photon propeller

 

You still haven't explained the fact that actual, measured frequencies do not have the relationship you claim.

 

As someone said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. In this case, the facts prove you wrong.

It begins in infrared at 140thz and ends ultraviolet 980thz, that equals 1 / 7. green is the median at 560thz. It is 100% consistent with actual measured frequency.

 

What is this so-called elemental frequency, and how is it determined?

It is the resonant frequency. It is found by maximum amplitude. Like striking two identical tuning forks simultaneously. Specific energy fields manifest through individual frequencies assuming distinct material form.

 

 

Then what is the point of labeling energy god? What does the label god add to the concept of energy? It's like labeling the water on the earth "mighty water" it adds nothing to the definition but obfuscation...

Very good question! The answer is profound, It is to realize your oneness with God.

 

 

So god is photons?

 

The appeal to authority is kind of weak...

 

 

 

I label water god.. fact are we all not made of mostly water? fact!

I think i'll go have a bottle of god with a few impurities like alcohol and hops for flavoring...

 

Everything is energy, we are all of one energy. How we label that energy or its source is the only difference.

"Man's life has been given so ardently to the observance of complex phenomenon of appearances, that appearances have become his facts, and the one reality has become mere conjecture." Walter Russell

 

 

Well then, if it's a "fact" then you shouldn't have too much trouble showing us some evidence of this "fact" other than your assertion it is a fact...

Are we not all the concentrated debris of stars? Were those stars not all the concentration of simpler elements? Are those simpler elements not concentrations of energy? we are all of one dynamic energy, FACT

We are all constituents of one dynamic energy, FACT. How we label it is the only difference. I label it God.

omnipotence is not infinite power, it is all power. One may have all the power yet that power still has limits. I believe our universe is a portion of Gods energy, as I believe we all are, within that universe there are limits, I do not believe it is the total of Gods energy.

 

That just isn't true. You can have light of any single frequency within the range. Passing it through a spectrometer will not split that into two components.

 

And how does the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum relate to your ideas? Why should it just be the tiny visible range that is split into seven?

It is a mixture of color, a shade, not a mixture of frequencies, each frequency is a unique color, median points are pure color tones. The distance between those median frequencies dictates the shade, just as green lies between yellow and blue, and orange between yellow and red. I ve already stated that it is not just the visible range, it scales up or down but maintains the same proportions. These questions are self explanatory in the images.

This topic focuses clearly on the fundamental wave and interference dynamics. It is not a repeat of my earlier post and I object to this merge. Second, the fundamental wave is a harmonic series, ever heard of the fourier series? How about the work of Helmholtz on sound and light. White light is a periodic waveform, why else does the pattern repeat itself. The median of each spectral color is the pure tone, all others are mixtures. "really small," the images are obviously a magnified version that can be viewed and perceived, any image no matter how small can be scaled up. I ask that this be separated at least, if you keep it in speculations so be it, but give it a chance to be viewed and absorbed.

!

Moderator Note

photon propeller,

I have merged your recent thread with a similar one you posted earlier this year. Please do not post multiple threads on the same topic.

Additionally, I would like to remind you of the following:

!

Moderator Note

Finally, this thread will be closed if you can't relate your hypothesis to something with a basis in reality.

Neither the text or images are the same as my previous post. Light is a vast topic for discussion. This should not be merged. Give it a fair shake. I have responded politely to each question though some posers of those questions have been quite rude. The nature of light is reality. Do you really believe you know it fully?

White light is a continuum. Any periodicity you find is arbitrary.

Periodicity arbitrary? Is elemental frequency arbitrary? Of course not. It is as distinct as one element is from another. It is a measurement of energy. It begins at the inertial line of equilibrium and extends to the maximum potential difference and returns to that line. It is harmonic oscillation. When we define the dynamic scale of energy correctly, the transmutation of elements will be simplified. The true dynamic architecture of the PERIODIC chart of elements will be revealed and the inner relationship of all the properties of those elements will be correlated. I propose this fundamental wave is the key to unlock this sacred geometry. I only ask for a fair shake and intelligent response. Please separate this post and lets speculate on the topic.

disregard the term "octave" . It was simply an attempt to describe the repititious tonal range throughout the cycle, red to violet, do to ti. Harmonic series is a better term. An accurate description of light accounts for sound. Frequency establishes tone and amplitude establishes volume. Pure tones have a sinusoidal waveform. That is why they are points of equilibrium, and host the inert gases.

The nature of light does not depend on who divides it, It depends only on its cause, and the proper interpretation of that cause. Clues to that cause can be found in the dispersion of it, and the architecture of that division. I offer an interpretation that works. What do you offer? Nature divides light on its own, what can you contrive from a rainbow? With one image I can represent pages of analytical geometry. Images simplify the subject. The terms are in the image just as they are in reality. Give me a point to counter and i shall counter it to the best of my ability.

Newton didnt divide the colors, nature did. So can any other mortal man with a prism. The distance between each pure color is proportional to its its angle to the photon axis when viewed in a straight line spectrum. The actual distance between pure tones is equal and is 15 degrees of the circumference of a circle. red is split on the photon axis and violet at the peak and trough. 15x6=90, 90x4 = 360, 360 = one photon oscillation. I did not say the visible spectrum, I said white light. The fundemental wave begins in the infrared and ends in the ultraviolet. This is the dark band between repetitions. Its boundries lie partially beyond the visible spectrum. 1351 thz/193 thz = 7/1. green is the median at 576thz

Disperse any white light wave and see the repetative spectral pattern. The seven pure color tones are median points occuring every 15 degrees of the cycle. It starts red and ends violet, everything in between pure tones are color mixtures. One cycle is one full photon oscillation. The pattern is repeated 4 times in one wavelength, red to violet, violet to red, red to violet, violet to red. Axis to peak, peak to trough, trough to axis. The reasons arent mystical, they are intrinsic.

White light is periodic in nature.pdf

http://news.yahoo.com/nuclear-pasta-neutron-stars-type-matter-found-113327578.html gravity spirals at all scales. the coriolis force is the spiral drag of gravity on the centripetal axis

So, what you are saying is my fiancee has a little god in her?

 

"But if this is the case, why assign God the role of creator? Isn't that

like making up an imaginary friend and then giving him credit for making

the wind blow?"

 

They do it because they feel it creates some infallible law the supercedes mans agenda. The saddest part about this is for one, they alter their beliefs based on the world. and two, it is basically assuming that we only have morals because of god. Which, undermines mans achievements and capabilities.

 

 

For us to all come together, in anything permanent. Is to go against the very laws you said god created. What is this contradiction all about?

If you read and understood my posts you would know the laws i said God created are the laws of physics. Not the refutable laws written by prophets for mainstream religion. There is no contradiction. We can all unite in the hunt for knowledge, for our knowlegde is incomplete.

I think the difference here is how one envisions gravity. Not just as the curvature of space time, but a dynamic gravitational depression with longitudinally oscillating gravity waves, torsion waves, on a gyroscopic plane. Isnt the gravitational depression in space time not just under the mass (as typically pictured), but on top , to the sides, literally from all directions spinning towards the center? Shouldnt the center of that depression be the center of the mass? One may be able to make some proper predictions but until gravity is completely defined we cannot make them all. Gravity is currently defined as completely radial but current study on gravity waves reveal torsion. ECT is being realized.

So all this god does is set the universe in motion and set back and watch the weak and innocent being brutalized by the strong and evil and does nothing about anything? God is Sadistic and evil by this definition...

I told you God is the origin of all that exists, does the fact that God doesn't interfere make him evil or is it the act of evil that defines evil men.

Innocent does not infer weak, the strong and innocent crush the weak and evil as well. The epic battle is between the strong of both ideals. Which will man choose?

so then you praise evil ?

I praise the master of all that exists. I choose positivity.

Isnt the balancing act between bound and unbound, the pinnacle being escape velocity? Are orbiting masses not tending towards gravitational equilibrium?

hmm,

i seriously have a hard time finding a difference from evil, and this god.

 

gods words intent and actions are just a evil as evil.

so i guess it's a pick the less evil kind of thing.

 

or i can just say,

both are just as ridiculous as from each other,

so i'll sideline and not worry about this stupid shit.

 

simple.

 

funny.

 

you believe in one, but not the other,

and yet,

one can not exist without the other.

funny.

What I believe is that there is only one, that one is the origin of both.

so if i praise the satan, then i won't be brutalized ?

 

odd, this sounds like something satan would do.

now satan does not sound so bad.

 

weird.

Cant say how much prayers help, don't believe in Satan. Those who would fight to the death to resist tyranny I wouldnt consider evil I would commend their bravery.

The centripetal force and centrifugal force cannot be an action-reaction force pair, because they are acting on the same object. The centripetal force is gravity. The centrifugal force is decidedly not. As D H has already said, there is no reaction force to the centrifugal force. There doesn't have to be — Newton's laws do not apply in that accelerated frame of reference. The fictitious force is added in to make F=ma seem like it works.

 

 

Centrifugal forces do not appear in inertial reference frames. (unless there is a physical mechanism involved. Like a rocket, actually pushing you away from the center). Discussing GR in this context merely confuses an issue that already contains far too much confusion.

I mispoke on inertial reference frames, i have edited my comment to state rotating frames. If we have to apply fictitious force in order for correct predictions are they really fictitious, or just different forms of one gravitational force?

"The
great end in religious instruction, is not to stamp our minds upon the
young, but to stir up their own; not to make them see with our eyes, but
to look inquiringly and steadily with their own; not to give them a
definite amount of knowledge, but to inspire a fervent love of truth;
not to form an outward regularity, but to touch inward springs; not to
bind them by ineradicable prejudices to our particular sect or peculiar
notions, but to prepare them for impartial, conscientious judging of
whatever subjects may be offered to their decision; not to burden
memory, but to quicken and strengthen the power of thought." William Ellery Channing

Is Einstein's curved space another explanation for the orbit of a satellite, or is that idea related, if so how?

Gravity is responsible for spacetime curvature, centrifugal and centripetal forces are manifestations of gravity in a rotating reference frame

"The
infinite has no beginning, ... but seems to be the beginning of other
things, and to surround all things and guide all ... And this is the
divine, for it is immortal and indestructible." Aristotle