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.

Mass= weight? Wicipedia: Mass verses weight: “In everyday usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its weight though these are in fact different concepts and quantities.” I suppose we should say : “mass= weight”…though these are in fact different concepts and quantities. (=…?) Mass has to be clearly defined before we can say it is no longer a… “concept. “ Has mass been clearly defined? Other than ..theory? If mass = weight and so long as a ‘concept’ is a ‘ general notion’ and a “a theoretical construct within some theory’ then this will mean that weight also ’equals’..a notion or idea…theoretical. ‘Mass corresponds to the general, everyday notion of how "heavy" something is. However, mass is actually an inertial property;…” Thus the heaviness of an object ( or the perception of weight relative to human notion) is a loose terminology that equates a “force” to something(“m”) relative to that force… as having mass. Thus it would seem once again that : FORCE = weight..rather than “mass”= weight. Side point ..naturally: What does “force”…”weigh?” If mass or weight is contingent upon force then that which weighs something ( has substantial weight or heaviness) is not the “notion of mass” rather the reality of a force relative to an “object” Again. What resulted in physics ascribing to that which is seen as having mass while relegating what I feel is the true reality that the “weight” of things actually dwells in the forces we cannot see? Thus there is an unseen “mass” that is so heavy it weighs everything down. ( fluid aether? Solid reflective plane?) . This “mass” is so ‘heavy’ that its heaviness( its force) causes visible energy ( energies….E=mc2 ) to be acted upon in such a way that it APPEARS to be weighed down. ( Appears to have weight=mass) Thus that which is massless( mass… of energy) is …being so…. weighed down due to its relativity to that which is weighty( E). We have so distorted these demonstratives and so obscured them with misconstrued notions of what “MASS IS” …that we fail to realize that the true mass of the universe exists in the invisible forces relative to the visible representations of energy( “mass reflections of E).These forces do not equal weight or mass( Light is weightless and mass less). These forces however DO necessarily ACT relative to there reflections. Or: The “pull of gravity ( weight …”mass”) = the attraction between light and THAT light reflected. Thus if vector A( light and energy) is communicated to vector B ( reflective plane relative to light and energy) then its light is attached to the reflective plane. Thus if vector A moves away from the reflective plane the force acting upon IT’S reflection will be proportional to the distance IT is from ITS reflection. If Vector A moves closer to ITS reflection ( its reflection= ( vector B) = geometric representation of vector A) the force of attraction between it( light) and its reflection( mass geometric representation..image) will be increased. If Vector A is NOT relative to the reflective plane then ITS force is NOT acting upon the plane( nor the mass images of itself that is NOT produced/reproduced on the plane) . If its force is NOT relative to a reflective plane then “mass” ( reflected image verses any real weight or heaviness) does not exist. Or: If light and energy is NOT reflected there can be no mass representation of itself on the plane. No “mass”. Or: E=mc2 only if E is relative to RP. Where E= energy( light) Where m= energy( light)….. Reflected. Where C2= C1( real light quality and speed) x C2 ( C1..reflected) Where RP= Reflective plane ( relative to the motion, spin, revolution, quality, attribute and YES! Speed of light)

Point: “In most physics textbooks, weight is the name given to the force on an object due to gravity.” ( Wicipedia: Weight) Definition of force: ( Wicipedia: Force) “In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. “ Sigh! In the realm of orthodox physics “we” have clumsily equated mass to a ‘force” and an “influence.” “We” have equally equated a change in direction as resulting in mass. “We” have ascribed to an object as being a mass relative to the “operation” of weighing it. “We” then compound the “mass imputations” to objects by saying that “mass” is “an intrinsic property of matter.” Thus “we” theorize that an invisible force( light and energy) is not a mass but it becomes a mass when “we” weigh it. Thus we should say if we weigh something it is a mass if “we” don’t weigh it is a…….?? A “property” is now labeled a mass when in reality a property is merely: “ an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing.” ( verses the “weight of a thing”) And yet “we” acknowledge in our determinations as to what a mass is that what is essential or distinctive with regards to weight is merely the fact that “we” are weighing it. Too philosophical for some! However we KNOW that the only real association to “mass object” as having a theoretical “weight” is a force relative to it. This would seem to be a mental flipping of the reality. This seems to suggest that it is the force that has real weight and not the object being acted upon. Or weighed. . “ whereas weight is a force. “ Weight is NOT a mass( nor is mass epitomized as weight) it is an invisible, non- tangible force that acts relative to “visible” …things. Weight is an invisible “ influence “ on visible things. Weight is an “operation” relative to visible things. Thus if “weight” is all of these things then “weight” is that which is separate from the objects it is relative to and acting upon. When did “we” go so far as to compare qualities and attributes of invisible force(s) to “mass? Can anyone clearly define how “theory” of “weight” somehow resulted in equating massless energy( properties, operations, forces) to objects “with mass?“ I agree that invisible forces have properties, as well that these forces operate relative to visible objects( objects visible to the eye). However how do these forces acting upon things ….somehow impute mass to the things they operate on? ( or are “we” being typically and it would seem hopelessly…. Inferential…as to what we see relative to what we do not see?) Are we saying that if energy operates on something it endows the “something” with weight? If so then if energy does NOT operate on something does this mean that the “something” has no mass? If that which is NOT acted upon has no mass then this would seem to state that if force is not relative to the “something” it does not exist in a form that we can see. Or: No mass would exist unless a force is relative to it. If mass does not exist without the presence of force( or the operation thereof) does this mean that force does not exist without the presence of ..”mass?” What came first the mass or the force? The mass cannot exist without the force. On the other hand: It seems that “force” exists even though no mass is evidenced. In other words mass is precluded without force. To the contrary..the presence of force is found even where no mass exists. However: If light and energy ( massless) as a ‘force or operation’ were to operate or exert force on a reflective plane then its light and energy relative to the reflective plane would exert a force on its reflection proportional to its distance from the reflective plane. If light photon is massless force or operation and if its light and energy were communicated to a reflective plane then the force that would bind its point in space to the reflective plane ( point in space) would be contingent both on the “volume” of energy being communicated to the plane ( reflected off of the plane) as well the distance it is from its reflection. Thus if the object being reflected were referred to as ..”m”…and if “m” were a reflection of “E” then at any time the distance between E( force reflected) to “m” would determine the force of “E” upon “m”. If E were a photon and if E was 1 light year from a reflective plane its diameter REFLECTION on the surface of the plane would be such and such. If E were 10 light years from the reflective plane then the “m-diameter REFLECTION of E” would be larger than if E was closer to the reflective plane. Illustration: If E light were the diameter of a flashlight( 3 inches) and if the light ray of E were parallel to a plane of reflection; then its light would be communicated to the reflective plane. If E light were 1 ft from the reflective plane its “image representation upon the surface of the mirror”( m reflection of E)( m-diameter circle of E) would be lets say 4 ½ inches in diameter. If E moved away from the mirror to 10 ft then the “m-reflection of E” would expand to now be represented as a light circle with a diameter of lets say 40+ inches. If a relative observer could not see the light of the flashlight( light photon) but could see the representation ( reflected image ) of E upon the reflective screen, then “they” would conclude that there is: ….. a “mass” with the diameter of 4 ½ inches that expanded to the diameter of 40+ inches in diameter. ( expansion of the universe would = reflection of light and energy). Thus it is the distance E is from a reflective plane( plane relative to light photon) that determines the diametric ( circumferential expansion or contraction) measurement of the “mass” reflection of E. If the light of E closes the distance from where it is in space relative to the reflective plane then one would observe a “mass” contraction. This distance narrowed of E distance from RP( reflective plane) would represent a heightened potentiality of conversion of “m” to E. If E direction relative to the reflective plane moved away from or outside of the plane of reflection this would appear to a an observer to be a “mass” disappearing. If then the light moved back into the plane of reflection this would seem to a relative observer that a “mass” object has suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Furthermore: If a reflective plane were 2 light years away from the forward motion of light photon( light rays) then after the light reached the plane it would be represented upon the plane. If a relative observer were able to see the E light ( origin of light) as well as the reflected image of light ( M of E) at the same time and….. mathematically measure the direction, speed, spin and motion of the two …they would conclude that light speed is traveling times light spedd( C2) and “seeming to be” ….simultaneously existing at two places at the same time. Thus C2 would in reality mean that light is separated from a reflective plane by any amount of light years but once its light is communicated to the reflective surface its light regardless of the constant speed of light( 186,000 constant!) will be maintained at two places simultaneously. This despite E being perhaps many millions of light years away from its reflected image. One thing this would seem to suggest is: The farther the “real light “ is from the “virtual reflected light “ the larger the “mass” will appear to the human eye. Or illustratively: The light photon that is reflected to the area of space occupied by the sun would be farther away than the area of space occupied by the earth reflection of light photon. A black hole would be an area of space that will not or does not reflect light photon! So on and so forth. Lunacy? Unified “theory”…? Holographic scenario? Light reflected scenario? Perhaps we need to experiment with these postulates. It is the purpose of this thread to demonstrate not that this is “possible” rather to provide experimental realities existing all around us to show that this is occurring. The discussion will be a broad one. As “unification” should afford one the ability to see and realize things that when applied could explain….everything. ( Theory of everything= energy(E) relative to THAT energy reflected(m..of E) E=m(RP…C2)……………..? can "word - salad" trump....."equation salad"..? Perhaps the two-"slit" ("salad") experiment if understood could answer this question.

Nature is amazing! Thus the "physics" behind it all is equally profoundly amazing. If Verlindes' proposals represent "unification"( "unified theory") Then it would seem appropriate that relative to such proposals( if proven) the reconciliations would encompass every universal phenomenon. Including but not limited to: "images and the sound of words on paper…" Language is certainly relevant not just to the sound qualities of the universe but as well how those sounds are heard and subsequently interpreted by living breathing entities. As paper comes from trees and as the rings ( "lines") of a tree record time and event ( "tell stories about the past') So to the lines on paper utilized by humans indeed do as well transmit information as well the recording of past information. As do the lines( "rings") On a disk..etc.. We are searching for unification. A refinement of understanding related to nature and physic. If such were discovered perhaps every action, reaction, functioning, origin as well as nature and evolution of all things expressed in creation would be better comprehended or explained. ( including language). Verlainde seems to be a very educated person. As well he seems to see much value in the thinking process ( even if it appears to be abstract to the point of absurd…"to others."). He obviously possesses not only a seasoned predisposition toward physics knowledge but as well a keen ability to observe and experiment. Thus I would say that the way to understand Verlinde would have much to do with applying what is known in the realm of physics along with a deep contemplative approach toward observation as well. Balance verses the adoption of extreme ideas that ever contradict other ideas equally propogated) Verlinde grasps much( in my opinion). However what one may grasp themselves may be harder to express to others. This may have more to do with others verses what he sees or understands himself. I believe there is much relevance to his proposals. I also have devoted many years to the study of nature and physic and many of the things he suggests ring distinctly with my discoveries. Much of which will be demonstrated and defined relative to this thread. I believe that what I am illustrating as well postulating ( more to follow as a means of elaborations) certainly has relevance to actual physical realities ( as necessarily 'being' or at least indicative of ; a holographic scenario as unfolding relative to the functionalities and methodologies of the "physical" universe). I believe just as strongly that approaching physics from the standpoints of a "holographic scenario'( in principle and substance) will encourage more understanding into the relationship between 'unseen' energy and "visible" mass. I feel I am beginning to demonstrate the "physical realities" that exist relative to energy and light ( as well sound). I will continue to express these demonstratives from many different angles forthcoming. ( viewing nature from many different perspectives though seeing that the principles are consistent) It would be easy to demonstrate that some things 'resemble' other things. That type of association is surely open to interpretation due to the myriad of ways that things can be associated. However if one discovered a consistent principle of association and then found that the application of the principle would categorically demonstrate a unique never before seen affinity between all things ..such would be more profound than just comparing apples to oranges, shapes, colors, or attributes. In other words ( as will be categorically demonstrated relative to this thread) How( and why) 'in the world' ('in nature') does the shoulder and triceps form the exact symmetry of a rabbit. Why does a flower that is budding look exactly like a bird with its mouth open ( Analogously: The flower opening up( its mouth) to receive light so as to dine on the energy of light and related conversion of energy to food) (analogous comparison: Chick opening its mouth to receive energy in the form of food from its mother). We are discussing things ( and seeing associations) that are deeper in flavor and meaning than any language could appropriate. Not even the language of math can explain these things or express the implications sufficiently. We are looking for patterns in symmetry, language or mathematics( heck we are looking everywhere to perceive these solid principles of information expression). Indeed! We are looking for the origin of information as well how that information is communicated to other places in space and time. Indeed! The brain interprets images. One of the main things that result in these interpretive processes is closely linked to the human experience of how the human eye receives and processes light( Light=information) As well how the human ear hears and interprets sound. Thus the images that the mind interprets have their origin it would seem exterior to the human form ( light photon). This would seem to suggest that the eye is transliterating the information and imagery innate to light and that that light information and imagery follows a unique and profound pattern. Thus when the patterns of light ( unseen) are heard and seen by the human eye they are subsequently and mentally framed into decisive and consistent geometries. Thus the "emergent geometries" we view as mass are really merely the human eye and ear followed by the brains interpretation extracting from light photon innate pictures and sounds then relaying them to corresponding geometries. If this is so "mass" is no more than the product of the human senses transliterating massless light into equally massless representations of light. Mass pictures= light pictures. Sound as transliterated to "mass" characters = the sound of massless light transliterated to alphabetic chordes; notes. Or are we to assume that if the brain "interprets shapes and images" that all of a sudden the massless light( that it is translating to images) is converted to "mass"( weight) simply because the brain has framed light rays into qualitative "shapes and images.?" I never ascribe to "statistics of coincidence." However others have the right to embrace this ever-resorting-to argumentum. "none of these need"…NOT…. To have a relation to a holographic scenario. However for purposes of clarification I do not fully ascribe to a "holographic scenario."..rather, I ascribe to the principles of light and sound as REFLECTED as the real phenomenon as relevant to the way the universe is functioning. That is to say energy relative to THAT energy reflected. Thus in this "reflection scenario" that which is pure energy is that which is innate to space and need not be reflected in order to be extant in every space of the physical universe. That which the human intellect formulates into 'mass theory' is that which is derived from the human eye and ear relative to this energy found within ever micro inch of the physical universe. Or: Mass= reflected geometric representations of the quality, attribute and energy of light. This would mean that the "photon" is not the only quality of light nor does the photon represent the epitome of light. Rather Light and the energy ( food…food for thought(images sounds)) from light has an infinite amount of quality… a myriad times a myriad of attribute. I know the feeling "md6..." when you say you have 'resigned' to estimating yourself to be a crack pot. However I will step out on a limb and say that we all at times form opinions of ourselves relative to the views of others. If we allow this to drive us we may " all to often" second guess what our observations and experiments produce leading us to strongly see things the way we do. I have been called a crackpot a few times. But I am a firm proponent of " coloration by association." What do I mean by this? I have always been called this by those who call themselves the "cream of the crop" in their orthodoxy and incurable predispositions. Indeed! The elite moderators and those peer reviewed ones that succumb to the farce(opine) that if a lot of people support us we must be right. In my personal experience these are the ones who frequently use such condescending terms as "crackpot" toward others. I have resigned myself to see that this is so consistently confined to these ones that it would be appropriate to say with scientific surety ( experiment) the following: I am only a crackpot relative to these ones! Its all a matter of relativity. Isn't that what "they" say. I have posted in many forums and been received much. As I visit these forums I can read the posts and predict who will be the one to "cry crackpot." I will add: Would the following definitions define Albert Einstein at any time in his life? "An eccentric person, especially one with bizarre ideas. adj. Foolish; harebrained……..an eccentric person; crank." At first glance one may argue ..NO! If one did so they may not be familiar enough with ol Albert's life and the people ( and comments) he was relative to. As well one may have to consider what the word "eccentric means. As follows: ( Reference: Myriam and Webster) Eccentric: "a : deviating from an established or usual pattern or style <eccentric products> b : deviating from conventional or accepted usage or conduct especially in odd or whimsical ways …a : deviating from a circular path; especially : elliptical 1 <an eccentric orbit> b : located elsewhere than at the geometrical center; also : having the axis or support so located Synonyms: Synonyms: bizarre, bizarro, cranky, crazy, curious, odd, erratic, far-out, funky, funny, kinky, kooky (also kookie), offbeat, off-kilter, off-the-wall, outlandish, out-of-the-way, outré, peculiar, quaint, queer, queerish, quirky, remarkable, rum [chiefly British], screwy, spaced-out, strange, wacky (also whacky), way-out, weird, weirdo, wild Related Words: aberrant, abnormal, addlepated, flaky; extraordinary, fantastic (also fantastical), freak, freakish, freaky, phantasmagoric (or phantasmagorical), phenomenal; atypical, rare, singular, uncommon, uncustomary, unique, unusual, unwonted; conspicuous, notable, noticeable, outstanding, prominent, salient, striking; atrocious, outrageous, shocking; crotchety, idiosyncratic, nonconformist, nonmainstream, out-there, unconventional, unorthodox; baffling, bewildering, confounding, mystifying, perplexing, puzzling Near Antonyms: average, commonplace, everyday, garden, normal, ordinary, prosaic, routine, run-of-the-mill, standard, typical, unexceptional, unremarkable, usual, workaday; conformist, conservative, conventional; expected, familiar, knee-jerk, predictable; common, customary, frequent, habitual, regular, wonted Thus I believe the point is now clearer in our mind as to the "compliment" of being called a "crackpot. We are "unique, curious, peculiar, remarkable, strange, abnormal, extraordinary, phenomenal, rare, singular, uncommon, etc…As NATURE (Physic) is all of these things as well. It is no wander when one steps outside the "self devised orthodox constraints" and really starts to observe and experiment with nature that "WE" arrive at our postulates. Many times unique and strange or even abstract. But wrong? Prove otherwise. Quid pro quo. I would conclude by saying: Please ..let's all 'familiarly attempt' .."to put complex( excentric nature) ideas ( innate to information derived from light and sound) into simpler understood ones, which leads to analogies ( and principles of nature) that may seem silly at first but can lead to better understanding after a lot of analysis." I am prepared to present proof of the "reflective scenario"…categorically. I am equally prepared to bare the brunt of the typically condescending ones ( the "they" in "they" relative to the "we " in "we"). Perhaps with this thread I will demonstrate many … "useful conclusions."

Save this: Wicipedia: Mass (save the attempts at relegating this as an appropriate reference) “mass (from Ancient Greek: μᾶζα) commonly refers to any of three properties of matter, which have been shown experimentally to be equivalent: inertial mass, active gravitational mass, and passive gravitational mass. Are we to say that ‘inertia, gravity(active/passive) …have mass? “mass" is often used interchangeably with weight,…” Are we equally as bold in asserting that “weight” ( verses the object being ‘weighed’) has mass? Or does “pull” have mass? ( ‘pull of gravity’)? Does ‘acceleration’ ( verses the weight of something when accelerated) ..have mass? Does ‘energy’ have …’mass’( E=mc2?) ?…………….Does light have mass? Answers.com: The short answer is "no",…” “but” “it is (always) qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes"..” Thus light has no mass ( photon has no mass) . If this reality is qualified (rhetoric) it is a result of ‘interpretations and justifications’…of theory verses what is established. If /when therefore light photon( massless) has been reflected onto a surface( plane, aether) the reflected light image( ‘ virtual mass/of energy’); representations of light photon ..is/are equally ‘qualitatively and justifiably’ ..massless. Zero mass= ‘mass’ (reflected geometric representations of light photon) Zero energy= no mass ( light photon UNreflected) Thus E= mc so long as light photon is reflected mc=E so long as light photon is reflected E=E (Light) mc= (light reflected) Light exists everywhere and is not contingent upon the existence or not of “mass” ‘mass’ exists only relative to light….Reflected.

I do not ‘plead a case.’ Rather the moderator is being…. typically…. condescending. Perhaps the moderator has the answer to your inquiry. His answer no doubt would be proportional to his acceptance of his answer. I suppose we should not be discussing any neutron reflector, rather: Neutron “moderator.” It seems apparent that there is a “medium” that insists on “reducing the speed” of “faster” and perhaps more refined “neurons.”( theoretical physicists.) So long as those more refined in their observational insights are relative to ( relativity- is that appropriate to this forum..?) so called moderation(s) it will always be a scenario of …“thereby turning” the ideas and postulates of others as to relegate them. Derail? Sigh! In order for something to be derailed it must be on track. Is physics “on track?” If so then may I reiterate( as to my attempt at answering the original question)…”correct me if I am wrong.” Namely: A reflected “image” has no ….”mass.” In response to ajb: Yes it is always risky and off topic to make any proposals that do not conform to or parrot the complacent “models” that orthodox physicists ascribe to. However: Please feel free to determine the “mass“ of an image that has been reflected. As well to come up with a mathematical construct that calculates the “mass” of reflected light. If you do so then you will discover that the “principle” that IS reflection precludes any supposed “mass.” As well these principles ( there are many to be derived) demonstrates that the motion of of all things perceived as having mass is dictated by the motion and speed of light after that speed and motion is reflected to “virtual mass“ representations. These things can be tested and are demonstratively occurant as well as recurrent alll throughout nature ( physics). . I will not post in this forum from this point forward. To risky. That being promised the moderator can consistently say and feel the following: Moooooooowahahahahahah!.

I suppose it would be appropriate to respond to the moderator(s) first. I respect your reminder. I must add: The forum that I posted in was demonstratively a sub-forum of ..physics.. called "Modern and Theoretical Physics." As it seems for now; whatever is considered kosher or orthodox physics seems to trump any other scientific or observational postulates or statements. However that aside may I remind the moderator of the definition of the word "speculation" (speculative). Dictionary.com "pertaining to, of the nature of, or characterized by speculation, contemplation, conjecture, or abstract reasoning:… theoretical, rather than practical: involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; also : theoretical rather than demonstrable ." It is interesting that the word "speculative" has within its definition the word "theoretical." Why would this be appropriate? Word "Theory"…defined: Dictionary.com "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. …the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice…contemplation or speculation.7. guess or conjecture. …Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified( grain of salt) or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth…:" I believe this indicates strongly the relationship between the word "speculation" and the word "theory" ( as in the forum name "…Theoretical Physics.") Thus my statements relative to the affinity shared between the two terms would seem to be apropos to this room. ( Note: Much of "physics" ( though we wish it weren't the case) is theoretical. Verifiably .) But I will not argue this with anyone. However with regard to the obvious affinity between the definitions of the two words in question….correct me if I am wrong. With regard to Mississippichems' no doubt respectful retort: I appreciate your allusion to a "Neutron reflector." However you failed to understand my meaning. I did NOT refer to "reflectors" as "massless." Rather I said :…" that are reflected." Thus I do not refer to those things that "can reflect" ( material objects that can be reflected or do reflect) rather THE reflection itself ( as separate from the thing being reflected) as "produced/reproduced" when those reflectors are reflected. That is to say: If I place the following material objects : .."graphite, beryllium, lead, steel, tungsten carbide,.."(reflectORS) in front of a mirror their "image reflections" in the mirror have no "mass". While they do reflect light photon, if after so reflecting light they themselves are reflected onto a reflective plane their "reflection"( verses their real entity reflector-self) into the plane would be "massless". Thus an "image" verses a real massless object. An "image or : "representation of a thing" as being ...massless. Thus I do not refer to that which reflects light as massless rather the principle ( phenomenon) of REFLECTION as representing "massless representations" of either mass or energy. I stated that an "image" ( picture , copy, representation of a thing as reflected) ..is "massless." Thus my "real self" would be a "material" object ( a reflector of light). However my "image" in a mirror( image= reflection verses "a" reflector) would be merely an illusionary geometric form of a material object and thus would quite literally be .."massless." Thus we could go so far as to refer to my reflected image as a "virtual mass" though not a mass at all. Reiteration: To a relative observer who was looking at my reflection ( verses me as a "mass") and NOT aware that he was actually looking onto a reflective plane( or aether) ..that relative observer would conclude that he was seeing a "mass object." Such evaluation would be verifiably ( experimentally/observationally) in error. I then postulated: "if this were true" ( Theoretical/speculative physics) .."all things we conclude as having "mass" would in reality represent "massless" reflections of the quality( energy) and attribute ( refracted geometry?) ..of light photon. Thus : clear distinction between the word "reflector" and the word "reflection" as follows: Reflector: "a person or thing that reflect. 2. a body, surface, or device that reflects light, heat, sound, or the like. Reflection: "the act of reflecting or the state of being reflected. 2. an image; representation; counterpart. ..the return of light, heat, sound, etc., after striking a surface. the return of light, heat, sound, etc., after striking a surface. b. something so reflected, as heat or especially light.8. Mathematics . a. (in a plane) the replacement of each point on one side of a line by the point symmetrically placed on the other side of the line." Dictionary.com. Thus what I refer to is the phenomenon! or: "the act of" reflecting verses that which reflects( reflector). Thus I define the PRINCIPLE ! of: reflection and NOT that which reflects. Thus the principle of reflection would reveal to us that an "image" that is produced is not "the" production of a "mass object" rather the reflection of a mass object. In this relationship the mass object would be that which IS reflected. The "image" reflected would be that which is …"massless." All things stated and explained as to meaning perhaps we will have to admit that my statements were not…"..Very wrong." Perhaps the "holographic Scenario" presented by the ' Modern ..…theoretical physicist' Erik Verlinde hints at the principles of reflection as defining both mass and energy.

The only "particles" that are massless are those that are reflected. Thus any "thing" that is massless represents that which is an .."image. If i stand in front of a mirror my "real" self would be "considered" by physics theory to be a .."mass." My image would represent that which is "massless" Or the image in the reflection is NOT real ( "virtual"). If a relative observer was looking toward the mirror with no awareness of me relative to the plane of reflection( did not see me rather only the medium of glass reflecting my image.) he would conclude that at that location there was a geometric form that appears to have "mass." ( This is to say if this relative observer was also not aware of the medium that was communicating my form to a reflected image.) This relative observer while correct as to a physical form ( "mass") would be incorrect in inferring that the reflected image possessed REAL... mass. If this were true in a universal sense: All things we conclude as having "mass" would in reality represent "massless" reflections of the quality and attribute of light photon. If this were true: Grey matter would represent a medium relative to light that communicates invisible light photon to "massless" images. This would mean that all "mass" we view in the universe is really representative of massless reflections of light. If this were true it would "be".. light photon ( and necessarily NOT reflected light photon) that would possess the true "weight", "mass" .."heaviness"..or force of acceleration ( light photon force/energy...resulting in the percieved mass as well as motion of the reflected light photon images.

It's true.......?

Take the two halves of the table and place them together. 2 halves form a "hole" climb out the .hole: extended version: Look in a mirror see what you SAW. Take the saw and saw a table in half. 2 halves make a whole ..."crawl out the hole.

When something ‘appears’ on the “surface” to be impossible either we need to alter our relative view of the “picture” or pay closer attention to the words that “frame” the “teaser” “"Three houses need a gas line, water line, and electricity line, and all must be on the same plane underground." What I see “reflected” in the question ( as to the progenitors' mindset) is selectively found within key words he/she used. The first word that ‘appears” to be relevant is the word “plane”. As an extension: The "implied" meaning of the fuller expression ...“on the same plane.” Definition of the word plane: “a plane is any flat, two-dimensional surface. A plane is the two dimensional analogue of a point (zero-dimensions), a line (one-dimension) and a space (three-dimensions). Planes can arise as subspaces of some higher dimensional space, as with the walls of a room, or they may enjoy an independent existence in their own right, as in the setting of Euclidean geometry. Thus the key(?) to this seemingly impossible inquiry is related to that which can alter the impossibility of something. From impossible to... possible? Refer to the accompanying picture.This represents a 3-dimensional framing of the inquiry. The vertical “square” marked '1' represents the houses as well as the “lines” running to the perspective “utilities.”. The “horizontal” “squares” ( marked 2&3) represent a “surface plane of reflection.” Number '1' is produced relative to the “plane” or screen ( its seeming vertical rise is illusionary). 2&3 represent a plane of reflection receiving light photon. ( this plane of reflection relative to light photon is what results in the “emergent“ geometry ) . This means that “square 1”( houses and utility lines) is “produced” ( projected) due to “a” plane of reflection and refraction of light. The combination of surface reflection and thickness refraction ( of plane) results in the 3D ( “emergent geometry) of “square 1.” As well this “combination” results in the illusion of the rising from the plane surface of the emergent geometries. ( house with utility “lines.”). Note: All of this is actually occurring on a 1 dimensional..“screen.” Light photon is being reflected upon and refracted into a 1 dimensional plane with 2 dimensional properties. The resultant geometry is a “holographic” (s)(3D= reflection combined with refraction.. of light) representation ( 3D picture or “video”) of what is happening on the surface of the screen and what occurs through the thickness. This holographic representation creates the illusion of depth ..or: The seeming vertical rising of the emergent geometry 'off of' or 'up from'...the screen. What is happening with “square1” ( "seeming vertical" as opposed to number.. 2&3=horizontal) is actually occurring on the surface of the reflective plane. Thus what is happening with “square 1” is actually a product of the whole system ( whole picture ) (where light photon as necessarily reflected/ refracted is ..inferred). That is to say: Light is being reflected to a surface of a reflective plane and then 'its' light is subsequently ( instantaneously) refracted into the reflective/refractive medium. This reflection/refraction of light photon is what results in the “emergent” ( seemingly vertical and 3 dimentionalized) geometry seeming to be elevated above the system ( rising vertical relative to the horizon-tal plane). However “square1” is actually occurring ( emerging) on the surface of the plane. The houses and utility lines are actually 1- dimensional HORIZONTAL geometries that, due to refraction, are appearing to be 3 dimensional. Note: “No doubt”… this is the reason why the author of the “brain teaser” ( more appropriately “eye teaser,” drew the lines from the houses as if they are rising above the houses verses representing the (utility) ‘lines” running horizontal to the vertical houses). Thus 2& 3 represent both 'surface reflection' as well represents the thickness of the plane. As “square 1” is illusionary( as seeming vertical)…so is “square 4” equally as illusionary( as seeming vertical). Thus 2& 3 represent both the surface of the medium( relative to light and sound) and the furthest point away from the surface as representing the thickness of the medium.... as well the “actual” part of the medium that reflects the light back to the surface. Imagine that you lay a mirror down horizontal and place a cube on the mirror. The cube will reflect downward into the mirror. Yet we are aware that the “dual image cube” is actually occurring on the surface. Thus the “dual 3D image cube” …”down into” the mirror is actually occurring on the 1D surface of the mirror. Thus: ... “square 4” which simulates ( dual symmetry reflected… as well technically; refracted) the depth of the “ground” is actually occurring on the surface. Thus “square 4” represents deep down into the ground where “one set” of utilities would run from “one emergent geometry …(house). .. “square 2” represents another reflection along the horizontal surface ( back). Since “square 2” is representative of surface reflection as well as : “true thickness refraction” ( one way) then part of its thickness represents “down into the ground.” Thus another one of the utility lines from another house would be running under ground this way. The same would prove true relative to: “square 3.” Thus as you see ..if we remove from the equation the “real emergent geometry’ ( “square 1”) then what would be remaining is 3 parts of the whole system( consisting of 4 parts) ... that are equally efficient in providing a means of running the utility lines so that they do not ‘cross each other or.. under or over the others.’ As you will see “square 4” is centered between “squares 2& 3' and in the strictest sense these utility lines( from "square 4') DO NOT run over or under “squares 2&3.”. As well you will notice that: from square 1 to square 2 represents ‘3 utility lines.’( left) From square 1 to square 3 represents ‘3 utility lines’ running from the center( square 1”) to the right. As well ’three utility lines’ are running from square 1 to square 4( downward). Thus ’9 utility lines’ running from 1 “emergent geometry” ( 3 houses) that do not ’cross each other’ or “run under or over the others. ( reiterate: “square 1' is.. NOT.. part of the equation.) Now take this picture into a paint format..and I will show you the “inverted relevance” of the whole system. A system that shows the relationship between light photon and reflective/refractive planes. Explanation ( holographic effect) ( AFTER inverting the colors of the whoe picture) If you “high - light” the whole picture and invert the image you will see 3 houses sitting upon acreage( surface of the ground) you will see the color of the 'surface of the ground.' ( green..when inverted). You will also see ’9’ utility lines running under the ground and away from the houses ( away from each other). The “cubed” portion of the system represents 'under the ground' ...and begins at the base of the plane and goes ' downward' ( when inverted this will be represented by the light cream colored part of the system. ) The ground ( or surface) will now be green ( grass). The houses will be blue. The surrounding space around the houses will be as ...sunny as the sky. ( 3 dimensional area of space above the horizon of the 1 dimensional plane.= holograph! Is this occurring all around us? Is this a way of realizing the ‘holographic scenario” as occurring relative to the “fabric of space-time?" Does this proposal( postulate) “possibly” answer a “seeming” “impossible” …question…?