Is E=MC^2 the inverse of reality and the exact inverse of True and Pure physics?

[gravityblock]

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

[gravityblock]

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

[gravityblock]

Unification

Unification.

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

GB

[Neight]

Absolutely interesting stuff here!!
It makes total sense, which is always nice
thanks for posting, now you got me thinking!!
N8

[gravityblock]

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

[Raui]

This is really interesting. Give me a few days to think about it all and I'll post some thoughts.

Raui

[clueless]

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

[Farmhand]

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

[Slider2732]

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

[gravityblock]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[clueless]

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

[gravityblock]

@RG,

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



GB

[Neight]

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

[gravityblock]

1 million dollar prize offer!

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

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

[Armagdn03]

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?