Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did you know this, about the Theory of Light ?

page: 7
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thank you for your Post.

This Thread is in the Correct Category...

It has nothing to do with metaphysics.

Some of those Interested brought up subjects not strictly related to this thread, but I offered some answers...

I was just being polite.


((I write to hundreds of people, all over the world. I have a series of emails involving the Processing system of the Soul.

This is about a project involving R&D (full time) over the last 16 years or so dealing with Optical Interfaces with the Mind through the Processing System of the Mind.

This Past work has been fully documented, by myself and a few others, involving more than 50,000 Drawings and related text regarding the Processing System of the Soul.

This covers most of the Processing system of the Soul including construct Formats, some thousand instruction sets as well as various methods of Interfacing.))


Any way back to the Subject of this thread...


Science has never claimed at any time to know all the answers, and is for ever gaining new understanding...
It is called Progress.
Revising accepted theory as new data comes to hand…

But it takes Time for changes to take place.

It often takes 30 years or more for some development work to surface in some cases even longer and in other cases the knowledge may never be released to the general public....

I think you answered your own question for yourself. Quote;


Sure some of the concepts in science are flawed and have been proven wrong in the past, and will be proven wrong in the future, but that happens how? with proof. So if mainstream science is wrong, then prove it. If there's no proof then why is this thread in the science forum?



But anyway you are quite able to check this out at home.

If you are able to find the time and construct a simple experiment yourself.

The experiments are not difficult to set up…

You only require a prism and a few other odds and ends.

Just follow what I have described in the Thread.

Let me know what you find by trying this yourself ???

Don't rely on others, but try it yourself.

If you don't you may never know ???

[edit on 17-3-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]




posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
But anyway you are quite able to check this out at home.
If you are able to find the time and construct a simple experiment yourself.
The experiments are not difficult to set up…
You only require a prism and a few other odds and ends.
Just follow what I have described in the Thread.
Let me know what you find by trying this yourself ???
Don't rely on others, but try it yourself.
If you don't you may never know ???


Nowhere did Chiron613 or I question whether we would get the same experimental results as you claim. So how will doing the experiments change anything? The results are the results. Chiron613 explained them. Then, you agreed that is the correct mainstream explanation, you claimed that explanation is wrong, and 6 pages later you have yet to back up your claim with any proof.

The prism experiments on page 1 aren't illusions, that's a real effect. The other things you mention after page 1 look like mostly optical illusions. The flaws in human perception are known to a significant extent, that's why we can document so many optical illusions like these:

Optical Illusions


An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. There are three main types: literal optical illusions that create images that are different from the objects that make them, physiological ones that are the effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific type (brightness, tilt, color, movement), and cognitive illusions where the eye and brain make unconscious inferences.


There are over 50 experiments you can do in that link that simply show how flawed human perception is, it doesn't show that light is "aware" or anything like that. And it barely scratches the surface of how flawed our perception can be. For example it never mentions the illusions seen by famous astronomer Percival Lowell. He saw and drew many "Canals" or lines on Mars:

Percival Lowell


In 1894 Lowell chose Flagstaff, Arizona Territory as the home of his new observatory. At an altitude of over 2100 meters (7000 feet), with few cloudy nights, and far from city lights, Flagstaff was an excellent site for astronomical observations. This marked the first time an observatory had been deliberately located in a remote, elevated place for optimal seeing.

For the next fifteen years he studied Mars extensively, and made intricate drawings of the surface markings as he perceived them. Lowell published his views in three books: Mars (1895), Mars and Its Canals (1906), and Mars As the Abode of Life (1908). With these writings, Lowell more than anyone else popularized the long-held belief that these markings showed that Mars sustained intelligent life forms.

The existence of canal-like features would not be definitively disproved until Mariner 4 took the first close-up pictures of Mars in 1965, and Mariner 9 orbited and mapped the planet in 1972. Today, the surface markings taken to be canals are regarded as an optical illusion.[12]

Although Lowell was better known for his observations of Mars, he also drew maps of the planet Venus. Lowell observed spoke-like features and a central dark spot, yet it is now known that Venus' atmosphere is opaque. In an article published in Sky and Telescope in July 2003, it was suggested that in fact Lowell was observing an image of the blood vessels in his own eye.


So he saw canals that weren't on Mars and even drew what's believed to be an image of a blood vessel in his own eye when looking at Venus. (There are after all channels on Mars, but not the ones that Lowell saw). While you could say that his misperception was a bit of a blunder, it has also advanced science by showing scientists that the eyes can't be trusted for reliable scientific observations, that's why scientists prefer to use sensors or instrumentation which isn't as flawed as human sensors, the eyes, brain, and other senses. Sadly for personal experiencing, and happily for the advancement of science, professional astronomers really don't "look" through their telescopes anymore, the images are all taken by LCD sensors or something like that, so astronomers around the world can duplicate each others sightings with reliable instrumentation.

So if I do some optical illusion experiments and am fooled by them, I'm not sure how this will advance science, as we already know we can't be trusted to be reliable observers. Our sensory mechanisms are flawed in many situations, though that's not a problem with the prism experiments, just the optical illusions you mention after those.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
My thoughts on the theory of light are this. The difference in the color of light has more to do with time than anything else. When light hits an object such as a prism or a glass of water, it slows ever so slightly, but the second it emerges it immediately travels at the constant. In a prism, the distance at the top of the triangle it shorter than at the bottom. What happens here it that the "light" enters the prism and the exits at different points, yet it is still the same light that entered it. Time has changed it. I believe that since light is both a particle and a wave, that it is the wave that is stretched in order to retain it oneness with all other light it is part of. This can be shown by the "red shift" standard for stars moving away from us in the universe.

To further this theory, white light is really a twisted rope of varying waves that are effected by universal forces. When light hits a blue painted object, we see blue not because it is blue, but because the blue wavelength cannot be absorbed as quickly or because it is prevented from being absorbed. I am not sure if anyone has tested to prove a diffused light theory where light is merely entangled and sent out in a bulk of varying wavelengths., but that's my theory. The prism simply "untangles" the light for us and uses time to do it.




[edit on 17-3-2010 by Fromabove]



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
When light hits an object such as a prism or a glass of water, it slows ever so slightly, but the second it emerges it immediately travels at the constant.

That appears to be what happens, you are correct. But that's not what actually happens. In fact Wikipedia has different articles about this, this one would appear to support your claim:

How prisms work


Light changes speed as it moves from one medium to another (for example, from air into the glass of the prism).


But technically that's not true, it should read something like this: "Light's speed of propagation changes as it moves from one medium to another (for example, from air into the glass of the prism" Why is this more accurate? Because light still travels at the speed of light inside the prism, it's only the apparent speed of propagation measured from the macro level that makes it look like light has slowed down. This is explained in another Wikipedia article:

Propagation of light in a medium


When light enters materials, its energy is absorbed. In the case of transparent materials, this energy is quickly re-radiated. However, this absorption and re-radiation introduces a delay. As light propagates through dielectric material it undergoes continuous absorption and re-radiation. Therefore the speed of light in a medium is said to be less than c, which should be read as the speed of energy propagation at the macroscopic level. At an atomic level, electromagnetic waves always travel at c in the empty space between atoms.


So light is really still traveling at the speed of light in other mediums like glass, but when we measure the speed it appears slower because the light is sort of "playing bumper cars" with the glass.



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Most of us are very aware of what you have written.

I respect what you have written But……


Take a look at this link and Note the LAST 20% of the cartoon.

www.youtube.com...

Science has found that LIGHT appears to be AWARE ????


Please explain your beliefs regarding this Phenomena.


All you have done is repeat, what you have been educated to believe through a Government Controlled Educational System which you have perhaps never questioned ???

Then again Perhaps I am wrong about this ???

By merelly chanting or repeating what others tell you like a primitive ritchal, does not change the fact, perhaps it is our interpretation and understanding that should be questioned ???

No offence intended OK... as I am also bombarded with human Propaganda just like you are...


BUT....this understanding is only according to the Rules layed down by the human species (NOT strong Grounds for the justification for our theories) and the understanding is based on or according to those rules laid in concrete, by primates that don’t hold ALL the cards. We only have a very, very tiny part of the Jigsaw…

Its a bit Like Rutherfords Demonstration of splitting the atom, by discharging an electrical current through hydrogen at very low pressure, thus causing Blue Light to be emmitted at the Anode and Red at the Cathode.
But in Reality he only produced a Hydrogen Light.

Rutherford was from New Zealand I believe ???

But I have to admit he was awarded a Nobel prize, for this by Primates???

Based on the traditions and Rules laid down by Primates...

Good entertainment I guess...

If the understanding held by the human Species is indeed Correct, why are we still earth bound ???

This is also entertaing for some, Too ???

Guess the Human Species is still lacking in knowledge and Understanding ???

How advance do you believe Humanity really is ???

You can’t change this Fact in 2 Seconds it will take at least another 1,000 years of evolution before we will be able to achieve crossing galaxies in Minutes… LOL.

You see the difference is, that Scientists can only observe what appears to be in the Result i.e. the end Story or experience of the World (Your body and its interactive Environment).

The Project I have been involved with is discovering and understanding how this is Produced (Regarding us and this Little Universe)

The writing of a book i.e. its mechanics, looks Nothing at all like, the Story that appears..

The same applies to what you experience in this Little Universe, and how it was/is Produced.
What produces it, doesn't look anything at all like what you see or know.

So the human species has to get to grips with this, and re-evaluate their understanding of the All.

If we do this, then and only then may we be able to go and explore this adventure we call the Univers ???

Untill that reality arrives we are still lost....

[edit on 17-3-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Most of us are very aware of what you have written.
I respect what you have written But……
Take a look at this link and Note the LAST 20% of the cartoon.
www.youtube.com...
Science has found that LIGHT appears to be AWARE ????
Please explain your beliefs regarding this Phenomena.

I studied the famous double slit experiment as a freshman physics major at the university years ago.

Yes he says "appears to be AWARE" but there's a big leap between appearances and reality. In the movie Crocodile Dundee he went to a bar in New York where a man appeared to be a woman, but as he found out, appearances can be deceiving. And they explain it at the end of that cartoon, "the observer collapsed the wave function" so it has nothing to do with electrons or the light being aware, they just stated it like that for interesting effect.

Quantum mechanics is strange, there's no doubt about that. But there's no excuse for taking real science like quantum mechanics and for example turn it into a pseudoscientific laughing stock like the movie "what the bleep do we know" did.

And regardless of where you got your education, anybody can challenge the scientific establishment with any theory at any time, but ultimately it needs proof. Einstein didn't have a particularly good formal education in science yet he proposed a theory outside the mainstream, and he stated how it could be proven, or disproven with eclipse observations. Likewise, others challenging the mainstream have to state how other scientists can prove or disprove their ideas, just like they did with Einstein. They did observe the eclipse eventually and proved him right. So again it means little to say science might be wrong, we all know that.

It means a lot more to say "Science is wrong, and here's proof", like Einstein did.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Once again thank you for your Post...

Look what you have now written, I agree with you 100% BUT.....

It often takes many years to produce the Proof...

It doesn't happen in 2 Seconds; like pulling out a rabbit out of a hat...

There simply isn't enough space on ATS to provide the more technical side as it would take a few thousand Pages...

All I am suggesting is that we need to take another Look...

Don't assume or you will make an Ass out of You and Me...

I respect what you have Written.....

I am Not a writer and often my Colleagues give me Hell about my poor English skills, but that comes with the other side of myself and I can't do much about this.... LOL

I have a Feeling I am Not meant to say this on ATS ???

My wife on the other hand is a Writer, and has published many books.
We are making available a series of books that explain all, from the beginning before this Little universe was ever thought of.

Full of Pictures for those that may find it difficult to grasp. (Some thousands of Drawings in Fact as well as Photographic evidence found in most Countries on Earth.)

At the very least, these books should provide some entertainment, and perhaps some inspiration, to ask those awkward Questions we so often try to hide from....

Can't give you a date though...



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



It means a lot more to say "Science is wrong, and here's proof", like Einstein did.


And do you really believe his theories will never ever be replaced by other ???

In another 10,000 years do you think we will still hold the beliefs of today ???

I hope NOT... Because I believe that humanity will evolve...



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



It means a lot more to say "Science is wrong, and here's proof", like Einstein did.


And do you really believe his theories will never ever be replaced by other ???

In another 10,000 years do you think we will still hold the beliefs of today ???


What I expect is that Einstein will be proven "wrong" in much the same way Einstein proved Newton "wrong", which is to say that Newton's physics don't work at relativistic velocities etc. So if you travel at 99% of the speed of light and use Newton's physics, he was completely wrong, but guess what? We don't usually travel at 99% of the speed of light, so Newton still looks pretty "right" at the much slower speeds we usually travel at, even though he was wrong about what happens at high velocities, his theories still hold more or less true today at non-relativistic velocities. Likewise, while Einstein may be proven incorrect under certain conditions, we already have lots of empirical evidence that his theories do hold true under certain conditions.

So yes, Einstein will likely be proven "wrong" just like Newton was, but remember Newton is still "pretty much" right at non-relativistic conditions.



posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thank you for your Post again, and I agree again with what you are saying.

But we have to remember that Science, is studying the End Result i.e. the End product, being the Experience we have Both of the human Primate and the environment it interacts with.

Even with what little I do know, it doesn't detract from this awesome experience...

And I can only report on what I have observed whether or Not it conforms to others thinking. I certainly do Not claim to know much but often others feel I am arrogant perhaps this is a result of discussing things that are Not so commonly known ???
It is Not my Intension to be seen as arrogant.

As for the R&D I have been involved with over the Last 16 years or so, it is more about what Produces this experience, and how we can interact with what Produces this experience.
This system is in the form of optical interfaces and is very, very mechanical.

I actually enjoy the experience I am having involving this primate and its environment.

Still that is another story, which does Not involve anything magical or involving belief or for that mater anything religious,

I have also had experience in other fields involving technology...

I have had my own business designing and manufacturing Computers for the Automotive industry, mainly for the competition industry.

And yes I do have an interest in "metaphysics", but this is more an area of interest, which has been influenced by a some of the technologies I have been involved with in the past.

I have had a death experience in August 1973, that has had a huge influence in the way I interpret this World.

I am not Religious in the sense, that others may interpret, and I enjoy discussion in these areas sometimes.

I retired from the Automotive industry back in 1994, and devoted my life to the R&D I am at present involved with. This is taking me out of my home country again shortly, giving me the opportunity to come in contact with eastern technologies once again, associated with the work, I am involved with today.

I hope this may give you a better understanding of myself...

[edit on 18-3-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Hey folks great input on this thread as I am a student here and would like to know more. I liked the double Slit experiment as it put everything in laymans terms and actually validated some of my own personal understandings that I have of light and it made me understand the whole understanding of the original experiment a lot better

Also I found this Vid interesting in that it goes it more understanding of The original "What the Bleep do we know" Double slit experiment



[edit on 25-3-2010 by Epsillion70]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Epsillion70
 

Hi Epsillion

Good find and a good Post...Star 4 U...

What humankind will discover in the future (of the Present LOL), is that the present is Oscillating between two ends of the Mind, Life, Consciousness Awareness or what ever label you like to put on it.

What you experience is the result of a stack of Frames or slides, that is being presented, and each slide appears differently, or the same, which ever the case, from the previous one. This is what gives the appearance of a dynamic experience.

The Frames are presented from the other end of our real selves (Not human),
and travel toward our end (Individually), so that only the Closest Frame is ever seen, at any one time.

This is in a 2D display (contains multidimensional concepts), in other words the frames originate in the Centre of our awareness, and rotate, Hence the helical nature or spin, ever growing in size (area) to the nearest Level or Layer in the Soul. When the Frame passes to the Next size larger than the nearest layer, it vanishes from our awareness to expose the following frame.

These frames have contained in them, the data (stored in a holographic storage system) of the experience we are having.

In other words, ALL is produced from "Nothing"
in the Form of a Story, presented by the other end of our Mind, Life, Consciousness or whatever, in the form of a very complex program.

This experience is in two parts...

a. Your body.

b. The Environment you are interacting with.

These 2 Programs are being updated continuously as you write to it as well as others (automatically).

These 2 Programs are linked through a processing system that takes care of the link.
Perhaps crudely like a Transputer or gaming host on the net.

Only difference we have at least 5 senses, contained in the data of the program.

The first Concept of movement by Consciousness, in the beginning, was a Transition between 2 ends (Conceptions) thus producing a To & Fro Action we call an oscillation.

This first Concept of Consciousness, life, awareness or whatever was between the Opposites. Perhaps... from Something and Nothing as a base.

(The second Concept was Rotation)

There exists an Algorithm that is of simultaneous nature, that produces what I call "The Base Paradox Algorithm" that all comes from...

This is I suppose is a bit like a Filter that all is structured through. This is why the make up of all things, tend to behave rather strangely at times.

All is Created on the basis of Opposites and always is in both pairs and 3's.

It is this nature that Produces the Tree. (Logic Tree/s)

Just as Logic based processing systems, stem from a base consisting of Opposites, so does this Geometric Algorithm, that all comes from.

Energy, gravity, and other such phenomenon, are the result of Concepts of Life or mind, awareness, Consciousness or whatever you like to call it... That are in the form of Program content…. rather than everything coming from these…



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Epsillion70
Hey folks great input on this thread as I am a student here and would like to know more. I liked the double Slit experiment as it put everything in laymans terms and actually validated some of my own personal understandings that I have of light and it made me understand the whole understanding of the original experiment a lot better

Also I found this Vid interesting in that it goes it more understanding of The original "What the Bleep do we know" Double slit experiment


I'm glad if you're learning something but at the same time I hope you are learning information instead of misinformation.

That video doesn't discuss any double slit experiment, only a single slit experiment. While he shows a picture of a double slit at 9:10 with an "X" through it indicating he doesn't believe in the wave interference pattern, he never discusses nor explains the results obtained with the double slit experiment, as seen here: en.wikipedia.org...

That said he has some interesting ideas but he really misses a key issue...how can a single photon go through two slits at the same time? In fact if he does have a different video covering the two slit experiment, that's a question we would ask him regarding that video because his theory wouldn't seem to explain that, right?


The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same, as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself — even though there is only one photon present.


He either ignores or doesn't understand the results and significance of the double slit experiment, he never even mentions it other than the quick image he flashes of it, and by drawing an X through the double slit while giving an explanation for the single slit experiment results shows confusion and ignorance.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hi Arbitrageur,

Thank you for your input....

What you have said here is correct, but in saying this, it gave another’s point of view regarding a little part of the Theory of Light...

He did Not really get into the Double Slit as I was expecting, but non the less thoughts by another... No problem...

Do you know the persons credentials in the movie ??? I would be interested to know….

I may take another look…


[edit on 26-3-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Do you know the persons credentials in the movie ??? I would be interested to know….

I may take another look…


From his website:

www.jeffkosmoski.com...


Educational background: Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue University.


I'm relieved to see his degree isn't in physics because if it was, they should take the degree back from him


His primary focus seems to be religion/spirituality:

Roman Catholicism, agnosticism, Hinduism Light, Transcendental Meditation, Buddhism, Ethnobotany, Fundamentalist Christianity, atheism, and most recently, Enlightened Realism.


Which I have an interest in too, but I haven't read any of his stuff on that, though I glanced at it and my preliminary take is he probably knows a lot more about religion than quantum physics.

He's not guilty of anything most of us haven't been guilty of at one time or another, trying to put quantum mechanics in terms we can comprehend, but perhaps like gravity, for now we can only describe our observations and make accurate predictions with equations, rather than have a full understanding of either gravity or quantum mechanics. The Wiki article addresses this issue: en.wikipedia.org...


Restriction to the two experiments in which either both slits are open or one slit is closed has given rise to the idea of wave-particle complementarity according to which a microscopic object (photon, electron, etc.) would manifest itself as a particle in the which-way experiment but as a wave in the interference experiment. This idea has been felt to be counterintuitive by those not being content with an instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics in which that theory is accepted as just describing phenomena without providing explanations.


In other words, he's one of those "not content with an instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics" but his attempt to explain the results is a major failure, since he doesn't even seem to understand what the key results actually are. But he shouldn't feel too bad, nobody else has explained it either. For now it seems to be beyond our compete understanding, but maybe the "theory of everything" will pull it all together.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




I'm relieved to see his degree isn't in physics because if it was, they should take the degree back from him ....




Thanks for the input again...

[edit on 26-3-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 



Dear Matrix Traveller,

I shall be most grateful if you will summarise in a few paragraphs what you believe 'The Truth' to be and then explain how your claims about the nature of light support this theory.

Oh, and links to any peer reviewed scientific evidence to support your hypothesis would be rather handy, too.

Many thanks.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Light is a very exciting subject.

The other day I came across a thread about the Bose-Einstein condensate. There is this Danish scientist who managed to slow down the speed of light into the speed of a bicycle. She did this by sending a beam of light through this condensate. If you are interested in other stuff about light you should check out that expiriment.

Great thread....S&F!!



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
Light is a very exciting subject.

The other day I came across a thread about the Bose-Einstein condensate. There is this Danish scientist who managed to slow down the speed of light into the speed of a bicycle. She did this by sending a beam of light through this condensate. If you are interested in other stuff about light you should check out that expiriment.

Great thread....S&F!!

Light always travels at the speed of light as I explain here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I did check it out and it's just more absorption and re-emission of photons, light isn't traveling any slower between molecules, it's just that the absorption and re-emission of photons takes time so light appears to travel more slowly on a macro level through almost any substance other than a vacuum.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by aik4on
 


Hi aik4on,

Welcome to the thread... I will think it about it over the next few days,
But for now...
What you ask in not a simple task to present in a few pages, but I will attempt to come up with something for you...
My main purpose for this thread is to get people asking those questions that are not easy to answer.
Science as you may be aware does NOT have ALL the answers, and has never claimed to have.
Its a bit like the theory of evolution, it is forever developing which is the case in all development.
I believe myself, that we are Not highly advanced and the notion of us being highly advanced, is merely propaganda.
If we were highly advanced, we would Not be here, but instead exploring the universe. I mean crossing Galaxies in minutes...
The fact remains that we aren't, but I am optimistic that the day shall come, when we can do this, but there is still much for us to learn.
As new discoveries are made it will mould our understand regarding the true nature of our experience and its true origin as well as how it is produced.
At this stage we are still only studying the end result and not the cause or the system that produces what we interpret as our or apparent reality.
Some do recognise that the system that produces our world is nothing at all like what we see in the end result or product.
I can't give you a complete story, because it will possibly never be completed, as whatever is producing it, is also developing and adding to the experience.
My interest is more in how, what we observe is manifested in the first place..
I Not referring to anything religious or anything else of that nature.
Personally I believe that there is an intelligent or logic based process or structure underlying what we experience.
For us as a species, I suspect it will be at least another 1,000 years before we have enough information to push us in a more realistic path of understanding...
As for my understanding is concerned, it comes from work involving interactive interfaces, with what can only be described as perhaps the Mind, Awareness, Consciousness or Life depending on what label you want to attach to it as there is no word that clearly defines it. It is very hard to define in simple terms.
I look at it as a form of Consciousness that appears to be applied to or even attached to a Geometric based Algorithm that I can only describe in English as a Geometric Algorithm of the Paradox.
I refer to it as the Paradox because in All things we find the opposites.
To describe the Algorithm is extremely involved as it appears as a simultaneous function or Containing simultaneous functions that are multidimensional in its conceptual construction.
With regard to my understanding of Light I believe it is the Oscillation within the Paradoxical Algorithm. This is the Frequency of wave like behaviour of Light in certain circumstances and particle like behaviour in other situations (Well documented in Science) but I think there is far more involved with the theory light than what we believe at present.
There is more than one understanding of the theory of Light and non of these are easy to prove or disprove. In trying to discover the root algorithm is not easy when looking from the end of the Result, as it involves a certain degree of “back-engineering” that is subjective in nature as Not all the information of where it comes from, or what manifests or produces this phenomenon is readily available so we can only understand within the boundaries of the end product and the course of understanding we take in the back-engineering process based on the rules laid down by our human understanding that is not considered full proof by any stretch of the imagination.
But the R&D I have been involved in over the last 16 years (full time) has raised questions that I can only theorise about at this stage. But in saying this, in the not so distant future I hope to demonstrate in a practical way what I have found.
I have found that what we call reality is produced from nothing but Concepts contained within a process based on Concepts involving A latticework, that has produced a Partition Map which is used in/by the Processing System.
So far to date this has been documented and involves more than 50,000 drawings describing in detail the processing system, as well as detailing some thousand instruction sets. I can present a portion of the processing system, but is probably very small in the overall system that portrays a few hundred operations that I know of at present.
There is a series of books being written right now, that will detail the work done to date.

Not sure when these will be available, but the first of this series shouldn't be to far in the future.

But let me try and put something together for you over the next few days if I get a chance.






top topics



 
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join