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

[clueless]

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

[gravityblock]

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

[gravityblock]

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

[gravityblock]

For those who may be interested, here's a link on Pressure and a Video on the Cartesian Diver.

GB

[Armagdn03]

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.

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.

[Armagdn03]

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

[gravityblock]

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).

@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

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

[Armagdn03]

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.

[gravityblock]

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

[Aaron]

the information

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.

[Armagdn03]

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!