ask a question. I assume Einstein and most mathematicians use Euclidean geometry as their platform when my gut tells me that fractal geometry holds the real key to understanding nature's wheel.
I'm just wondering is all.
-RG
Apparently the equation representing the true realm of physics has a solution to the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap dilemma, whereas no solution has been found based around the equal but half-correct inverted and unreduced equation. This should be of no surprise, for one represents the true realm, while the other doesn't correctly represent the true realm. Only time will allow us to know how helpful it may be.

In regards to geometry, here's a link for "The Unification of Geometry with Einstein's E=mc^2".

I'm trying to make sense of this, just as you and the other people following this discussion. A few things I do know. 1) The world isn't flat as people once thought. 2) The sun doesn't rotate around the earth as people once thought. I could extend this list, but this is enough for me to realize that E=Mc^2 may be the inverse of reality and the exact inverse of True and Pure physics. History does tend to repeat itself.

GB
__________________
 

Last edited by gravityblock; 05-17-2011 at 04:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-17-2011, 05:07 AM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
For those who may be interested, here's a link on Pressure and a Video on the Cartesian Diver.

GB
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-17-2011, 03:34 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravityblock View Post
This is an excellent question. IMO, in order for us to understand some of these concepts, it may require us to acquire and accept a completely different way of thinking. I found a page on heat via the sitemap on his website. This stuff is completely different from the way we have been taught. I have always said TPTB has inverted every truth imaginable to mankind. I truly hope the rabbit hole doesn't run this deep. Let me know what your thoughts are on Energy = Light x Heat after you've had time to study the above link. This may not help to make sense of this, but it may be a start.

A few things I have always liked about you, is your open-mindedness and persistence.

GB
thanks for the compliment!

Looking this over I just simply cannot subscribe to what he is saying, the divorce of heat and light, when both are signal. Are there not infrared lasers? can we not make "heat" act like all other forms of light in visible spectrum?

I look at it like this....we live in a physical, and musical universe. Quantization of anything is a direct result of this. Anybody who has played a musical instrument can show how the peaks and troughs of its resonant modes constitute a quantization of the waves.

Therefore there should be common demonstrators.....and there are, the smallest we know of is the Plank set of constants.

One such set of common denominator is heat, its infrared wavelength is within the bandwidth of either the individual atoms or overtones of atoms and so many objects appear to be optically clear to heat (LC circuits are a good macroscopic toy to see how objects may appear opaque or translucent to frequencies within a certain range.)

In fact there are infrared lenses which bend, focus and shape light just like any other wave, and they appear opaque to the visible spectrum...

What im getting at is this....This guy seems to have made a very interesting note, that all of our SI units are off by a factor of velocity, and this has ramifications if true. But im not so sure that he has followed that train of logic correctly yet.

Still worth a look, his mathematical points about inverses are SO TRUE, let me read something from "The final appeal" an interesting critique on human thought process.

Quote:
You analyze problems by thinking in terms of binary processes or alternatives, like an absolute “yes” or an absolute “no”, which you accept as real. This is an irrational process of thought used only by those with severely distorted structures. It compounds itself in the multistage analysis of complicated problems. At the same time the number of levels in your analysis is usually very small, even if the problem you are analyzing is quite complicated. The search for a solution comes down to choosing one out of two possibilities where two possible solutions exist, whereas the most correct solution lies somewhere in between.

The following analogy will be clear to your mathematicians: If one obtains answers to “yes” or “no” kinds of questions concerning a particular problem, the solution will be analogous to choosing one of the apices of an N-dimensional cube, whereas the range of possible solutions includes all points of N-dimensional space. To be exact, most of the time you erroneously err in the estimation of the real range of possible solutions which in reality are seldom quantitative.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-17-2011, 03:55 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
thanks for the compliment!

Looking this over I just simply cannot subscribe to what he is saying, the divorce of heat and light, when both are signal. Are there not infrared lasers? can we not make "heat" act like all other forms of light in visible spectrum?

I look at it like this....we live in a physical, and musical universe. Quantization of anything is a direct result of this. Anybody who has played a musical instrument can show how the peaks and troughs of its resonant modes constitute a quantization of the waves.

Therefore there should be common demonstrators.....and there are, the smallest we know of is the Plank set of constants.

One such set of common denominator is heat, its infrared wavelength is within the bandwidth of either the individual atoms or overtones of atoms and so many objects appear to be optically clear to heat (LC circuits are a good macroscopic toy to see how objects may appear opaque or translucent to frequencies within a certain range.)

In fact there are infrared lenses which bend, focus and shape light just like any other wave, and they appear opaque to the visible spectrum...

What im getting at is this....This guy seems to have made a very interesting note, that all of our SI units are off by a factor of velocity, and this has ramifications if true. But im not so sure that he has followed that train of logic correctly yet.

Still worth a look, his mathematical points about inverses are SO TRUE, let me read something from "The final appeal" an interesting critique on human thought process.
To even further expand on this, look how imaginary numbers confuse people, I mean my god, they are IMAGINARY right? No, they are just what happens when we introduce a SECOND dimension into our linear (number line) math!!!!! Wow, we start to loose people at two dimensions uh?



I think that the concept of alternate answers all correct to same perceived problem is what should be taken from all of this!

just my thoughts.

A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers | BetterExplained
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 05-17-2011, 04:46 PM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
I think Al Zeeper is dead on with his analysis of the divorce between heat and light. Below are a few quotes I made quite some time ago in regards to heat and light from the sun, which seems to be inline with what he is saying. Also, there are videos of huge objects the size of planets orbiting near the surface of the sun. Of course, the videos could be fake, but I don't think so. I think our understanding of things may be wrong, thus we could never accept the above video to be a representation of the true reality of things. Now, It won't surprise me if I don't lose most of my credibility from this post. This is OK though, for people at one time refused to believe the earth was round (spherical).

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravityblock View Post

@Occy30 and Harvey,

Heat comes from the Sun, but in the form of high frequency waves, which are then transformed into heat waves. This transformation takes place in the atmosphere of the planets. They do not come from the Sun in the form of heat because heat will not travel through a vacuum. Even the heat on the Sun is bearable, it is merely a field in which electrical forces operate.

Besides the heat that is developed by the frequency of the Sun's rays, heat is also developed by the pressure of the light of the Sun. At sunrise the oblique rays of the Sun do not exert any pressure and one has the impression that the Sun is a large red disc of no power, but when it is at its zenith one can sense the intensity of its rays pushing against the ground.

The Sun's luminosity is not related to its heat. On Earth there are also sources of cold light. A neon bulb shows that light is not always hot. Many insects develop cold light, as well as certain vegetables which produce a luminescence by bacteriological action.

GB
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravityblock View Post
Heat rays, or infra-red rays, require a dense medium, for they cannot pass through a vacuum. Visible light can travel in a semi-vacuum and in a dense medium to a certain extent, but not as well as infra-red rays do. In an absolute vacuum there is no propagation of light. This can better be seen in the so-called holes in space, such as the "Coal Sack" in the Milky Way. In a Geissler tube also, it can be seen that light ceases to cast a shadow when the pressure within the tube is very low. However, a vacuum is the ideal medium for the propagation of waves above the frequency of visible light.

Looking at the problem in this way, the light that reaches the Earth's surface is modified. If this were not so, the chemical rays would destroy life on Earth. Behold the wisdom of God, who protects the planets close to the Sun by giving them a cloak of dense atmosphere and ether, and gives those distant ones, whose speed of revolution is low, a thin covering. The modification of solar light can be seen at sunrise or sunset, when it is red, whereas at midday it is white. This modification from white to red takes place over a distance of 6,758 km., equal to the equatorial radius of Earth, which is the extra distance the light must travel to reach the observer, compared with the light at midday. While the latter has to penetrate 400,822 km. of ether, the light of the rising Sun has to travel 407,200 km. Between white and red light there is a difference of 30,000 mgcs. per second. If the light loses 30,000 mgcs. in 6,758 km., how much will it lose in 407,200?

If the wavelength remains the same and the frequency is considerably increased, this must mean that the waves from the Sum reach the Earth's etheric covering at a much higher speed. We can see the same thing in the difference of the speed of light in the atmosphere and in water. It is only 140,000 miles per second in water, as opposed to 186,000 in the atmosphere. Therefore, density has a considerable effect on its speed. Light which becomes visible on reaching the Earth's surface reaches the etheric envelope of the Earth at a speed of 6,250,000 miles per second, and light that is above the visible spectrum on reaching the Earth arrives at far higher speeds. For the Sun emits its energy at various wavelengths and at different frequencies. Its emission is never uniform.

We have reached a point where we can say that the light of the Sun exerts on Earth a pressure equal to the weight of light, measured at the Earth's surface, plus the energy lost in traversing the 400,000 km. of etheric mass.

GB
__________________
 

Last edited by gravityblock; 05-17-2011 at 04:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-17-2011, 05:10 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravityblock View Post

@Occy30 and Harvey,

Heat comes from the Sun, but in the form of high frequency waves, which are then transformed into heat waves. This transformation takes place in the atmosphere of the planets. They do not come from the Sun in the form of heat because heat will not travel through a vacuum. Even the heat on the Sun is bearable, it is merely a field in which electrical forces operate.

Besides the heat that is developed by the frequency of the Sun's rays, heat is also developed by the pressure of the light of the Sun. At sunrise the oblique rays of the Sun do not exert any pressure and one has the impression that the Sun is a large red disc of no power, but when it is at its zenith one can sense the intensity of its rays pushing against the ground.

The Sun's luminosity is not related to its heat. On Earth there are also sources of cold light. A neon bulb shows that light is not always hot. Many insects develop cold light, as well as certain vegetables which produce a luminescence by bacteriological action.

GB
Ok,

what if every particle is a "resonator" with a particular set of characteristic harmonics (its fingerprint) and a certain bandwidth.

Light (a signal through a field) impinges upon matter (corpuscle, atom, resonant structure, whatever) and like a quick striking of the bell causes said structure to "ring".

This ring is not a pure tone, it is a rich harmonic mix, of which overtones, and undertones (common denominators when referencing my last two posts)

what if light never "reflects" of off anything, rather interacts with a resonant structure, and the resonant structure absorbs, then emmits its own fingerprint.

Why is my shirt green?

Could it be that a signal impinges upon my shirt, then my shirt absorbs that energy, and re emits it (like a transducer) at its characteristic wavelengths?

And if infrared is a common denominator to a lot of matter, would it not follow that energy hitting most matter would change incoming energy to "heat"?

Why do black objects radiate heat? could it be that their harmonic fingerprint is dominant within the infrared spectrum? therefore when energy of high frequency (cold as some like to say) hits this structure, it absorbs this frequency, and re emits as infrared...or "hot"????

So basically im saying you are right, you can transmit something through space which is not "hot" (not in infrared spectrum), and have it hit matter only to become hot!!!! WOW,

But DOES THIS MEAN THAT HEAT AND LIGHT ARE DIFFERENT????? If they are, then what I just said makes no sense, and I might just be a crackpot, not outside the realm of possibility.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2011, 05:40 PM
gravityblock gravityblock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
Ok,

what if every particle is a "resonator" with a particular set of characteristic harmonics (its fingerprint) and a certain bandwidth.

Light (a signal through a field) impinges upon matter (corpuscle, atom, resonant structure, whatever) and like a quick striking of the bell causes said structure to "ring".

This ring is not a pure tone, it is a rich harmonic mix, of which overtones, and undertones (common denominators when referencing my last two posts)

what if light never "reflects" of off anything, rather interacts with a resonant structure, and the resonant structure absorbs, then emmits its own fingerprint.

Why is my shirt green?

Could it be that a signal impinges upon my shirt, then my shirt absorbs that energy, and re emits it (like a transducer) at its characteristic wavelengths?

And if infrared is a common denominator to a lot of matter, would it not follow that energy hitting most matter would change incoming energy to "heat"?

Why do black objects radiate heat? could it be that their harmonic fingerprint is dominant within the infrared spectrum? therefore when energy of high frequency (cold as some like to say) hits this structure, it absorbs this frequency, and re emits as infrared...or "hot"????

So basically im saying you are right, you can transmit something through space which is not "hot" (not in infrared spectrum), and have it hit matter only to become hot!!!! WOW,

But DOES THIS MEAN THAT HEAT AND LIGHT ARE DIFFERENT????? If they are, then what I just said makes no sense, and I might just be a crackpot, not outside the realm of possibility.
Good post. If the answers are with-held from us, then we will gain additional knowledge along the way in our quest for those answers, but if the answers are given to us, then the additional knowledge we could have acquired while we were seeking, will be with-held and not revealed to us.

The only crackpots are the ones who never seek, because they think they already have the correct answers. You, by my definition is no crackpot.

GB
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-17-2011, 08:42 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,955
the information

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
what if light never "reflects" of off anything, rather interacts with a resonant structure, and the resonant structure absorbs, then emmits its own fingerprint.

you can transmit something through space which is not "hot" (not in infrared spectrum), and have it hit matter only to become hot!!!!
That is exactly what light does - get absorbed and re-emitted.

There is direct infrared from the sun coming to the Earth but the space
between is cold since it isn't really interacting with anything until it
hits our atmosphere - it is infrared no matter what but will only warm
when it interacts with matter.

That website has some good stuff. It basically explains what I have
explained and believed for a long time on some matters, some I have to
think on more, and some appear to be far out of whack. In any case, there
are some good points that appear to be nailed - is NOT new in concept.
If he is showing the concepts in some mathematically correct way, that
may be new, but again, there are no new concepts that I can see so far.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-18-2011, 02:03 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
That is exactly what light does - get absorbed and re-emitted.

There is direct infrared from the sun coming to the Earth but the space
between is cold since it isn't really interacting with anything until it
hits our atmosphere - it is infrared no matter what but will only warm
when it interacts with matter.

That website has some good stuff. It basically explains what I have
explained and believed for a long time on some matters, some I have to
think on more, and some appear to be far out of whack. In any case, there
are some good points that appear to be nailed - is NOT new in concept.
If he is showing the concepts in some mathematically correct way, that
may be new, but again, there are no new concepts that I can see so far.
I agree.

Re definition of the constants in simple math is what interested me!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers