MomentTheory

I feel the idea of zero, is like the god of mathematics, you either believe in it or you don't. Personally, I think zero is simply a reference point for the unknown or balance because by default of equality, mathematics demands symmetry. Even when thinking about any topic, to try and say I have NOTHING of SOMETHING, you still must think of the something, and that in itself has value. With that logic you can see how 0^0 = 1, the value originating from in the idea of the operator "^", the operator outside of the 0, inserts value. Since the value is unknown, we say 1. I can see how one might feel this is a "conspiracy".

No, I'm saying sun and son because the universe is obviously the father and the SUN/Stars are the sons. The coming son, is the the awakening to the true scientific nature of light.

I see no difference in regards to prophecy. Christ taught about the universe, and did not think himself "the one" but rather spoke of the coming kingdom as an awareness rising in human consciousness. (see the Urantia Book)

Not sure where you are seeing a direct refusal but ok..... If you don't know what I mean by a second coming sun *cough Christ* then I don't know if you should even be a part of this discussion.

Thank you for the abundance of information. It's helpful considering I'm trying to self educate. Actually very helpful because I wasn't sure if I should be focusing on the strong or weak force. Now I know what I have to correct! My first thought was to use the W and Z bosons in this model (since z boson is the "smallest"), but I made the mistake of thinking because of the color charge that it would be related to light, but I now see my folly in that instance. Now to read, and then back to the drawing board. Thanks!

It would be wonderful if I could afford formal training but alas, that is never going to happen haha. I'll be honest too. I don't really care about the correct notation of C vs c, yea I know you all are very picky about that here, and I will attempt to tighten up my usage for the sake of this website, but for my own purposes, it seems senseless to worry about such trivial things when I know what I am referencing too. Perhaps I'm taking too much for granted, my apologies. I have made clear observations and have tested my own limits, learning what I need to know to get this far. You'll have to forgive me or get over it. (I'm not being a dick, just honest) I'm using c in place of energy because it is the infinite cap, it's already traveling at an infinite rate, thus I am assuming that light can be the only thing that can bypass the GeV limit of our current running particle accelerators. I did not choose to ignore the part about fiber optics, I disregarded it because I am not testing infinite light reflections, (I believe I did point that out in an earlier thread) I'm testing the geometry of light as it passes through a glass medium. Fiber optic cables work in a completely different manner. Even the thought experiment involving an infinite parallel mirror is impossible to test due to the inability to produce a perfect mirror on a molecular level, and the curvature of the earth, and if you will space-time. Therefore it is an assumption that light can travel forever in this manner even though as far as we can observe, it does. I understand what you are getting at in regards to my incorrect usage of units, but what I have observed is a clear alpha and omega of light, since the unit I am measuring is self contained, it does not revolve around distance or time as it is in a constant motion of c. Ergo, my usage of √E/M=C. The spin calculation, is an assumption, but it is based upon the fact that regardless of milli-wattage of the laser, the omega still occurs at 49 reflections, so it is a prediction that the extra energy must be going somewhere, creating spin in the lowest possible category of units, quarks. I'm not claiming to disprove the work of the physicist using particle accelerators, merely purposing an alternative to their efforts based on my observation of light's geometry. c/n should stand out as a clear way to beat the speed of light. If the only other controller of light is in fact n, then logically, modifying n, is the only way to get around its limitation. I'm not sure if I posted this yet or not but here is the data I have collected in a graph to show what I have observed thus far, perhaps it will help clarify what I mean.

Negative rep for this? Already!? Seriously!? Thanks, you guys are the best. Anyway, its not a ramble and yea I can clarify. I've been doing some experiments with light and mirrors, and I found a constant point of interference that occurs at the 49th reflection, trapping the light, every time. Because of this constant, we can use it to our advantage to bypass the need of a particle accelerator to modify quarks using the speed of C in place of energy, for acceleration. Because the theoretical GeV limit can not be surpassed with a particle accelerator (unless it were as big as our solar system), we can assume that there must be another way to achieve this, if the GUT is correct in its prediction. Following the characteristics of quarks, they can not exist as a single unit but must be in a triplet bond of RED BLUE and GREEN to create a white quark which defaults as a proton. When light becomes trapped by its own limitation, (at point Zz), we can assume the extra energy not being expended by the photons will cause an integer spin of +1 on a single quark. By forcing 3 sources of light into a single point (Zz^3) this provides a +3 spin, freeing a whole unit of an RBG quark, producing a proton. Since the proton is trapped by its own mass and gravity, and the light can not escape due to interference, this will create a flow of electrons at an infinite zero-point rate as predicted by GUT. Since light naturally lends itself to following a 45 degree angle down parallel reflections, it can be said to travel the constant trajectory of √2 (the diagonal of a square) which just so happens to make up a constant 45 degree turn. Therefore using E=MC^2 we can flip this equation to isolate the speed and also define the path that light travels, as √E/M=C. Once C is isolated across energy mass and trajectory, we can harness the speed of light. My next step is to build such a unit capable of testing this. If it works, free energy exists, if it doesn't the GUT is incorrect and we shall never see a result beyond the size of quarks unless we build a bigger particle accelerator capable of exceeding the GeV limit. That is my hypothesis, not sure why I got negative rep for this since this is speculations thread, aren't we here to help each other?

That's funny because I gave you more lenience than these other guys, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to prove something beyond your assumptions and allowing your error to continue until you excluded the "=" (as I mentioned above); yet they have clearly given you a better definition of your fault than I have and you still do not see your error? Even if it were true, what would you be proving except a logical inequality (a fault), surely you can't believe equal numbers can in fact be unequal? Maybe on the quantum level this can be true, but not with an a/b test.

UPDATE: After receiving information from Mordered, I've concluded that this is incorrect. My original thought was to go with bosons +w -w and z, but I am not familiar enough with bosons and their calculations to draw such a conclusion. GUT predicts that at the physically unattainable GeV limit; quarks, electrons, and all matter are the same. This solution is like working backwards, using speed of C instead of energy acceleration to attain the same effect. 1 Red, blue, or green quark = √E/M = C, where C replaces the energy needed for the GeV limit of a particle accelerator @ the plotted point of Zz, (49th reflection when traversing through parallel glass), thought to be caused by interference. When Zz^3, (achieved by 3 light trajectories); this creates the triple integer spin needed for a complete rgb = white quark= 1proton. The trapped photons, no longer capable of attaining C to reveal the newly created proton, by law of thermodynamics reduce to the next stage, electrical current. This is based upon the fact that light holds to a perfect 45 degree angle, when traversing a parallel reflector. The diagonal of the square is √2, validating the usage of √E/M = C, where the mirrors are mass, the photons are the energy, and √2 is the trajectory of the virtual particles.

After further review of the PDF document, it seems to me, they were actually measuring a delay, not speed. I understand their assumption between speed and the delay, but how can we be certain the delay is caused by a lowered speed in free space? What this suggests to me is that light carries information, almost as though it had been "aware" of its prior passing through the medium.

Touche.

"They sent photons - individual particles of light - through a special mask. It changed the photons' shape - and slowed them to less than light speed." "Special mask" sounds like a type of medium. Perhaps it is a mask made from magic?

Not expecting you to do anything, just throwing out some discussion points, thanks. I was merely alluding to the possibility that we have traveled this road before and at some point we came to the conclusion of a singularity. Thus upon every universal collapse and re-expansion, we would rediscover these facts, thinking them new. Perhaps "we" (pre solid form) created a machine designed to survive the collapse which holds onto our previous discoveries for the advancement of knowledge during the next expansion, and perhaps that machine, is DNA.

A program can only run until a solution has been fulfilled and then it will repeat, waiting for the next problem. Even if the computer program finds a solution an unknown problem, to foresee an outcome beyond the said solution is impossible. In other words, it must redefine itself prior to solving the problem, in anticipation of a solution that it did not yet solve, in order to prevent itself from looping. That would require foresight into the future, which computers do not have, yet.

I was just thinking about this today while playing in the bath, (yes I'm 27 and I still like to play with water, it helps me think). I noticed as droplets hit the water and dispersed into waves, there was also water being ejected back out of the point of contact, in the opposite direction of the falling droplet. Assuming that the disbursement of water via waves is the opposite reaction to the introduction of the water droplet, it must be assumed that the body's tendency to be at rest with gravity is what causes the drop to re-eject from the water, the extra force comes from the resistance of surrounding container. Note that under vacuum conditions with no gravity, (like space) this phenomena would not occur. I'm not sure if that is what you are referring to, but that's my 2 cents.

The contradiction arises only when you substituted "=<" with "<" This should read a+c=<a+c, you forgot the "=" defined by (1) a+c=b+c

Perhaps the synchronous rotation of the moon could be thought of as displaying this effect, and has resulted in its mono pole alignment with the earth if we consider the lack of rotation the "mono axis"?? Any thoughts?

Obviously you are so concerned with flaming me that you failed to realize I am testing the reflective index of snells law when it passes through glass, obviously I'm aware of how fiber optics work, and are of no concern to this experiment. Put your guns away. I'm not overthrowing any theory, I've found a new constant of light, that is all. For the record, I'm 27, father of two, and it urks me that my 2.5 year old has more respect than some on this forum. Forgive me for being so touchy, but I'm all about peace love and unity for the greater good of the world, and I see none of that here. How would you never have guessed M-theroy when I specifically mentioned the "5 basic string types" which are dualties including 11-dimensional supergravity? THAT IS M THEORY! Perhaps I'm taking common sense for granted here? How hard is that?!

Grab any religious text of the ancient sumerians, egyptian, hebrews, koran, the bible, even the shamanistic views of the underworld and you'll find it's all the same prophesy in regards to a coming "sun".

[see "Notes Chapter 2." The Elegant Universe. Boston: NOVA, 2003. 390-91. Print.] “When light travels through a substance such as air or glass its speed is decreased in roughly the same way that a rock dropped from a cliff is dragged to a slower speed when it enters a body of water."

For the record: Rational thought is not always a prerequisite to scientific discovery. I'm not claiming superior intellect, I'm addressing a legitimate issue regarding how my very first post ever made on this website was handled very poorly by your community. Everyone was very fast to jump down my throat, demanding extra citations and explanations to material in which you can only gain insight by educating yourself! Clearly I can not and should not have to explain string types and 1-dimensional geometric shapes just to harbor your approval! This is a forum, not a free college course. No one opened their eyes to the very rational possibility that my light experiment has legitimate groundbreaking data. On top of that, when I opened up about it (by posting this thread), look at how I was received. Once again, very poorly with a lot of judgment, even so far as to calling my work a "buzz word salad". Why is that not be seen as offensive, no one took my side on that? Honestly, it's pretty offensive to me, I put in 6 months of research and my results are not only accurate and testable but extremely fascinating! No worries, I'll just refrain from posting my work here. This community is obviously not a place that will aid in expanding my understanding of the universe. Really it was only for your benefit, I'm not gaining anything by trying show you my observations. I'm comfortable with just knowing, but are you? I never once said that everyone is an idiot, only that I did not desire to educate the idiots. And honestly, I was as polite about it as I could be.

This entire forum reeks of it, that's my point, how thick are you people!?! Honestly, I'd rather have the negative rep than consider myself part of your lot, disadvantaged by an uptight outlook on everything.

^That kind of response I can appreciate. Thank you. I will retort by saying, I did not feel it was my responsibility to educate anyone on the 5 basic string shapes or the specifics of what a trion re is for the very same reason that I would not take the time to educate someone on what the value 1+1=2 actually means. Just because the words I used sounded "buzzy" due to lack of knowledge on the subject, does not at all make what I am saying a "buzz word salad", but I will respect your opinion. I would rather someone refrain from responding at all rather than trashing my work because they have no clue as to what I'm talking about due to their narrow view of universal theory. What I was looking for was an intelligent thought provoking response by people of the same caliber of knowledge. Unfortunately, those seem to be far and few between.

By your own logic, what did you offer to the discussion by posting such a retort, except a condescending attitude??

It became apparent to me that I have already accumulated a negative reputation rating on this site but I have backed up every single claim I've made with data or a retort admitting my error, how is this so? It makes me laugh to see the same people gallivant around this site like they are some scientific authority, diminishing every post they possibly can by flexing their knowledge muscle through sarcasm and ignorance of the experience someone may or may not be having. For instance, a topic was started regarding ET life and the possibility that we are being observed and right away someone swooped in and basically said "whats the point in asking this question if it all boils down to a conspiracy theory?" WHAT IS THE POINT OF ASKING ANY QUESTION!? Seriously, that is the most cowardly response I've ever seen in my life! If we aren't supposed to question or discuss the hard topics, then what is the point of ANY inquiry in relation to the majesty of our Universe, and the unknown? Any scientific advance made by men has come from those willing to question EVERYTHING with a willingness to ALWAYS be wrong. That being said, the majority of the "high reputation" members on this site exhibit NONE of those qualities, and by that standard, are not scientists of the universe but are merely researchers of the already known and solved. - End rant.