soundoflight

if zero has no value and we must have the sum of 1+ before getting to the sum of 2 then how do we arrive at the value of 1.

klaynos sonyalk sonyak cynic "a person who believes the worst about people or the outcome of events. a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude. " skeptic, pessimist, misanthrope "yak yak".........incessant idle or gossipy talk. The incessant (ceaseless; unending) condescending remarks from self professed "scientists"

I can produce as many different angles of the "duck on the arm" as there are pictures of arms in the world Why? Because a principle ( and a law) is something that is established. Patterns ( principles and laws of order and arrangement) were designed to be followed. Patterns represent associations. Nature is associated through consistent ( predictable- scientific) principles of design.

Indeed! This thread will speak volumes on many relevant things related to science. I did not misrepresent anything stated in the former post made by Klaynos. This is demonstrated by the following acknowledgements as to his meaning with regard to the use of the word "link": " "links" ... reserved for those who parrot the ideas of others." ( for the most part..unless one is the progenitor of the "link") "I have posted much to the web. Such REFERRALS (LINKS)…" These statements ( for those who arent rocket scientists) indicate that though I was indifferent to HIS appeal to links ( as if validating arguments) I certainly understood his meaning. Now for a reiteration of my extended usage of the word link: " This thread represents a "link" OF SORTS. "link" ..DEFINED..... "anything serving to connect one part or thing with another; a bond or tie..""an object, as text or graphics linked through hypertext to a document, another object, etc." "to connect by association,.." These things being "cleared up" for the equationists verse those more logical and lucid in thought ( 2+2)...we will move on. The material presented in this thread has and will continue to demonstrate ' observable' 'effects'…( special reflective effects resulting from the cause(light and energy) relative to the effect( "mass" reflections of lightand energy)) ….that begin to express principles and laws of the universe that are not only observable but demonstrate definitive relationships between information as going from one place to another. The word link as defined by me is appropriate . Thus you infer ( as so-called scientists often do) that I stretch the meaning and relevance of the term. You also presumptuously say ( as so-called scientists do) that there 'probably are no' relevant connections and associations between what I am illustrating with what represents scientific logic. As well you state rather assertively that there is no real "meaning " behind what I am presenting. You equally absurdly seem to think that only a "link" would validate my postulates. You seem to suggest this by saying: " The "causal link" that you probably need, would be to show that these connections actually DO have meaning,…" If one pays close attention to my comments as well illustrations they may come to realize the relevance of what I am presenting and postulating with regard to. However you did say something that is both relevant to the discussions of the room as well as science. You state: " perhaps with some physical predictions your theory might make, or something like that…" If you pay attention to the comments and illustrations you will begin to see that this is what I am actually doing. However the comments and illustrations will become more refined and able to predict as we proceed. I will not ignore this challenge. It is necessary relative to scientific methodology for us all to have such a resolve. Thus I will begin to demonstrate how these things can be "physically predicted." It would be more suitable to involve you in the process. Whatever you say in answer to some questions I will ask will provide the foundation for predictions I will make. We can test them together if you wish. After this worthy exchange and reciprocation both you and I will be better able to percieve as well understand the relevance of of what I am presenting. Are you up for these collective scientific discussion(s), observation(s) and eperiment(s)s. I will preesume you are ( though I am not naturally presumptive) up for the exchange. With that "inferred" confidence as to your disposition I will continue with the discussion and will NOT relegate any comments or chalenges originating from others in the room. Firstly: Have you identified the 1st picture in the preceeding post? Here is my prediction with regard to this picture. If the idiom " duck and cover" means what it means and it refers to someone "ducking" when another swings there arm..then the human arm will form the geometry of a duck. This is gauranteed to occur( the exact shape of a duck "eyes, beak, body, wings..and all" ) due to principles of information as communicated from one place to another and being observed by intelligent humans and assimilated into language systems. Prediction: the geometric exact shape of a full duck will be found on the human arm. Why? Because the principles of language ( verses science of language) garauntee that this will occur ( and does occur relative to everything in the physical universe as representing information as associated to other information and as explanatory) . The principles of mathematics and geometry will also be demonstrated as relevant ( when one does proportion and symmetry measurements of the duck..as represented on the human arm.) The principles of Idiom will also be verifiable as explaining relationships though not easy to percieve relative to perspective linguistic studies. Thus Prediction2): The idiom "duck" ( referring to one stooping to avoid a blow from a fist attached to the arm) originated because intelligent humans ( perhaps more intelligent than modern humans as to spatial reasoning and thought processes) were able to discern that the human arm forms the exact symmetric/proportionate shape of the animal we know as a "duck". Thus when idioms were framed they utilized this symmetric (nature) relationship between the duck and "one swinging the arm" to frame an appropriate idiom. As if saying ( idiomatically implying) "Here comes a duck" ( here comes an arm swinging at you") …duck! Note: Where the duck is found represented on the arm is found anatomical terms for parts of these muscles . Prediction: These muscles corospond to certain parts of the anatomy of the duck. Thus: The names of the anatomic terms for the muscles will phonetically corospond to the names of the duck anatomy. Or: Phonetics( sound) will tell us with "absolute certainty" that muscle terms will indicate exactly that a duck will be found on these combined portions of the human anatomy arm "Sound" absurd………? Perhaps when we experiment with these predictions( as we will categorically through the span of flora and fauna) we will see that the absurd will conform to the unambiguous. Information patterning. I will give you time to check these things out for yourself before I post these demonstratives. Hint: rotate the image in picture 1.… 270 degree. Invert colors. You will see that this is a human arm. The next picture( next post) will demonstrate this "information association"…. more vividly.

INFORMATION PATTERNING

The appeal to "links" is usually reserved for those who parrot the ideas of others. For the most part such is not the disposition of the author of this thread. However: I have posted much to the web. Such referrals will be forth coming( This due to the necessity of chronology of discoveries.) However: This thread represents a "link" of sorts. "link" ..defined:..... "anything serving to connect one part or thing with another; a bond or tie..": "an object, as text or graphics linked through hypertext to a document, another object, etc." "to connect by association,.." Thus: We have all heard of the word "duck". We know this to predominately refer to the family Anatidae. We are also aware of the following idioms: 1)duck and cover...1. . Lit. to bend down and seek protection against an attack.2. Fig. to dodge something, 2)duck down….to stoop down quickly, as if to avoid being hit. How do these idioms relate to science? How do these idioms relate to nature? How do these idioms relate to patternizations found ( and elaborated upon) within language systems as well nature( particularly; geometry)? When a person "swings" his fist( and necessarily the arm) at another person why do we say "duck!" Does this have something to say about patternizations in nature as observed by intelligent humans and providing an appropriate template for language systems? We shall see. Look at the following picture ( picture 1) What is this? And why? PATTERN CONT. ( 2OND PICTURE: "NATURTIFACT")

this picture is a continuation of the discussion of 'patterning' within nature ( physic= science). ( as well: Linguistic anomalies) If one views this picture outside the contextual whole of this thread they will conclude that it has nothing to do with science. The next post with accompanying picture will continue to maintain the context of the discussion

Is this a geometric /linguistic ......"stretch."

Wicipedia: Theory 　 "A theory is underdetermined (also called indeterminacy of data to theory) if, given the available evidence cited to support the theory, there is a rival theory which is inconsistent with it that is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic. Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another. If there is a new theory which is better at explaining and predicting phenomena than an older theory (i.e. it has more explanatory power), we are justified in believing that the newer theory describes reality more correctly. In cases where a new theory uses new terms which do not reduce to terms of an older one, but rather replace them entirely because they are actually a misrepresentation it is called an intertheoretic elimination." 　 Deduction: First it is stated that a theory IS a construct of sentences which consist ENTIRELY of TRUE statements. If this were the case ( if this were a true statement ) then the following would NOT be said of "theory": '..a new theory..replace THEM( old theories… "inferred" to be true) ENTIRELY because they are actually a misrepresentation …" If it is true that a theory is always consistent with "true" statements then it would never misrepresent the 'truth' nor need to be replaced with other "so-called" truths( "theories"). Thus; unless we embrace paradox and inconsistency ( as so-called "science" often does) we would conclude that 'theory" could never appropriately define nor explain …truth. The problem is that "we" have chosen to prop up scientific "inference" while relegating observations that are consistent and genuinely demonstrative. In this realization we would have to acknowledge that ALL theory is "undetermined" ( regardless of witty mathematical terminology as well "scientific" language.). Though the conclusions are stated assertively, the empirical ( verses suggestion of) evidence is not so transparent. As well the fact that 'any scientist in the field is in a position to understand or verify…it' in no way strengthens the perspective theory. We see by these definitions that most scientist have succumbed to hyper asserting mere theories as being more explanatory than they are. Thus being able to understand theory has more to do with support for inference and indetermination than truth or solid data. The so-called ' rational thought" that ever accompanies scientific "logic" is a system of thought that has been devised verses is occurrent or verifiable. With these realities it is "inference" that drives much of scientific thought. One inference stated as "entirely true" until another "entirely true" theory invalidates the former. This is a hopeless plight it would seem. If we honestly reason on the issues of "theory" we should seem to be more inclined to be very cautious in over exaggerating the explanatory power of all theories. When will TRUTH become that which categorically 'intertheoretically eliminates" the constant overemphasis of …theories? Note: If one constructs sentences as well frames mathematically logical statements as to what is occurring with in the universe then I would state that these sentences and mathematical logics would be proportional if not exactly the same if they were to measure these same occurrences as they would be demonstrative if viewed through a mirror. ( translation: Mirror= properties of reflection/refraction as demonstrative relative to sentences, mathematics and universal phenomenon) If one measures the space of a room with furniture in it , light bulbs shinning, people in motion, ..and make all senten-tial and mathematical deductions about the interaction of mass, energy and motion they would conclude "things" about the scenario. If one placed a mirror up that reflected all of this mass- light-motion interaction( of the room) and then subsequently made there math-sentence deductions they would find that their determinatives would be exactly the same. ( with "tweeking" only necessary due to the reversal affects of a reflective medium relative to light photon. I.E.. Spin, rotation, revolution, positioning, direction, etc..) I would "predict"( theorize) that now we must discuss the "scientific" interpretation(s) of the word "truth". Sigh! I will not participate in that discussion. Such would be as profitless as teaching a ferrel child to become a renowned linguist. ( or an infant to become a mathematician). Take your pick.

First of all we must remember that ’light as a wave’ is a 'theory. While I agree that light IS 'propagated' I feel that such propagation is the result of light reflected. The reflective medium is that which propagates the quality and speed of light. This would mean that light itself is not contingent upon any reflective medium but that light is an innate ( verses “an” inherent medium) to the universe. As well light is plethoric throughout the physical universe and is represented in bulk everywhere within the space of the universe. This would also suggest that the 'wave phenomenon’ is an 'emergent' phenomenon and results from the presence of light relative to a reflective medium. Thus light is Not a wave phenomenon; rather the reflective medium is that which results in the quality of light being transformed to a “wave” (transference). The aether would be an appropriate medium toward the propagation ( reflection) of light. As well any solid reflective medium( surface or : ‘thickness’- with refractive properties) would necessarily propagate light photon. It is interesting that the properties of glass are not easily discerned relative to physics study. Perhaps the “wave phenomenon” is either emergent through a fluid(aether) OR solid(plane) reflective medium relative to light. The aether is would be a medium through light is propogated. “ Light shows a surprising number of properties that were difficult to explain relatively to the aether, but which must appear as naturals, a normal result of the properties of aether. The aether must support the phenomena related to light, particles and their interactions.”…1) The first property of light is the fact that it is a transverse wave.” Again while this seems to be the accepted view such view is still theoretical. Light is projected throughout the universe as a non wave. However when its light reaches a surface plane of reflection its light is communicated to surface of the ‘screen.’ It is at this point that invisible light is transferred to a ‘wave’ representation of light photon ( visible image ..of light photon). If this were the case ( light relative to a reflective surface) then the “waves” are NOT an innate quality of light rather the product of light being represented( copied ) upon the surface of the reflective medium ( whether fluid or solid). Any ’longitudinal wave’ produced would occur AFTER light intersects with the reflective plane and NOT before light comes into relativity to the plane.( Light= NON-wave). Thus again Light is not a wave phenomenon. The “wave phenomenon” represents the relativity of light to a reflective plane. Light is communicated to the surface of the plane..this results in wave representations of light. The speed of light would also be equally represented upon the surface of the plane. That is to say if I wave a flashlight across the plane of a mirror at such and such speed then the speed will be exactly represented upon the plane. ( C2 ?). However if the plane has a thickness then the speed of light, though mimicked on the surface will be “slowed down” considerably ( perspectively based upon the properties of the aether) relative to the processes of refraction. Thus light speed is ‘the same’( reflected equivalently) on the surface of a plane of reflection while its speed is relegated within the thickness of the plane. ( refraction= slowing of speed of light). That which makes light detectable is a reflective medium relative to light photon. That which is detectable are “mass’.. “representations” of light photon. Thus light is only detectable so long as it is reflected. “How is it possible for a transverse wave to propagate within the aether?” It is possible because of the reflective properties of the “aether”. As well the “surface wave” that communicates the speed and circumferential extremity of the light photon being communicated to the planes surface…is ALSO communicated through the plane ..through its refractive thickness. This combination of surface reflection and thickness refraction results also in the quality of light photon being communicated to the wave phenomenon( and spectrum) through the thickness of the plane. Indeed! Thus the.. “ aether is a 3-dimensional environment.” However one of the prerequisites of 3-dimentions is to have the accompanying two dimensions. Thus the aether has a surface reflection as well a certain volume of refractive space that it encompasses. The light photon is first communicated to the surface ( surface wave) then its energy and quality also is represented under the surface( spectrum/refraction of light photon) . In the particular the …‘under the surface’… represents the area of space of a SPHERE of light AFTER being represented as a circular RING on the surface. First come a circular ring (surface) is then 3 dimentionalized( spheric-alized) within the thickness( refracted light photon) of the reflective medium. Thus the circumference of any emergent geometries represents the horizon point where light is being reflected on the surface. The area of space that separates one emergent geometry from another represents the refracted light from the surface “The aether is not being driven by the movement of bodies.” Actually the ‘aether’ is a fixed volume within the universe. Or: The solid reflective planes are fixed within the universe. Thus any movement that occurs ( or the semblance of motion) is actually occurring due to the speed of light as progressively traveling within the universe. Thus the only motion that is REAL is the motion and direction of light photon. If motion is implied ( as mass is inferred) this is because the motion of light is reflecting upon and refracting within a reflective plane. When light reflects and refracts its light is transformed into emergent geometries that merely reflect the motion of the light. Thus the aether or solid plane is motionless. Light is always in motion. Mass dwells upon( circumference extremities of any mass as separate from other mass) and within( area of space occupied by any given mass object= light refracted) the reflective aether or solid reflective plane. The “motion” of “mass” is merely the reflected motion of light photon. “Light is a form of transition from the three-dimensional space, the aether, to the space …“ Light is not a ‘form of transition’ , rather light is relative to reflective properties within the physical universe. Thus it is the reflective plane that results in light photon being transferred to the reflective plane producing “mass” images of the quality and nature of light. . ‘As a general rule, the transition from a space with n dimensions to a space with n+1 dimension occurs by curving the n-dimensional space.’ We have forgotten that reflection is that which allows a ‘transition” from one point in space to another point in space. Thus the general rule of the physical universe is expressed due to the relativity of light to reflective planes( or aether). Thus if “mass” emerges as geometric reflections of light this demonstrates the constant and necessary relativity of light to mass. ( energy to mass..E=mc “2) The second property of light is the constancy of velocity of light regardless of velocity of source or the observer.” Indeed the speed of light is always constant . This is a solid verses general law. If the reflective plane or aether is a fixed, zero- speed property of the physical universe then this property and only this property represents no motion or speed. If the emergent mass geometries are representative of reflections of the speed and quality of light then mass travels at the constant speed of light. Thus the slowing of the speed of light occurs due to refraction of light photon. Light travels at C speed outside the plane and upon the surface of the plane or aether. As this light travels through the thickness of the plane or aether the refraction of light gives the illusion of the slowing of the speed of light. Thus the bending of light represents light ray as refracted.. though light speed remains constant. The reflected/refracted “mass” image of light photon travels relative to the speed of the light always. Thus ‘mass’ represents the speed, quality and energy of light being represented ( dualized) upon the surface of reflective planes or aether. These dual forms of light( i.e. “mass” as reflected of light) are merely colored representations ( refracted representations) of light photon. “knowing that the transition from an n-dimensional space to n+1-dimensional space takes place by curving the n-dimensional space.” -n-dimensional space= light photon ( actually multi dimensional) -n+1 dimensional space= light refracted( refractive properties of reflective medium) “Initially, we have an observer and a wave light that are moving in the same direction, they are meeting in the point C.” ( refer to picture 3) “When the observer increases its velocity, normally the light needs to travel a longer distance and longer time until it reaches the observer (AB). The fact that the velocity of light appears to be constant and equal to c, can be explained by the fact that the observer, although it increased its velocity, went on a curve trajectory and not on a straight line,…” The observer is always representative of the emergent “mass” being projected onto a reflective planes’ surface due to light photon being reflected. Light travels until it reaches the plane surface. Its light is then ‘placed’ on the surface resulting in the “mass” copy of itself. After this surface reflected mass( mass horizon) ‘appears’( emerges as an image of light photon) it follows the speed of light due to its being a reflection of the speed of light. However once light photon enters the plane thickness its direction and speed is refracted, this results in the illusion of light speed slowed.( altering of the path and forward progression of light) In reality the speed of light is constant on the plane surface and within the thickness. Both the “horizon” ( “plane surface= extremity circumference of mass…”) as well as the space encompassed by the horizon( space enclosed within mass form) , though refracted..also maintains the speed of light. The illussion of the speed of light slowed is caused due to the bending or curving of the trajectory speed of light( =light refracted.) 　 “The light's velocity …..appears… to be constant and equal to c for the observer…”…(illusion of C2)… “Similar are derived the other known equations from special relativity…“3) The third property is…. the wave-particle duality,..” The “particle” represent light photon. The wave occurs when light photon “particle” is reflected. The wave is contingent upon both light photon ( non-wave) as well light photon relativity to reflective medium( plane or aether). 　 ( Wicipedia): In physics, Compton scattering is a type of scattering that X-rays and gamma rays undergo in matter. The inelastic scattering of photons in matter results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of an X-ray or gamma ray photon, called the Compton effect. Part of the energy of the X/gamma ray is transferred to a scattering electron, which recoils and is ejected from its atom (which becomes ionized), and the rest of the energy is taken by the scattered, "degraded" photon…” (Refer to picture labeled “Compton Scattering”) “When light waves interact with obstacles which comparable size with the wavelength, becomes a standing wave.” “Obstacle”= reflective plane or aether relative to light ray. “Size”= ( volume off aether.. Or.. area of space covered by plane.) “Standing wave”= Standing aether or reflective plane in the path of light photon. That which receives light ray upon its surface . That which causes the particles of light to be represented as a wave pattern upon its surface. “an energy field.” The plane or aether is a reflective substance that is relative to light thus it is a energy RECIEVER verses an innate energy field. “This explanation is supported by the fact that aspect of particle of light manifests strongly for small wave lengths and is virtually nonexistent for large wave lengths.” The closer the light photon is to the plane the stronger its energy is relative to the receiver plane or aether. The further the light photon is away from the plane or aether the weaker the energy is represented on the plane. Or: The energy of the light photon is dispersed freely within space so the closer the light photon is to the plane( less dispersion of light ray into space) the “hotter” and “smaller” the wave representation of particled light will be..as well the stronger the energy of the wave. “4) The fourth property is the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave, consisting of an electric and a magnetic field.” Light is not a wave. Light is electric( energy). Light is not electromagnetic until its energy( electricity) is bonded to ( or attracted to) a reflective plane. Thus the magneticism occurs on the plane due to light photon being attracted to a reflective plane or aether. Light is pure energy and is not magnetized until its energy comes into relativity with the reflective plane or aether.

We are just getting started. __________________________________________ Definition of same…….: “a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect —a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance.. corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable.. Definition of pattern……..: “A pattern, from the French patron, is a type of THEME of recurring events or objects, sometimes referred to as elements of a set of objects. These elements REPEAT in a PREDICTABLE MANNER. It can be a template or MODEL which can be used to generate things or parts of a thing, especially if the things that are created have enough IN COMON for the UNDERLYING PATTERN to be INFERRED, in which case the things are said to exhibit the UNIQUE PATTERN. The most basic patterns, called Tessellations, are based on repetition and periodicity. Fractal patterns also use magnification or scaling giving an effect known as self-similarity or scale invariance. Some plants, like Ferns, even generate a pattern using an affine transformation which combines translation, scaling, rotation and reflection. Pattern matching is the act of checking for the presence of the constituents of a pattern, whereas the detecting for underlying patterns is referred to as pattern recognition. The question of how a pattern emerges is accomplished through the work of the scientific field of pattern formation. "A pattern has an integrity independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists Mathematics Mathematics is commonly described as the "Science of Pattern." Any sequence of numbers that may be modeled by a mathematical function is considered a pattern. In Pattern theory, mathematicians attempt to DESCRIBE THE WORLD in terms of patterns. The goal is to lay out the world in a more computationally friendly manner. Patterns are common in many areas of mathematics. Recurring decimals are one example. These are repeating sequences of digits which repeat infinitely. For example, 1 divided by 81 will result in the answer 0.012345679... the numbers 0-9 (except 8) will repeat forever — 1/81 is a recurring decimal. Fractals are mathematical patterns that are scale invariant. This means that the SHAPE OF THE PATTERN does not depend on how closely you look at it. Self-similarity is FOUND IN FRACTALS. Examples of natural fractals are coast lines and tree shapes, which repeat their shape regardless of what magnification you view at. While the outer appearance of self-similar patterns can be quite complex, the RULES NEEDED TO DESCRIBE OR PRODUCE their formation CAN BE EXTREMELY SIMPLE…” Definition of design: “….noun informally refers to a plan for the construction of an object or a system ….while “to design” (verb) refers to making this plan.[1] ….More formally, design has been defined as follows. (noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints; (verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[3] ….. A designer’s sequence of activities is called a design process.[4] The scientific study of design is called design science.[5] Designing often necessitates considering the aesthetic, functional, economic and sociopolitical dimensions of both the design object and design process. It may involve considerable research, thought, modeling, interactive adjustment, and re-design. Meanwhile, diverse kinds of objects may be designed, … In ‘summary’ ( point of this thread): THEME REPEAT; PREDICTABLE MANNER. MODEL IN COMON; UNDERLYING PATTERN; INFERRED UNIQUE PATTERN; DESCRIBE THE SHAPE OF THE PATTERN; FOUND IN FRACTALS. ….RULES( principles) NEEDED TO DESCRIBE OR PRODUCE CAN BE EXTREMELY SIMPLE…” "A pattern has an integrity independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists.” All references ‘derived from’ articles found in Wicipedia. All ‘artifact pictures and illustrations ‘ framed by extracting patterns from nature. All capitalization the ‘product and intent’ of the author of this thread.

What is the relationship between the “leaf cutter ant” and the Elephant? Is this relationship as well definition described through human anatomy? Note what is said of an ant: “ants can carry items 10 - 50times their own body weight. ants are small but they are very strong for their size. if you were that strong you could lift an automobile. the ants carry or drag heavy loads for food back to their nests. The food may be parts of plants or bits of dead animals. Note what is said of “animals” ability to lift weight. And so the animals that can lift the most weight relative to the total weight of the animal are generally the smallest animals -- ANTS, fleas, etc. But the animals that can move the biggest weights (absolute) strength are generally the largest single animals -- ELEPHANTS, Clydesdale horses, etc. 　 Thus with regard to strength one of the “strongest “ insects is the “ANT.” The strongest animal is the Elephant. However: Does human anatomy reveal these realities with regard to the animal kingdom. We shall see. Another relationship. Ants= Matriarchal society Elephants= Matriarchal society. Another relationship. Ants= Formicidae. This family name sounds familiar to the English word “formidable”: “extremely difficult to defeat, overcome, manage, . Elephants as well are “formidable.” Do phonetics associate the elephant with the ant? Notice the word : ELEPHANT The last 3 letters say: “ANT” As well phonetics goes even farther in defining a relationship between the elephant and ant. Consider the first 5 letters in the word “elephant”: ELEPH This would read phonetically “a leaf”. Thus it would seem that the word elephant is revealing an association between the “leaf cutter ant” and the “elephant.” Why does phonetics relate the elephant with the leaf cutter ant? Besides the associations alluded to above, phonetics reveals something very phenomenal as related to the human anatomy. Thus: The human anatomy links or associates the elephant with the ant. How so? Pay close attention to the pictures of the human anatomy revealed in the following pictures. Picture 1 shows the muscles being considered. Picture 2 represents this muscular image ..“inverted” as to color. You will immediately see the representation ( anatomic symbol) of an ELEPHANT. However how does the “ANT” figure into these anatomic relevancies? Consider picture 3. This is a picture of a “leaf cutting ant”. Now consider picture 4. This is a side view of an elephant. I have a question for you? Look at picture 5. What is this? Number 5 is a picture of a magnified ant. Number 6 is a magnified ant head with an elephants eye inserted where the eye falls relative to the ants’ head.( number 7) Number 8 represents the tusk and trunk of the elephant attached to the ant. The associations are spatially and anatomically demonstrative. Recall that within the word “elephant” is found the word “ant” as well: “leaf ant .” You will realize with the following images..the: “HOW/WHAT/WHY”.the ant is related to the elephant and BOTH are associated to one another relative to the human anatomy. Human anatomy as possessing the ability to provide a template language system that stores and retains vast amount of information. Information= Energy! Consider that the ant ( not unlike a paperclip) stores vast amounts of energy ( information). This would explain the “energy feats” of the ant. Or: Even though the ant is tiny its abilities to utilize and expend energy seems to be inexhaustible. Now imagine that the energy inside this ant were suddenly magnified ( expanded…exploded forth). This magnification of the ant would result in one realizing the “mammoth” potential of energy . Analogy. An elephant represents the same amount of energy stored in the ant! The anatomy of the human body indicates this spatial/anatomical/linguistic/phonetic/ physics association between the elephant and the ant. Note- You will also see relative to the imagery that the ants “pinchers” (mandibles) fall exactly where the elephants tusks fall. As it is : Ants use their mandibles (appendage tusks) to: “grasp, crush, or cut food…or to defend against predators or rivals.” What does an elephant use its’ tusks for. (incisors)…”Social displays of dominance, particularly among males, is common, as is their use in defense against attackers. Elephants use them as digging and boring tools. What do humans use their arms shoulders and chest for. The same things. Idioms: “puff out the chest” (confidence of strength, ..bucking up…) “flex the muscles” (intimidation “ swinging his arms( swinging his trunks …tusks) Etc… Phonetics and anatomy is continuing to reveal things about LANGUAGE! 　 What are we learning by considering the relationship between anatomy and language? (words as defining flora-fauna) (anatomic pictures as defining language) We are coming to understand principles of Physics. Language stores vast amounts of “encoded information.” Language represents the conversion of light and sound energy(information) to “mass characters/pictographs”. Characters and pictographs representing “mass” representations of information ( energy) Physics principle ( Wicipedia: Energy Transformation) In physics, the term energy describes the capacity to produce changes within a system, without regard to limitations in transformation imposed by entropy. Changes in total energy of systems can only be accomplished by adding or subtracting energy from them, as energy is a quantity which is conserved, according to the first law of thermodynamics. According to special relativity, changes in the energy of systems will also coincide with changes in the system's mass, and the total amount of mass of a system is a measure of its energy. Translation with regard to language systems. Language = “the ability for information innate to light and sound to be transformed to character and pictograph. The entropic choices of humans when utilizing this information determines the “limitations in transformation.” When one language is transliterated ( transformed to) another language the energy of the progenitor language is strengthened or relegated due to the transliterate additions or subtractions of phonetic information. Or the phonetic energy of the former language is “conserved” ( usually not typical of language evolution). The changes in the original language system will coincide with the changes in the systems mass. Thus if the proceeding language has more phonetic potential than the former language the energy of the system will expand. The total amount of “letters or pictures”( symbols) relative to any language system will determine the measure of its energy( information) 　

Here is another relative view of how consistent the symmetry of an elephant is with the symmetry of the upper torso and "pendulum"( trunk) arm of the human form. As is evidenced the symmetry of the elephant and trunk is consistent with this part of the human body NO MATTER the angle. Note: In order to realize the 'perspective relative comparisons" between the symmetry of the elephant and the symmetry and proportion of the human body…from any angle…merely represent the elephant and the human form at the exact angle (same) and the relationships as to information and symmetric affinities will demonstrate themselves. It is interesting that relative to the accompanying picture( picture 3 relative to this post) ( as well pictures formerly posted) that the elephant is represented on this part of the human body. It is equally relevant that the elephant trunk ( that swings) is always found symmetrically approximated( simulated) relative to the human arm that equally swings and as an 'extremity' acts as a pendulous… as does the elephant trunk The relationships are becoming more clear and demonstrate that there are solidified principles representing information as communicated through nature. Nature relationships that link one part information( the elephant with trunk) to another part information( the human chest, shoulder and arm). These information "bits" represent information as consistent whether viewed in a narrowed sense or an expanded sense. In other words a small "pixel" of information communicated holographic ally ( reflectively …more apropos) in a small portion of the screen ( reflective plane..or ; Aether) can also be seen if one expands their view to scrutinize a larger area of a screen. For instance: If one took a picture of the human chest shoulder an arm ( a fragment of information found upon the human anatomy) this would represent a small 'volume' of information found on the reflective screen. This information would represent a narrowed abbreviation of the principle of design as witnessed in all of nature. If one then took this picture and magnified it to the size of half an elephants face as well inverted the colors( of the human anatomy parts) They would discover that a small volume( circumferential area) of the human body would actually, completely symmetrically represent the exact symmetry of the elephants form. Thus we see how a small area found on the human body represents a "pixel" of information that if expanded could also in principle appropriate other larger parts of information found in nature( Nature= information communicated to a reflective medium by/from light and energy) Thus the following pictures show how parts of the human body ( as innately information 'carriers') actually DO appropriately define other aspects of 'nature'..nature as representing either micro or macro aspects of the whole volume of information being communicated to the 'screen'. Where light and energy is being reflected to screens producing "dual forms" of itself. If picture 1 represents a human arm and if the area that represents this geometric figure(arm) were part of a screen that transmits information then the human arm would represent a "….pixel, or pel[1], (picture element[2])… a single point in a raster image, or the smallest addressable screen element in a display device; it is the smallest unit of picture that can be represented or controlled. Each pixel has its own address. The address of a pixel corresponds to its coordinates. Pixels are normally arranged in a two-dimensional grid, and are often represented using dots or squares. Each pixel is a sample of an original image; more samples typically provide more accurate representations of the original. The intensity of each pixel is variable. In color image systems, a color is typically represented by three or four component intensities such as red, green, and blue, or cyan, magenta, yellow, and black…" ( "reference": Wicipedia: Pixel) Thus the first picture posted would represent a small area of the universal screen ( or terrestrial..nature screen). The human arm would represent an "element picture" located at a 'single point" within the screen. The human arm would be represented as a result of 'element light" as communicated to the screen resulting in an image( arm). Thus this would mean that there is a reflective medium( "display devise"- displaying images of light photon and energy) that represents a 'screen" that receives light and energy and transfers it to dual images( "mass "= images of light). The human arm would be located at a particular point within the screen and would represent a '2-dimensional' representation of light. The screen ( reflective plane) would be a universal grid( pixilization) that receives light and information upon its surface and within its refractive thickness. The human arm would be but a "sample" of an original image. The original image would be the quality and attribute that exists outside the plane ..that which is LIGHT and energy. The reflected image would be the human arm. The 'pixel arm' would represent the whole information communicated to the screen as characterized or dwelling within each pixel point within the screen. This would mean that every pixel within the universal screen represents the entire information of the screen as contracted to infinitesimal points along the screen. As each pixel ( bearing information) is gradually magnified the information expands proportional to the magnification. This results in an expanded understanding of the relationships discovered within all nature..that which links all pixels within the screen to the entire image communicated to the screen) Thus: If the human arm were expanded to the size of an elephants face then the "pixel arm" would now be represented as half an elephants face. Or the symmetry and proportion ( as well idiomatic information ) of the human arm follows consistent principles of design that if considered from an expanded relativity( or from perspective angles) would also appropriate the elephants face. As well, the information stored in the human arm pixel if magnified would be expanded upon by the information that is stored within the elephant pixel...as necessarily and consistently also explaining relevant information and symmetric design related to the human arm( demagnifiecation of image and information..to the size of the human arm). Now: What would occur if we contracted the elephants face( magnified human arm..magnified information stored relative to the human arm) to the size of an ant? The next post will demonstrate what the information innate to the 'pixel arm' and 'pixel elephant' would demonstrate if "they" were demagnified to cover the area( space) occupied by an ant. Will the information remain the same and will the explanations become even more expansive? The last 2 pictures ( "what is this"? and "lets magnify our relative view") will preface the next post. Look closely.

Correct! That which defines "weight" is a "relationship" ( relativity) verses any true "mass." That is : Weight represents the pulling of light to its reflection resulting in a "force of attraction" between one side of a string( light cone) and the other. The force between light and THAT light reflected. A tug of war ( entropic) between light (E) and light reflected (m.. of E). Thus: 'Weight or mass' is not a real phenomenon it is merely representative of a relationship or relativity between two energy forms. Form A= True light energy. Form B(of A)= true light energy reflected to lower geometric form-light energy. That which defines or results in the relativity of E to m= RP RP= reflective plane( or aether) relative to Light.(E) What scientific discussions definitively prove that mass has weight? "Weight is the force in relation with mass and gravity"……..rather: Force is the weight…………..in RELATION WITH mass and gravity. E… is demonstrative. Gravity as a "force" is equally evidenced. ( Though the definitions of gravity are indecisive and unclear) However ….mass… is a "theoretical construct" ( ideas , notions) devised by human thinkers to try to differentiate the invisible energies ( E-perspective) relative to visible energies( "geometries " perceived by the eye.) Both mass ( as having weight independent of being acted upon by a force) and gravity ( "… is a force pulling together all matter..") ….are theories. That is that gravity has been concluded to be a force that is distinguishable from light or that which functions relative to light and "mass." However gravity is NOT a force that exists if light is NOT relative to RP. Gravity is the product of the attraction of light to a reflective plane ( or aether). In other words and relative to the picture in the preceding post ..gravity represents: Light ray as attached to a reflective plane therefore resulting in its light-energy and quality being 'dualized" on the reflective surface of the plane. Thus the two red lines( rays) coming from the yellow circle to the left represent the' diameter' of light ray from origin ( vector A). That light ray travels through space and so long as it is NOT relative to a reflective medium its light is free flowing ( open) and not gravitized. When the light ray from vector A reaches the reflective medium its light is implanted on the surface of the plane causing the force of attraction to "emerge" between vector A( light) and vector B( light reflected onto a plane.). This connects one point in space to another and results in the force of attraction existing between the two points. String? Rather light cone! Or: Once the "one end"( "vector A") "connects" to the "other end" ( " vector B") ( the reflective plane or aether) ..Then this becomes a closed system of light. Or: Vector A is communicated to the medium(RP) and relative to such attraction to its reflection a "light string/cone" forms. This light string/cone is that which distinguishes one "mass representation of light" from other mass "objects." Or one light string( vector A to vector B) as geometrically and spatially separate from another light string ( two vectors attracted due to reflection…that exists relative to another object equally represented as two light ( E) vectors attached due to the principles of reflection relative to light photon.