Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mirormimic on 10/09/2012 19:59:21
-
I would define the existence of an intelligent creator under the acronym. GOD. I will explain my postulate.
Where the ..... G= Gravity
Where the ......O= Over
Where the...... D=Distance
GOD= Gravity Over Distance.
Note: Where "Gravity" is proposed as being the ultimate ORIGIN of the sum of all energy and mass. And where gravity is the SOURCE of the energy found at all points. Where every action or interaction described as experiencing "gravity" represents the force of energy as expressed/represented close to or farther from this origin point.
This would describe God as the source of all energy existing in infinity( no time or space constraint) or; in a "time/space constraint."
Let's reason that: All that exists as mass or energy is relative to a central power source or a nucleus from which the sum of all energy or mass originates(infinite). We would imagine mass as being an appliance and the energy of the mass as resulting from being plugged into an outlet. The wall would be the demarcation between the energy utilized by the appliance ( as well the mass- appliance)and the energy source that exists outside the space of the room. The energy source is separate from the appliance and the room yet affords its energy to the appliance through means that I will explain subsequently
If we think of the universe (Inside the room..comprising all 'mass' appliances and the accompanying energy) as static then the universe must be relative to this power source or plugged into the source. The universe would represent a closed system relative to an open and infinite energy beyond, separate from or outside the universe. The two points are connected and therefore represent two vectors . The means of connection ( yet to be defined) is what results in the energy exchange between the two, and could be described as two sides of a string.
If alternate universes exist then they too must be relative to this power source. If the source of power is infinite and fluid then this would mean that all borrowers of this 'source energy' must be separate from the source yet be maintained relative to the source. ( thus static relative to and separate from a smooth landscape..same in all directions). Yet, how could a static system exist relative to a smooth "area" without affecting the state of smoothness. I postulate that such relativity would be defined due to the principles of reflection. If the smooth state is being reflected to a static state then this virtual reflective system would not really actually change the smooth state of the absolute space and time ..defined as uniform smooth at all infinite points. I will expound on this postulate in this thread.
This would describe all energy(or mass) as originating from a single source of energy so dense as to be inexhaustible. Every OTHER 'form energy; or 'form mass' ( existing in the closed system(s)) that is NOT representative of the 'source energy' ( Argumentatively; source mass..E=mc2) merely receive, absorb, refract or reflect this source energy.
If all we that see in the universe were representations or reflections of the sole original energy source this would explain how a single energy source could be communicated to any ( or .."All") points in any and all closed systems. As well the quality of the energy of the open system could be infinitely reflected to any and all closed systems. How so?
To illustrate: The product of: Placing two reflective systems( For purposes of imagery...two mirrors) relative two each other where the reflective faces are facing each other. Due to the "continual symmetry" or "supper symmetry" effect that one observes if placing two mirrors relative to one another. If our universe is reflecting the source energy then all perceived energy processes as well geometric mass forms ( also energy) that exist or occur inside our universe are merely static representations of the energy and quality of the sole energy source existing outside of or separate from the universe. If everything in the universe exists inside a static reflective plane( surface) then all we observe in the universe is actually on a separate plane from the source of energy and merely reflects/refracts the light and energy existing outside the plain. Outside of all reflective/refractive planes.
This first principle, namely: An object, space or energy being reflected to a reflective plane demonstrates how energy and mass can be depicted or represented to another point at the speed of light.
Now we must consider another step in the... open system ( vector A)relative to a closed system ( vector B)..scenario. We can describe this by introducing another( or other) universe(s) into the equation
If there is an alternate universe or a myriad of alternate universes then not only will these universes reflect the same source ( existing outside of all universes) but will also reflect from universe to universe. From one plane to another or others. That is :
Our universe exists apart from the light and energy that it reflects. The only way our universe exists full of matter is because it is receiving its information from another source!The fact that it is reflecting( If such is the case) necessitates that it is actually separate from the light and energy it reflects. While our universe reflects this energy source it is also relative to other static "time space reflective" universes( or planes) Ultimately our universe reflects the energy source existing outside of its plane, as do all so-called universes. However, not only does our universe reflect this source but as well reflects this source as this source is communicated to other planes(universes). We would now see how our universe reflects other universes; or reflects the energy source in different ways and from different directions. Our universe reflects the original energy source as well is reflected to other reflective planes at varying degrees from parallelism. No reflection represents any true distance from the energy source rather the reflective properties of the plane give the illusion of distance either expanded or contracted. As well 'plane to plane"( universe to universe...surface) reflection would dictate a sort of "continual symmetry" or supper symmetry as occurring due to the relativity of one reflective surface to another reflective surface ( or others). Yet all that is occurring on these individual reflective universes ( static reflective planes ) is relative to the same energy source originating outside of all planes. This would mean that the source energy could be called the reflector from which all reflections ( energy or mass- at any and all points in any and all static time space continuum's) ensue. This would describe "dark energy" as actually existing separate from all universes but able to be communicated to all closed systems efficiently and infinitely. This would describe "dark matter" as also being a quality of open infinite space and as communicated to perspective reflective planes at a myriad of alternate or alternating degrees away from true parallelism.
We would see that all energy processes or mass that we perceive ARE separate from the light or energy it reflects yet attached in some way. This would create an alternating current of energy; where all points in the system are connected to the ultimate energy source yet possessing their own particular places or points in the system. If this origin energy is described as pure light then dark energy, as well the quality of dark matter, is actually pure light though it does not register to the human eye or human instruments. ( ingenious as they often times are.)
We could illustrate this by saying that the static part of the system ( as separate from the open infinite part of the system) is represented as a " hall of mirrors" stationed perspectively ( ranging in distance, ranging in direction, ranging in degrees away from true parallelism etc..) relative to The reflector. The reflector represents the true absolute energy as existing outside all closed systems( Dark energy/Dark matter)yet able to be communicated to and thus represented at all points inside all closed systems.
All mirrors ( reflective planes=mirror matter...where all anti particle or implied anti-energy exist outside of all planes but are dualized or depicted, as in a mirror image...to all plane surfaces). All mirror surfaces are spaced a relative distance( from a micro inch to a cosmic leap) from every other mirror and at varying degrees away from true parallelism. Or , even Parallel! Yet! Due to the reflective phenomenon the Reflector can be received upon all mirror plane surfaces so long as the preceding mirror is turned toward the reflector OR toward the plane of the succeeding or preceeding mirror. Each mirror is able to receive the dark energy or matter upon it's plane so long as a former mirror, or a mirror in proximity relationship, is receiving it either directly from the reflector or another mirror. We see that whether or not any perspective mirror is absolutely relative to the reflector is precluded so long as 'that' mirror that is NOT directly in the plane of the energy or light ray of the reflector IS relative to another mirror that is relative to the path of light ray; either directly from the reflector source or relative to another mirror that is positioned relative to itself. In this mirror scenario light could be bent ( though it is not truly bent rather light is being communicated any and all directions due to mirror planes...and those mirror planes relative to other mirror planes. ) in any direction to be received on a preceding or succeeding mirror plane surface. We speak of the bending of light ray, in essence mirrors relative to mirrors can take a light ray that is NOT relative to a plane surface and get the light ray their utilizing the properties of reflection and mirror reflecting to mirror.
So what would G.O.D.( the theory...right?) explain to us: This:
All matter that is separate from the source of energy ( The "G" in GOD= Energy source of all other energies ="Gravity")is "Mirror Matter." All mirror matter is such due to the principles of reflection. In a more broad sense all mirror matter bears the innate properties of both the reflection and refraction of the ultimate energy source. For the moment I will call l this energy sources...Gravity.
What of ...time? The true absolute time ( infinite time same at all points..whether originating with itself or represented as a force felt at other points) ) would exist as the sole REFLECTOR TO "all other" times or spaces." These other times or spaces would be a direct result of their sharing relativity "time space" to the absolute, true, real time and space existing outside of all reflective time spaces. This true absoluteness exists ALONE in its own space and time; IT is reflected to all other points in the whole system. A system defined as ONE reflector being expressed, represented or reflective of itself to all other static points existing on mirror planes relative to its own self sufficient, self composed, self oriented and self contained ...place.
If 'G' were illustrated as being a 'small' ( relative word "small"...E=mc2) light source assuming the weight of all matter and energy. Then "G" would be an infinitely dense, infinite in energy, infinite in quality source of his own self. All other energies or masses would be derrived and maintained from this G-source and represent virtual, reflective, static points existing outside of the G-vector yet would be relatively observed ( illussion) as existing within the same space as the smooth-infinite area.
-
As a description of the universe this suffers from some well-known problems but if you dumb it down to a description of your own conscious state then it may be somewhat tractable. The fetus is a kind of mirror of the womb, which is the pattern it seeks in the universe to make the universe a mirror of its experience in the womb. Any feature of the universe you want to explain can be filtered down through this process of patterns until it reflects the experience of the womb to you.
-
I believe the universe to be both eternal and infinite..
No need for creation, because everything has always existed.
P.S. try and condense all that to a couple paragraphs, this is a forum, not a book review...lol
I honestly never finished reading because it too long......
-
I believe that the 'well known problems' consist as a result of the predisposed and orthodox approach to physics study. This is one of the primary reasons that I have personally moved away from most statements( many times contradictory) made in the realm of physics, to a more theoretical approach. I have taken a more observational approach.
It is interesting that you created the analogy of the "fetus...womb." There is some very insightful information with regard to the Y- Chromosome found on these websites:
1)Human Y chromosome: A genetic hall of mirrors
2) HHMI News: Finished Y-Chromosome Sequence Reveals a Genomic
I will extract from your post a few things and better represent my postulates, namely:
" "As a description of the universe.. is a kind of mirror... feature of the universe.. process of patterns.. reflects"..the photon.
I will utilize part of the wording of these websites with regard to the Y-chromosome to more fully express my postulates.
Firstly I believe that what is expressed in the universe as energy and mass is really representative of virtual reflections of the energy of the photon. I believe this 'mirror effect' and accompanying sequencing is occurring within our universe. That the universe is representing the nature and energy innate to the photon on its surface and then the image on the surface is subsequently fractaling . ( due to plane to plane reflection). From this combination of surface reflection and fractaling( suggesting the principles of refraction) is what causes all energy and mass we see in the universe to "emerge." This would be written as: Emergent forces ( energy) and emergent geometries ( mass). Yet mathematically or instrumentally deducing that this is occurring would be a very difficult process. I will use these websites to describe the problems that are inherent if such became a scientific pursuit.
(Note: I would also encourage one to do some research on a theoretical physicist with his accompanying theory of gravity. His name is Eric Verlinde. The work is referred to as the "Holographic scenario.")
With regard to the Y-Chromosome it is referred to as a "hall of mirrors,"quite literally.:
"because its sequence contains sections that appear to be palindromes.. The palindromic sequences suggest that the Y preserves the integrity of its genes by actually storing backup copies within itself. The animation shows that the Y chromosome may repair mutated genes by forming a loop and copying the gene from one arm to the other.."a genomic "crystal palace'..paliendromic sequences that nearly thwarted sequencing efforts.. trying to sequence the y chromosone is, indeed, like entering a hall of mirrors, spinning around, and after coming outside being asked to draw the hall's floor plan. You're disoriented..they were able to detect minute differences among the near -identical palindromes
I believe that if the universe ( and not merely the Gene) were behaving in this same manner, certainly it would result in not a little disorientation as reflected in theories and equations. In fact I would go so far as to assert that the problem in physics is that this phenomenon is going unnoticed or even being ignored.
If we could imagine that the processes occurring in the universe are evidence of the "hall of mirrors" effect then it would certainly be hard to decipher the patterns and sequences. If indeed This were happening on a universal scale. If the ball( photon) were being reflected through this "mirror effect" then it would be very hard to determine what is real and what is virtual; what is particle or what is anti-particle. In fact, in this scenario, "we" may conclude that the anti-particle is the particle or the particle is the anti-particle. We could see how "disorienting" such a state of affairs would be. This clumsiness would most certainly exacerbate the efforts to read and understand the processes, much less define them through scientific language and mathematical equations.
What I am saying is, if the photon ( one, or many; or a really large photon source: The sum of all photon origin) were reflecting to the universe horizon ( plane surface)and if, then, our universe were reflecting to other universes ( or reflective of another universe) then the "hall of mirrors" effect would make it next to impossible to determine any difference between a surface( horizon) and all other accompanying reflections that occur when two mirrors face one another and reflect the same ball ( the same photon..perhaps).
The human genome is not any less complex than the universe as a whole system or even considerately comprised of parts. In fact another very complex thing that exists on this terrestrial planet is the human brain. The brain isn't necessarily rivaled by any mass system or energy force found in the universe as far as functionality and complexity. This is also true when considering the complexity of the human eye. The human eye is a profound example of superior complexity. Furthermore, the right side of the brain controls the left side of the brain ( a seeming inference as to mirror effect) .
Thus the human brain and organism eye reflects photon and reproduces then translates an image and this image is suggestive of the mirror effect. The human Y chromosome is discovered to be a vivid example of the mirror effect. Why would we ignore the seeming underlying associations to the mirror effect ( perhaps mirror matter or holographic)..when we observe and form conclusions about the universe? I am not knocking any who would argue against this. I am just saying; isn't it worthy of more consideration?
If the Y chromosome ( very complex) demonstratively utilizes the " palindromic sequences" methodology then why could we not postulate that such palindromic phenomenon could be occurring on the universal or even quantum scale? I think we could be safe to state that as a theory and then begin to experiment with it so as to ascertain any relevancies that could be framed into a mathematical framework.
Again, it would be very difficult because one would have a hard time discerning the patterns on a universal scale. However the complexity of it all should at no time preclude the endeavor. I am working hard on it and have been for 10 years, though with limited math proficiency and limited resources. But what I do have is observation! Many of my observations resulted from working as a Glazier for two years. ( accompanied by a scientific mind)
If this "mirror effect" is happening relative to all physics inquiry ( though we may not see it or even comprehend it) and if we put forth the effort such may lead to a "unification" of sorts. I will say from my own personal experiments and observations: As I study this my mind as well scientific senses all feel and see a strange sort of unified theory underlying the experiments. I have thousands of illustrations and voluminous explanations that if given the right forum or opportunity..could help others to see these principles as emergent and explanatory.
Application:
The P(photon)..."preserves the integrity of it's" makeup and quality ..."by actually storing backup copies within itself." That is to say : The P(photon)is not only preserved but actually has a way of increasing itself or mass producing itself infinitely, utilizing the "mirror effect" and thus, at any and all points in any and all systems relative to the photon, accurately transmiting the integrity of the photon by fractaling or copying the photon. The copies are either found on macro scales or micro scales. Even on the quantum scale!
It is important to note that I did not say that the photon copies "within itself." The Photon copies itself but within closed reflective systems apart from( verses within) itself. This would say that the photon is completely separate from all other representations or copies of itself and exists in another realm. Yet its energy and quality can be "sent" to any point outside of itself. All points represent reflective planes transferring energy to closed-geometric representations( emergent mass forms or shapes..embodying energy) .that reflect the photon on a surface/horizon and then, due to mirror to mirror reflection, reproduce the quality and energy of the photon infinitely.
Is the universe a "crystal palace" that is merely repeating the exact same sequence; a sequence derrived from the photon? Is energy subsequently appearing to be reproduced perpetually through the thickness ( spatial area of) the universe as well? If it were, then deciphering the phenomenon will no doubt prove just as difficult as mapping and resolutely explaining the genome.
If this was discovered and observed it may prove to be just as "confounding" as the Y chromosome ( itself necessarily a "hall of mirrors") Why? Because , perhaps the universe really is a "long stretch of nearly identical" geometries and forces yet the human ability to discern it is hampered by 'the lack of the landmarks needed to guide the assembly of sequences from smaller segments."
Reiterate: I think we should look into this.
The article goes onto say that the Y-chromosome is "unique...in that it bears long stretches of mirror image..nobody has seen of this scale and degree of precision.." Indeed! However, is the universe on all scales representative of the same phenomenon? If the photon was reflecting from plane to plane then the result would be "long stretches" ( the illusion perhaps of millions of light years) of mirror images.This certainly sounds appropriate to the belief in alternate universes, if indeed our universe is reflecting to other universes and other universes or planes ( the photon as well) reflecting to ours.
Yet would we see this on a scale that can be witnessed in nature? I will be speaking on this and demonstrating that indeed it can be observed. Such observations I will present in this thread.
I believe the universe to be eternal. I do not believe that the (our) UNIVERSE is infinite. Any perceptions of infiniteness is a direct product of the ilussion of expansion of space and mass that occurs in mirror reflection as well mirror to mirror "continual symmetries."
In response to the last poster i will say:
I believe that the photon ( energy) photon has always existed. I believe that the ultimate source of photon has always existed. I do not believe that this precludes the creation of all other things relative to this source photon. I believe that everything other than the photon or origin of photon ..emerged.
To condense information is to obscure or relegate the whole of information.
E=mc2 represents a condensed version of what is happening in the universe. Thus this condensed ( sometimes condescending to the intellect..riddled as it is with contradiction) human theory falls far short of explaining or describing the things that physics for the most part has reached no resolution about. This lack of resolution is found in almost all physics theory.
-
didn't read...too long again.....................
-
Emc2.
You should.
Condensed: The universe is reflecting. The universe is not expanding. The universe is reflective of light and energy. The universe is a plane of reflection relative to the bulk light and energy it reflects. Gravity represents the force (energy and light) of an intelligent designer expressed to all other points either stronger or weaker. Gravity exchange occurs due to the entropic choices of a creator proportional to the entropic choices of his creations. Gravity is only in its truest and constant state at the exact place where it dwells. Gravity dwells outside of all points that experience the force ( weaker or stronger). All points outside this origin gravity state are endowed with some of the energy of this origin and are allowed to entropically choose to either utilize this energy to accelerate or decellerate , grow or shrink, expand or contract, deviate or go with the flow, remain in the box or look for alternate routes, be hot or cold...live or die.
Have you decided to "condense" your perceptions of how another relative observer sees things? Perhaps by doing so your understanding of relativity may not experience "increase"
-
you insist that there is an "intelligent designer".
Let me make it easy for you, the "design" is intelligent through complexity, there is no "designer".
-
Let me make it a little harder for you, the “computer” you sit in front of is a complex “design’ that you insist didn’t need an intelligent designer.
-
This is some what off topic, but Emc2, I have a bit of a philosophical question for you if you have the time. I've noticed you oft repeat the idea of the universe being eternal and infinite in size, suggesting that this solves the creation problem. And in your above post, you say that a designer is not necessary due to underlying effects of complexity in an infinite universe.
What I'm wondering is why the existence of a designer, creator God is a non-starter for you. And, speaking frankly, the suggestion that such a being does not appear to be necessary for the existence of our universe is an inappropriate answer for me, since I see no scientific basis to make "complexity" the default-option for our infinite, eternal universe. What in your view is the primary scientific reason that you can't give credence to the idea of a being creating and designing our universe?
I should add that from where I stand, your idea of an infinite, eternal universe is at-least as prone to lacking in evidence as is the idea of a God-like being designing and creating our universe. So a lack of evidence for the existence of God does little to give weight to your ideas. Any thoughts are appreciated.
-
As it concerns the universe as well as science the present state is that “any and all things are possible” until science irrefutably proves it is not. Therefore belief in an intelligent designer or God should not be precluded from being a possibility.
So long as this is the case your question would not be a “philosophical” one rather a logical question.
A question that is not so easy to relegate given the preponderance of scientific evidence (or lack thereof.) However I would be interested in Emc2 response. He is short in his retorts many times and references links often. I would extend the question and ask Emc2 (as well as yourself): What are your independent and personal views on the matter? Links for the most part represent… others… take on things.
If the universe is eternal and infinite, to me, this would mean there is more space and time to create verses relegating the works of creation.
What are the “underlying effects of complexity” that invalidate creation? If you are referring to “enough time to evolve” this does not seem possible or mathematically probable. I can have 10 blocks numbered 1-10 and if blindfolded (blind chance…religious ideal) what are the chances I can randomly draw out in succession the numbers 1-10. Now add 10 zeros to this number and draw those numbers out inn appropriate succession. This chance mentality does not just defy logic..it is absurd.
What is it that “does appear necessary for the existence or our universe” And how did these necessary things “appear.”
To me a complex system precludes randomness and necessitates a driving purpose that is able to reach fruition due to an equally intelligent driving force
-
My personal beliefs are evolving, but I am generally left wondering at how a theory of God has yet to seriously enter science, and at the irony of top scientists generally being at the forefront of those who would reject God or otherwise deny Him a place in evidential reality, though I am not naive and understand the practical reasons behind it.
I too believe that the universe is eternal, but rather than saying this solves the general creation problem, I would offer instead that it solves the problem of God's creation: an infinite, eternal God having designed and created a universe of finite measure. But I can humbly admit that I have no evidence for this statement, since my belief in God does not stem from blind faith, but rather from reasoned belief in what I have read of His words.
-
“His words” are more scientific then some people may know. Those who have presupposed that God does not exist probably have not devoted much time to reading his words and discovering just how consistent many statements are to scientific fact. This book says that “God is light.” The word “is” actually asserts that God is the very epitome of Light. This books states that he is dynamic in energy and that whatever he so desires, due to his limitless power, ..”comes to be.” This book also calls him the “Ancient of Days.” This book states that God sets all limits to times, cycles and seasons. This book states that he created both the heavens and the earth.
There are many statements made that agree with science so accurately as to be hard to ignore
-
My personal beliefs are evolving, but I am generally left wondering at how a theory of God has yet to seriously enter science, and at the irony of top scientists generally being at the forefront of those who would reject God or otherwise deny Him a place in evidential reality, though I am not naive and understand the practical reasons behind it.
It's a mistake to assume that because science doesn't have a "theory of God," that scientists are actively rejecting God (or gods, for our polytheistic friends). Some wonderful scientists are strong atheists while some are strongly religious.
Science doesn't have a theory of God simply because to create a scientific theory, you have to follow the scientific method, which involves formulating a testable hypothesis which makes quantitative predictions that separate your theory from other theories. In essence to make a science out of God, you'd have to experimentally observe God or observe some evidence that has no other explanation than God. Oh--and these experiments have to be repeatable to be science, so one-off miracles don't count.
-
It's a mistake to assume that because science doesn't have a "theory of God," that scientists are actively rejecting God (or gods, for our polytheistic friends). Some wonderful scientists are strong atheists while some are strongly religious.
I understand what you're saying as we've already had this discussion. It may well be the popular media's fault in projecting their own atheistic views, by showing scientists who generally find it, to say the least, highly improbably that God could actually exist or questioning the need for a God-like being at all. And you could in turn criticize my taking these views as representative of 'the scientific body', whatever that may be. Otherwise, I find it disingenuous to suggest that my comments are completely out of step with reality. Besides, I never said "actively rejecting God", which is quite different from "reject God" and qualified my statement with "...or otherwise deny Him a place in evidential reality, though I am not naive and understand the practical reasons behind it". Scratch that, I'm the outsider coming in with a different background, so I'll be more careful with my words so as not to seem insulting.
I try and keep myself rather self-aware of the generalizations that I make, so please don't get the impression that I come here to have a religious duel. I am of course convinced of a certain truth that arose from outside scientific literature, but inside a none-the-less readily accessible book, and find simply no contradiction between this truth and anything that I've read in science (except perhaps for interpretations of some experimental results). So I'm naturally drawn towards any discussion of areas of research that could yield evidence pointing to, directly or indirectly, God's existence. I'm not sure if working out the type of evidence needed to support a hypothesis before hand is a logical no-no, but I don't really see any other possibility. Not to mention that doing even that much seems unlikely since I don't actually have a conception right now of what form this evidence might take.
-
Is it possible that God's "invisible qualities ARE clearly seen" and are "percieved through the things made?" These things as observed in nature? Is there a defining pattern of intelligent design that if observed and understood would encourage us to reconsider the existence of God? Can we discern this evidence by closely scrutinizing nature?
One thing we are sure of is that information takes many forms and is expressed everywhere. Furthermore, information seems to be able to be transmitted from one point to another at least at the speed of light. Perhaps even at the speed of light squared. Such potential squaring of the speed of information seems to defy laws that we for the most part consider to be confined to a definitive speed. That speed is the speed of light. I purposely refer to Information and Light as one and the same phenomenon. I will subsequently elaborate on this postulate. Suffice to say; Information is universally extant relative to all things. Is information to be understood as qualifying every point in the vastness of infinite space? If so, information…may be the key ingredient that, if understood as to modem of operandi (purpose) and functionality may be the missing part of the puzzle. I will go further and state: If information is the key and as such represents the motivating reason for all processes and forces then it would seem true that information does not represent the puzzle pieces themselves per say, rather the spatial and distantial relationship(s) that exist between the pieces as linking the
parts to the whole. Thus information while it is discovered at perspective points really actually represents bulk knowledge being transmitted to points and those points transmitted to other points.
This would seem to imply that information is discovered in/at every point in space, and if one could read the whole of the information found at all points, then any and all descriptions could be given and any and all questions could be answered.
Is it possible to absolutely defined the true relationship between energy and mass? Why is it that we discern distinct associations between energy and mass yet at the same time we surmise seeming, distinct differentiations between the two? At the present time many contradictions exist. Indeed! Epoch conundrums are asserted into the discussions. The perceived affinities between mass and energy are not dissimilar to the distinct differences existing between the two. This suspended state of intellectual contradiction results in a constant flux (verses any real “flexing”) of theory as well as an unyielding and quite frustrating state of ambiguity. What is it that defines the relationships between energy and mass as either an ‘equivalency’ or as different? Are we missing parts of the puzzle? Or: Perhaps the missing pieces are there yet they are obscured by predisposed human thinking. Conversely perhaps it is truly beyond the physical or intellectual abilities of terrestrial creatures to view and thus comprehend that which defines the relationships.
One thing for sure there are many strange things occurring within the physical universe. I will confine the expression “physical universe “to that which we can observe, and which is commonly referred to as ‘mass objects. On the other side of the equation(s) is this thing called energy! We know that Energy is an absolute reality and is clearly demonstrative within the universe, and as so existential relative to all mass entities; energy is even more so enigmatic as to origin, functionality and relevance. Is there a way to reconcile the two? If so, what would such realizations birth as to insights relative to human knowledge as well the human experience?
Pictures say a lot where words fall short. I will utilize illustrations and pictures so as to provoke a fresh approach to these questions as well to encourage a broader and inclusive awareness of relevant, solidified principles and laws as expressed in nature. Such Principles and laws related to: Energy and Mass; Wave and Particle; Force and that which is acted upon by force; Light and Sound... when analyzed in unique ways may lead to more transparency. Perhaps if these principles and laws as occurring within every micro inch of space and/or time (everywhere and relative to all things) are considered in a new light such may bring us closer to a more refined understanding of our universe and even this planet we call earth as a part of the universal system.
Particularly the discussions may be confined to the study of physics. However if such relationships between what we can see and what we cannot see were to become resolutely defined we may see that such definitions, whether coined in words (argumentatively: Pictures) or framed into mathematic statements, could possibly explain everything. Such discovery may represent what is referred to as: Unification! Another name for this is known as: “Unified Theory.”
If such a special proposal was formulated as well translated into a unique form of mathematical expression, and if such proposal were tested as to veracity and proven to be solidified it would seem appropriate that: Relative to such authenticated proposal the reconciliations would encompass every universal phenomenon no matter how considerately irrelevant or trivial. These explanations would encompass and describe everything! Indeed! An all-inclusive understanding (or at least potentially when applied to any given thing or inquiry) including but not limited to: Images and the sound of words on paper. ( The language phenomenon that is a product of the intelligent human brain transliterating innate sound information to corosponding symbols with accompanying meaning)
We are searching for unification. A refinement of understanding relating to nature and physic. If such were discovered perhaps it could, if applied, provide the answers to many things. Perhaps this discovery could provide the informational template from which all answers to any and all inquiries could be derived. A universal algorithm!
Are there principles or laws yet to be discovered that if found would endow mankind with the ability to explain every action, reaction or function? Would this discovery explain as well the origin of all things that exist in nature and as perceived through perspective human study? If so this realization would not be confined to just physics inquiry but would be able to explain …everything
It is the purpose of this thread to introduce some very interesting ...observations!
-
Presently we are only receiving part of the information as transferred to mass objects (and those mass objects relative to other mass objects) while we are not able to read the information in the seemingly empty space existing between mass objects. If were able to decipher the information innate to open infinite space what would this reveal? For the moment we accept the seeming reality that creatures confined to seeing or reading only visible objects cannot possess the whole of the information from which results all of the answers. Yet we should not be so complacent or disillusioned due to this present acknowledgement. While it is agreeable to admit that we are inferior in these regards we must be careful not to disregard things that boggle our minds or imaginations. An example of this resigning mentality is the contradictions of theory that revolve around the discussion of the speed of light as constant speed or potentially squared. We have seemingly taken the approach that absolute truth is forever elusive thus we repetitively embrace two (or more) contrary theories and proclaim that “all things are possible” if given enough time. This approach seems to be irresponsible and even fanciful at times. We cannot be overcome by frustration to the point of accommodating any idea and thus accepting or retaining absurdities.
Of course abstract thinking is very efficient at times. Many times such unorthodox thinking has led to progression in the realm of physics. Granted the persons who do not disallow creative thinking sometimes are frowned upon in their approach, as what has been labeled ‘orthodoxy’ usually stands in opposition to such “thinking outside the box.” All too often the theoretical physicist( or laymen observer and ideologist) with his/her ideas is scorned and mocked as being absurd rather than abstract or unorthodox. Yet so long as the answers are not forthcoming and so long as the absolute reality is presently shrouded any and all observations or threories should at least be considered. It has been said that when unified theory is discovered, removing the intellectual veil, that the ultimate understanding may be so strange as to boggle the imagination. One reference put it this way:
(“Science and nature”- 10 strange things about the universe) …. “The universe can be a very strange place. While groundbreaking ideas such as quantum theory, relativity and even the Earth going around the Sun might be commonly accepted now, science still continues to show that the universe contains things you might find it difficult to believe, and even more difficult to get your head around.”
What I am drawing attention to is that most often when we say that something is “difficult to believe” we are implying that we do not believe it or even take the view that such is false or absurd. Yet if we acknowledge that it is possible that what is presently “unbelievable” at some time in the future may become verified then we can see how all theories no matter how abstract or farfetched may just be the theory that ultimately defines how the universe functions.
Most humans possess the ability to observe and experiment. While it is true that some are more seasoned in this regard this in no way relegates the observations and experiments of others who may not be so peer reviewed. Indeed while some are keen in their evaluations others take a more simplistic and lucid approach in their descriptions. Some accomplish both objectives simultaneous—keen, simplistic. Others digress into a vast abyss; where complex equation breeds more complexity and where simple elegance is shrouded by rigidity of mathematic expression and the anti- smooth, ineffectual and endless stream of... qualifying terminology and jargon. This type of approach alienates the majority while dishonestly propagating further theories and contradictory statements through mathematical and educational embellishment. While these ones as a guild are held in high esteem; nothing tangible is produced in the way of real scientific progression. Despite the scientific climate that seems content with encouraging this sort of elitist-separatist atmosphere, all the while the theoretic physicist along with the laymen observer goes undeterred with full concentration toward the objective of extracting all contradictions so as to find: Unification. Indeed!
-
A very significant mathematical pattern is found in the Golden ratio. The following illustrations begin to apply “patterns” in nature to the reflective scenario I am presenting in this thread.
In the first picture I am representing a red dot (photon..Light source) stationed in between two reflective planes. You will see that both planes are communicating the light source (red dot with the letter “A” underneath it) to their surface. The only real distance that is occurring is the distance from the center red dot to the first reflected image appearing on the surface of the planes, perspectivly. Once this light source is communicated to a plane, and if that plane is relative to the surface of another reflective plane, a perpetual reflection begins. This could be represented as evidence of “continual symmetries” as starting on the surface of a plane then being “copied” infinitely “back into” the space of the mirror. These continual symmetries represent “emergent geometries” that are affected , influenced or “acted upon” due to their being representations of the real light source dwelling outside of all planes. Both the surface reflection and subsequent super symmetric copies are considerately “virtual forms” of the real particle. This would mean that all perpetual reflections no matter how far back into space (how deep throughout the universe area) are really “anti-particles.”
You will notice that I draw yellow lines (curves) from each perspective reflection down through the succession. This was designed to explain a fresh understanding of string theory. The universe is not comprised of literal strings rather is comprised of dual(myriad or infinite) forms of an energy source. Thus they are in the strictest sense “attached” and represent two vectors or points sharing a connection. On one side of the string we have a real light source (photon) on the other side we have a reflective “field” or plane that receives the light from the source on its surface. Thus two sides of a string, both bearing an energy quality, yet one side is the origin of the string while the other side comes into relativity to the origin and thus inherits the energy innate to the other side. It is reflection that creates this “string” (strange) relationship. Even though the surface of the plane is the most accurate representation of the photon , the continual reflections also originate from the origin point thus the string is “stretched” if you will and the illusion of the expansion of mass, space and energy is caused. As well the expansion of space, though equally a product of reflection, is observed. When one moves either mirror various degrees away from parallelism to each other then the reflected symmetries move (right, left, up, down,). Actually the string can spiral or even loop and in the strictest sense end at the ‘surface’ again. However the surface represents virtual space and time, thus time would be described as having a beginning (at the surface…beginning of relativity of reflected geometry to real energy) and an end. Thus going back in time would merely represent returning to an original state. Going back to the beginning or.. ending in time.. would merely represent returning to the original state of being un-reflected. The original state would represent the photon or light source ceasing to reflect to the plane any longer. In physics we would refer to this ending or beginning point as a singularity or conversion. In this we would see that singularity or conversion would merely represent borrowed energy formally reflected now returning to the original innate state of energy. We can call this energy that is un-reflected, or energy before it is reflected.
We could apply this to a holographic scenario where the holographic image is produced because of its relativity to light ray. If the light ray is turned off or instantaneously stops reflecting to the plane then the seeming mass geometric holograph will disappear.
Can the golden ratio be evidence of what occurs relative to mirror to mirror reflection?
If one observes the size of each continual symmetry as coming into existence due to photon – to reflective plane” that occur back into the mirror, they will observe a “stepping down” effect , where each copy as imitating the surface reflection begins to shrink. Yet if we were on the other end looking toward the surface then we would observe the object gradually increasing in size. Is this reflective scenario descriptive of the mathematical pattern known as the Golden Mean? I Will present evidence that indeed this phenomenon produces the sum known as 1.618?
The images I will post will certainly provoke the imagination as well may encourage an about face as it concerns physics study. I will demonstrate some surprising finds when this mirror predisposition is applied to actual nature as observed and “experimented with.”
I hope that all who visit this thread will find the illustrations, images, charts, graphs, and commentary enlightening. I encourage all too participate and ask challenging questions. It is only through such collective discussion that unification is attainable.
-
Certainly it is very apparent that the Fibonacci and the Golden Mean seem to be solidified principles from both the micro levels (For instance: "clock cycle of brain waves;" the "human genome DNA" and even at the "atomic scale.") as well at the macro level.
"Adolf Zeising wrote in 1854 of a UNIVERSAL LAW "in which is contained the ground-principle of all formative striving for beauty and completeness in the realms of both nature and art, and which permeates,... all structures, forms and proportions, whether cosmic or individual, organic or inorganic, acoustic or optical; which finds its fullest realization, however, in the human form.".
Thus indeed! I believe that two spatial and mathematic patterns are very relevant to the physics discussion.
However, the observation of these phenomena, as well, even the subsequent mathematical sentences describing them as evidential, fail to explain HOW these patterns are produced. As well! WHY these patterns are evident relative to the functionality of "things." Furthermore the question of "WHAT" (processes or functionalities) produces these relevant and consistent patterns is not so transparent or explained either.
The principles of science compel us to go beyond just the mere observation of a phenomenon or pattern. We tend to observe things followed by a seeming complacency; as if merely witnessing "patterns" is sufficient.(Thus: Casual acknowledgment due many times to mans inability to understand or comprehend the reasons behind the patterns). What I am saying is that the precepts of science encourage one to go beyond 'just' observing but to seek to explain and define the "WHY,HOW and WHAT" relative to the observations. We all know that the Fib. and Golden Mean are observed relative to scientific and mathematical scrutiny. Yet! Have we defined why these patterns are found ( what is driving these consistent phenomenon)? Have we expressed fully ( through scientific and mathematical language) the answers to these questions, fully and appropriately?
The occasional( or frequent) allusions to architecture ( and other man-made... "art") as expressions of these patterns do not do justice to such profound mathematical principles as consistent. Neither references to the "Parthenon" nor the combined imagery(art) as found on google ( related to the "golden mean")really contributes to or expound upon the phenomenon themselves as evident all around us. Save archaic reminiscing.
When we see a golden rectangle drawn as a 1-dim image (geometric shape) we proclaim that such is a human discovery and that it is very interesting( to say the least!). We then redundantly "talk about it" by discussing 'rabbits/sunflowers/flower pedals." We the draw the pattern out as it is written mathematically( 1 1 2 3 5 ......). We admire it! Some go so far as to revere it (mysticize it) without knowing much about it. Why do we take such a lackadaisical approach? Such is more convenient than REALLY applying ourselves toward discerning its relevance.
A 1-dim. rectangle 'scribbled' on a sheet of paper tells us nothing; save the elegance of it. We extend our 1-dim view a little farther by 'chopping the first rectangle off' so as to view a smaller version of the same thing ( the same PHENOMENON) We "develop methods" and then "incorporate" these trivial methods so as to: Draw another shape!? I see this as scientific and mathematical tangency. We are not progressing toward a more complete and reconciliatory understanding of it. It would seem that we are relegating the phenomenon. Why?
(Note: One large rectangle changes to a smaller rectangle to a smaller…into infinity. Does this smack of “mirror to mirror” …”continual symmetry?”)
I perceive that one of the reasons is found in that we have taken a seeming 1-dim approach to the problem ( Almost all inclusively; whether scientifically, intellectually or mathematically). We need to begin applying "A" principle that is innate to humankind. This would be accomplished if we realize that any object, idea or thing viewed is better explained by taking a 3-dim approach. ( Perhaps even a multi-dim. approach). Is it possible to understand these phenomena more effectively by departing from the a set way of thinking about the problem" and begin to study them from more broad, and unorthodox perspectives? Is it possible to define the underlying principles ( followed by applications of principles so derived) by changing our perspective(s) and becoming RESOLVED to figure the problem out. If we are decided in this regard then perhaps a more robust view of these patterns is warranted. Perhaps we need to start looking at the golden rectangle from a more 3-dim. mindset. (From many different angles and many different orthodox/unorthodox..relative veiws)
The golden rectangle, as drawn and observed on paper, remotely leads one to any resolute understanding of it. It is merely a 1-dim. representation consisting of thin lines and empty space. Yet what is REALLY happening through the thickness of the rectangle? How is the "space" inside the lines, and as separated by other lines,defined? What explains the relativity of' the "mass lines" ( or argumentatively "mass numbers" relative to the fib. sequence) relative to the empty space? We are starting to alter our predisposed way of seeing the picture and now are beginning to "think" of the problem more 3.dim.
What would the golden rectangle look like if it were "drawn" or even animated in a 3-dim. way? We already know ( right?). W have concluded that it would look something like a sunflower or flower pedals ( mathematically numbered). Or: Perhaps it would look like something/EVERYTHING else. Perhaps we would describe what it looks like and subsequently derive from the observations and experiments something called TOE..The Theory of Everything!
This is the point!
In no way have we explained nore defined appropriately a phenomenon that seems to demonstrate itself irrefutably relative to everything. In no way does reverence for an 'undefined mysterious geometry'("UMG"...lol) or pattern produce any solid explanatory results. In no way does mathematics fully translate the phenomenon into their language, methodologies and equations. So where do we look for the answers? This seems to be a quandary of epoch proportions. This regardless of how humans in many ways relegate its importance relating to (literally) an understanding of the universe and nature physic.
: There is a very unique and insightful way to start looking at these phenomena. There is a way to start looking at the problem from a new ( revolutionary?) perspective.
This thread is designed to present the TOE way of looking at the problem.
I will present some things ( in brevity) with regard to the golden ratio in succeeding posts. I will show a unique way ( language) as well that when utilized assists us in 'visualizing" the fib sequence through: Mathematics! I will introduce a unique 'mathematical language'( full of terms, expressions and information) derived from discoveries innate to spatial temporal reasoning and many years of arduous study into the "mirror effect."
Questions
-From where does the FIB. Sequence originate."( "from where from what place")?
-Why is it discovered "virtually everywhere"(TOE) and relative to "virtually everything"(TOE)
-How does this "sequence' occur?
-How does this sequence relate to everything? (TOE)
-HOW and WHY is the sequence... sequestered? (Two slit experiment!)
-What is the phenomenon exactly and what results in its dissemination (infinitely) throughout the universe?
- Does IT explain TIME? Those " Sequence"("seconds"), minutes and hours that we sit at our tables in silent introspection trying to comprehend it?
-When did these phenomenon's first "become" what they are; as relevant to both the earth as well the universe?
-What is being "said" by the phenomenon ( if it could speak). What "statements" would be made by the phenomenon if described and understood?
- What story or history would it reveal to us, anthropomorphically speaking?
Is the Golden ratio to be discovered within whole language systems; Languages and alphabets comprised of letters, accompanied by corresponding sounds.. Is Language representative of an intelligent means, utilized by human thinkers, to translate both light photon and sound INFORMATION to qualitative symbols and meaning?
This thread will also introduce new patterns(many) that will, on their own merit, speak further on our individual and collective.....TOE.... pursuit.
Look closely at the accompanying picture illustrations. I will begin to explain the picture in proceeding posts.
-
Picture 2
-
In this illustration we can imagine that the rotation of 90 degrees represents the distance between each continual symmetry from the surface “back into” the “perceived” thickness of the mirror. This is depicted in illustration “A” where each side gives birth to the next square and as representing the distance from one square to the next. We could imagine that this stepping down represents: “In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.”
We could postulate that the inverse square law would be represented through mirror to mirror reflection. That is to say that the “mirror to mirror law” states that “physical objects” as communicated to the surface of a plane of reflection will increase in distance the farther each successive reflection is from the surface. And that: The intensity of light as experienced on the surface ( intensity of energy and light as represented on the surface) will decrease proportional to this change in distance from one “reflective copy” to the next; in an infinite stream of reflections.
Can this be verified when one studies this mirror to mirror reflective phenomena? We will experiment with this postulate.
In the series of blue squares (box marked “A”) we could say that each side measurement of each successive Golden Rectangle represents the distance from one reflection to another. This is indicated to the right of the squares by a sort of distance line marked A-E. What we have really did is mentally change our relative observation as if we were viewing each perspective GR as behind or ahead of the preceding or succeeding one. We are twisting the GR and realizing that the length of the side of the former square determines the distance between “it” and the next square in the reflective scenario. Each square (verses side line measurement) is representative of the next reflection and has within its area both the geometric mass representation occurring on the surface as well as the qualifying space.
We are viewing the one dimensional golden rectangle as actually representing 3 dimensions by seeing the golden rectangle as comprised as perfect squares (perfect circles. But I will get to that) and these squares separated from each other by a certain “volume” of space. Or separated by certain distances.
The picture labeled “B” helps us to see this one way. The first (largest) square represents the surface reception of light ray. Every other box to the left represents separate transitions from the surface through the thickness (Refraction. .And; mirror to mirror continual symmetries from the surface. Therefore if we see each square as actually separate from every other square then we must factor in the distance from one to the other. This distance accompanying each square in the succession is what produces the golden ratio. The distance is determined by measuring each successive square side length and considering this the distance between one reflection and the other. This would state that the golden ratio is a product of reflection. The golden ratio is produced by factoring in space; distance from one reflection to the next; as well as the framing of what we call space into mass geometric forms. This framework can be described through the principles of mirror to mirror reflection.
The portion labeled “C” shows my postulates as well. From the first square labeled “SR” (“surface reflection)..ensues…every other square. Where the length of each successive square side determines the distance between each successive square.
We can imagine that the first square graduates to the next square on the right side. Then the next square (represented in the succession relative to the whole golden ratio as depicted 1=dimensionally) graduates to the next square from its top side. This square graduates to the next square from the left side. Then this square graduates to the next square on its bottom side. So on and so…forth.
If you pay attention to this strange rotation it is as if the square on the surface is undergoing a sort of twisting and this motion could be described as a spiraling or even a conforming of the square to a circular shape. Or at least a circular path. This is represented when one turns a mirror away from the face of another mirror..the accompanying symmetries (same at all points originating from the surface) begin to turn, arch or take on a circular path.
Illustration “A” depicts the distance between each square as representing the square side length measurement.
Illustration “D” shows how this whole scenario begets time..where each emergent geometry experiences and perceives time relative to their perspective distance from the surface.
Now imagine that each square area represents a light ring ..and imagine that all of these square illustrations really represent circles (or spheres). We see a layered string forming that can and does have a beginning and an end. They begin relative to the surface and end relative to the surface. As all surface reflections (from which all other reflected shrunken or expanded geometries originate) forming the whole accompanying series of reflections begins and ends at the surface as well. The surface would represent a horizon and would by synonymous with a singularity or a point of conversion. These reflected circles (squares or any other perceived shapes) can move any direction at the slightest motion of a reflective plane away from parallelism to another reflective plane. We can see light circles (waves) forming on the surface…then these waves (circles) conforming to three dimensional spheres. We can see that they are separated from each other by both space as well as distance. We can see that, viewed one way they are gradually shrinking away from the surface. Yet! If viewed the other way they are gradually expanding toward the surface. This would describe a light source (or light ray) representing itself on a surface and shrinking or expanding its image(s) by decreasing or increasing the distance. We could see a light diameter circle represented as a layering of rings (membrane theory?) on the surface and then corresponding itself to diameter- spheres through the thickness (refraction?). We could visualize that the light source is motionless as the plane or aether either approaches the light source or draws away from it. Or we could realize that the light source is in motion either toward or away from a reflective surface. Or we could see that the light source is reflecting to two or more planes of reflection and that; due to the relativity of the surfaces to one another the motionless light source is depicted as in motion relative to the reflective geometries.
I will continue to elaborate on these things in subsequent posts.
-
look closely at this image.
I will explain in further posts
-
In the lower left of the image I have depicted an “atom.” This is represented by a small “shape” that is colored violet, blue and indigo. This “atom” or “photon” (invisible light source) is represented as though we could see it and its “shape quality.” Really this part of the equation (the left side ..vector) is invisible. We can only understand its energy light and quality after it is communicated to the reflective plane. Everything pictured on the left side (first square with image inside, then gradually being copied or fractled back into the plane) is representing the “atom” from varying distances (illusion of distance). These various distances from atom is a product of the atom being reflected to a surface then continuing to reflect to other surfaces. Once the atom is reflected from surface to surface then it appears that each representation of the atom gradually shrinks. (Yet! If we were way back to the right looking toward the surface, then the atom would appear to expand.) .
The red lines emanating from the light source (atom, photon or particle of light) simulate the light ray. The path of the light ray is going toward the reflective plane (the surface or horizon= the first reflected square in the succession of squares). The path of light ray is implanted upon the screen .and arrives at the screen at such and such angle. This would describe the reflective plane as relatively deviating from parallelism to light ray.
You see that the atom is represented at all points ( All squares) either larger or smaller due to the copying of itself. This continual perpetuation of the light source is dictated by mirror to mirror reflection.
The quality of 3 dimensions is described as ‘emergent’ due to the properties of refraction. The surface reflection of each successive square represents the horizon of each “creature;” represented as big or small relative to the first surface reflection occurring on the first square. This horizon represents the farthest point of each object ; and would represent the geometric extent of the space allotted for each fractled mass object (or entity). This would represent a reflected ‘skin or membrane’ and would result from light reflecting to a surface.
Each reflected square in the succession is representing also a certain volume of space. This area, from geometric surface through the thickness, describes the geometric object as having such and such shape as well such and such diametric area; from circumference ( skin, membrane or horizon) down through the space, to a perceived center.
Note: All points in the circle or sphere are exactly as all other points; where a true center is precluded as occurring. Rather, all points are reflecting on the surface and reflecting the light source. So the real center of all mass objects is actually found outside the reflective plane. This “center” represents the singularity of all points of mass to the sole point of light outside the plane.
You will notice that on the right side (reflective mass side) I depicted stars. Yet! On the left side I did not depict these points of light. This is designed to show that everything on the left side (the true quality and energy of light) is actually invisible! Yet, once the invisible light (dark energy) is reflected, then we catch a glimpse and can visibly see what is happening on the ‘dark matter’ side. The only way to perceive the nature of True Light and True Energy is for this Light and Energy to reflect itself. Due to the reflective and refractive properties of the plane, what is invisible is communicated to perspective points of visible light and “mass” Along with this visible representation of light ( Where “mass” merely represents reflected light) comes the corresponding volume of energy and quality afforded to the mass.
Light that is un-refracted is invisible. This states that dark energy is actually bulk light ( Argumentatively: Dark Matter) and we can only see this light when we observe mass objects. This would state that mass objects are merely the refractive forms of pure white light photon.
Not only is the atom (particle light and energy) reflected to the shapes appearing in each square, but all reflected stars are also representative of atom(s) being reflected. The closer the mass is to the atom the smaller the mass will appear to be. The farther from the light source the reflective plane is that receives the light, the larger the reflected light will be (or reflective system: I.E; nebula, galaxy or universe.
Yet we would have to ascertain which reflections are occurring on the surface and which mass objects represent the surface reflection undergoing a strange sort of continual copying. Supper symmetry!
Where super symmetry refers to “continual symmetry” of the same symmetric shape occurring on the surface; and relative to the ultimate symmetry residing on the left side.
The left side, as described, is full of dark energy. We do not refer to “dark” as “black” rather we understand it to mean: Invisible to the human eye.
Note: Notice that all images to the right are representative of the “color” of the “atom”..inverted. I will discuss the relevance of this latter on.
-
Further illustration.
Here we add a relative observer who is looking at the first surface reflection and is not focused on any other successive reflections. This observer sees light photon reflected to the screen (horizon) and sees a monkey. That is to say: The geometric shapes recorded on the surface and as qualitatively colored forming the likeness of a monkeys face. The beach ball was added as well to simulate the shapes appearing on the screen. This really represents a relative observer receiving light photon through the processes innate to the visual processes, followed by the brains interpretation of the shape and color of the ball and monkey. Is the surface of the human eye to be considered as an accompanying (or the sole) horizon relative to light photon?
-
Supersymmetry is explained relative to the principles of reflection. Although the presumption is that:
"So far, there is no direct evidence for the existence of supersymmetry."( Reference: Wicipedia: Supersymmetry)....":
This seems to ignore the reality that the "mirror effect" is demonstrative evidence that reflection can produce supersymmetry. How so?
If one stands in front of a mirror their image is duplicated exactly as it is. The only deviations would be if you hold up your right hand then your representation/image in the mirror hold up "its" left. Further; If the real person ( as opposed to the mirror image) were to spin a top clockwise in front of the mirror then the representation of the top (in the mirror) shows the direction as counterclockwise. This seems to fit the definition of supersymmetry; as:
'relating elementary particles of one spin to other particles that differ by half a unit of spin and are known as superpartners..."(Wicipedia: Suppersymmetry).
There has been an argument that "mirror matter" is ONLY an expression of the "doubling" phenomenon and that it differs from suppersymmetry merely because supersymmetry:
'is a continuous symmetry relating particles with different spin...." where; "mirror matter" is a "discreet symmetry..."( Quotations derrived from: "The Encyclopedia Of Science: Mirror Matter")
It seems that these statements fail to realize that what occurs relative to mirror reflection is NOT confined to just something reflected into a mirror.( i.e,..symmetric doubling of an image). If these statements did soley define mirror reflection as a discreet phenomenon and as confined merely to an object or light as reflected to ONE plane then such may appropriately be called a separate phenomenon from supersymmetry.
However we are forgetting that while mirrors do double and object; if a reflective plane is relative to another reflective plane then reflections "continue" to repeat. With this added to the equation then mirrors are not just confined to producing "doubles"nor are they to be confined to producing simple symmetric equivalents of the object mass or light reflected. Rather: If we factor in the perpetual "doubling"( after the first stage of reflection then a perpetual copying of the original image.. into infinity) that occurs when one mirror faces another, then this produces a "continuous symmetry;" with all reflections related to one another. Thus if the "loose" interpretation is that: The "difference" between symmetry and supersymmetry relative to the "mirror effect" is the abscence of "continuity,".. relating particles with different spin," then we have ignored that mirrors that reflect to mirrors DO produce a continual reflection; continuity of symmetry; continuity of sameness. Thus:
We should not confine our persceptions tojust the 'doubeling effect' relative to mirror matter but as well should acknowledge that perhaps the forces involved in the processes of the universe are themselves expressions of the reflective princiles.( expand our view to accomodate the reality that mirror to mirror reflection produces supper symmetry as well). We cannot narrow our view that just the objects produced are evidentiary "miiror matter" ( of elementary elements) but should expand our relative awareness to accomodate the possibility that the invisible PROCESSSES also follow set principles of reflection and continuity.
I have tried to speak on this by defining how the "mirror effect" ( producing many principles and guided by many invisible as well visible processes) could represent strings. I do not mean that "mass object" strings are attatched to one another and that we just cannot see them. However I am stating that the processes that occur due to the relativity of light to reflective planes, continually "connects" one point to another or to others. The 'string' is not literal, rather demonstrates a.. relatonship.. between the elementary particles and their equivalent reflections.( E=mc2) A relationship that is defined by stating:
Energy is attached to its reflection(s). And if, one end of a string(E) is attached to a reflective plane(the other end of the string=mc), and if after this initial reflection this plane is also relative to another/other plane(s), then a continuous "stringing" occurrs as: Linking all reflections to the original, progenitor end of the string( Side E). In this scenario the strings are described not as literal strings but as reflective points that are relative to preceeding and suceeding reflective points; all produced because one plane is reflecting to another plane( or others) producing the perpetual reflections innate to the "mirror effect."
This would seem to both define symmetry ( a mirror image doubling of a .."thing") as well as supersymmetry( subsequent, "continual" reflecting that occurs when one mirror reflects to another). If this is so then we discover that reflection ( "mirror effect") can produce both symmetry( "discreet"-surface) and supersymmetry( continual). The only difference would be that an object or phenomonen as symmetrically percieved is only reflecting light or energy to its plane while having NO relativity to the reflective surface of another( or other) planes. The object that is considerately ( or percieved to be so) supersymmetric would be that one reflective plane is reflecting TO another reflective plane( producing continual symmetries.) Thus this demonstrates that both the 'discreet symmetry" and the "continuous symmetry" are both explained relative to the same process. Mirror effect! This may reconcile the discreet to the continuous as being representations ( perspectively or infinitly) of the same thing.