gravity

[soundoflight]

what do you think of the new proposal with regard to "gravity" and the "holographic scenario"..( proposed by Erik Verlinde)?

[granpa]

A link would help

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1

 

Starting from rst principles, using only space independent concepts like

energy, entropy and temperature, it is shown that Newton's laws appear naturally and

practically unavoidably. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by a change

in the amount of information associated with the positions of bodies of matter

[md65536]

I think it's right. My own conjectures lead to a similar idea... I posted about it in Speculations in the past week or so, but I don't have the math or the vocabulary to express the idea as precisely or sensibly. Thanks for the link to the paper. It should help me a lot.

 

"Many physicists believe that ... space-time geometry [is] emergent." I believe this is the way to express an idea I've used in all my speculative posts, recently.

 

I definitely agree with what I've read (skimmed) in the paper.

[soundoflight]

Thank you for the link as well as brief synopsis Grandpa.

 

I propose that the "holographic scenario" reconciles the 4 forces, as well explains and defines most if not all of physics inquiry.

If this were so then the only way to percieve this unification would be to realize that the principles of holography are occurrant as well recurrent all around us. If this were discovered as evidenced (in nature) it would most likely be discerned relative to the visual process. Unless of course the holographic scenario would also represent a fitting medium for the transmission of sound information as well.

 

If it is true that this scenario appropriately explains and defines information from the sound as well as image perspectives then we should be able to actually witness the phenomonon visually or auditorily..independent from mathematical or equationary constraints.

 

Can the principles of holography be viewed as well as heard ( in nature) as being so demonstrative that a holographic 'mode' of the 'exchange of information' can be actually observed then subsequently experimented with as to scientific relevancies?

 

Observation is most certainly an underlying principle of science..that which many times drives the progression of science.

 

Before i not so ignobly present observations with regard to 'things' occurring all around us.. ( things that when percieved lead to postulates and experiments) ..as strongly adding credence to Verlindes' holographic proposals I would like to request information from others in this forum (perhaps more competent tham myself in certain areas).

 

I would ask from these ones the following:

 

1)Can any who are familiar with the principles of holography please express their knowledge of these things in the most lucid way possible?

 

2)Can these ones as well explain the principles of inversion ( particularly- inverted colors)?

 

Furthermore:

 

3) Can those ones also provide their opinions as to whether or not they percieve or know of any affinities between the principles of holography and the principles derived through the inversion of color(s)?

 

Your comments and insights will be very much appreciated. Perhaps these responses will serve to assist me in a preface to the forthcomming discussions.

[md65536]

1)Can any who are familiar with the principles of holography please express their knowledge of these things in the most lucid way possible?

I know nothing but I feel like babbling.

 

First, I don't think it's advisable to imagine a physical hologram. To do so, you will be imagining a specific 2D surface within a 3D geometrical space. It defeats the purpose of considering 3D geometry as emergent if you're picturing it in terms of 3D geometry.

Instead of imagining a physical hologram, just consider its properties independently of a physical manifestation.

 

Here are 2 properties of holograms:

1. All the 3-dimensional information is encoded in a 2-dimensional surface. What this means is that all the information you can stuff into a 3-dimensional volume, can also fit on some related surface (usually the surface is a sphere around a volume, I think).

 

2. Each point on a hologram's surface encodes information from all over the volume.

If you consider a physical hologram for a moment, think about looking at a single point on it while moving your head all around. That single point will show what all sorts of different parts of the 3d image look like, depending on your point of view. That means that information from all over the 3d model being represented, is encoded into each point on the hologram.

What this means is that rather than having a single point in the 3D volume map to a single point on the 2D surface and vice-versa, you have all points in the volume mapping to all points on the surface and vice-versa.

 

 

 

 

This next part is speculative:

Suppose you could encode all information in the universe on a 2D surface. Also suppose that different observational perspectives could observe a consistent view of that universe. As with a physical hologram, different points of view observing this 2-dimensional surface will observe something that is consistent with the specific 3-dimensional image represented by the hologram. The hologram is 2D but a 3D image with 3D geometry is emergent. If the universe is similar, then 3D geometry can emerge from the way information is arranged in a 2D universe.

 

A hologram or holographic universe can be 2D but look consistently 3D.

 

 

 

[soundoflight]

I know nothing but I feel like babbling.

 

First, I don't think it's advisable to imagine a physical hologram. To do so, you will be imagining a specific 2D surface within a 3D geometrical space. It defeats the purpose of considering 3D geometry as emergent if you're picturing it in terms of 3D geometry.

Instead of imagining a physical hologram, just consider its properties independently of a physical manifestation.

 

Here are 2 properties of holograms:

1. All the 3-dimensional information is encoded in a 2-dimensional surface. What this means is that all the information you can stuff into a 3-dimensional volume, can also fit on some related surface (usually the surface is a sphere around a volume, I think).

 

2. Each point on a hologram's surface encodes information from all over the volume.

If you consider a physical hologram for a moment, think about looking at a single point on it while moving your head all around. That single point will show what all sorts of different parts of the 3d image look like, depending on your point of view. That means that information from all over the 3d model being represented, is encoded into each point on the hologram.

What this means is that rather than having a single point in the 3D volume map to a single point on the 2D surface and vice-versa, you have all points in the volume mapping to all points on the surface and vice-versa.

 

 

 

 

This next part is speculative:

Suppose you could encode all information in the universe on a 2D surface. Also suppose that different observational perspectives could observe a consistent view of that universe. As with a physical hologram, different points of view observing this 2-dimensional surface will observe something that is consistent with the specific 3-dimensional image represented by the hologram. The hologram is 2D but a 3D image with 3D geometry is emergent. If the universe is similar, then 3D geometry can emerge from the way information is arranged in a 2D universe.

 

A hologram or holographic universe can be 2D but look consistently 3D.

 

 

 

 

I agree that it would not be appropriate to view this holographic scenario as representing any physical phenomenon. That being said I feel that ALL information observed and processed by the human mind represents physical interpretations of information innate to sound as well as light photon. We "see" the world predominately.. Literally, as a result of the human eye. Depth perception and the ability to fully perceive things in a 3-dimensional framework is closely related to the functionality of the human eye. Not only does the anatomic eye convert invisible light photon to visible representations( followed by the minds interpretation of light photon information) but it also serves the chief purpose of transmitting depth and the dimensional qualities of anything being observed. This of course requires the cooperation of both the eyes for maximum ability to translate invisible information to visible characterizations of the information as well as the "depth"(dimensional qualities) of the information.

 

All being opined I feel that the concept of dimension is closely linked ( if not explicit to) the functionality ( either inferior or superior) of each perspective "mass eye." In this light I feel that our view of the universe is altered significantly from its true "nature" ( physic). This has occurred due to the inferiority of our visual process..ours as opposed to other "mass" creatures. If this is true then what we have complacently concluded to represent dimension may be solely defined ( either increased or decreased as to cognizance) du to the visual processes. Or: Dimension(=) equals the ability or lack thereof for a perspective eye to see the constant interaction of light with itself as well light interaction with objects within its path ( the area of space).

 

Thus in this context multi-dimension would merely represent the multiple qualities of light as well those myriad qualities overlapping one another ( due to rotation, angle, diffusion, reflection, refraction, absorption and parallelism(s)). The ability to perceive these plethoric light- interactive qualities ( to discern "invisible dimensions) would seem to relate to a more robust relativity to light photon and sound. A relativity that would seem to relate to a superior eye that can view process light/sound information from ALL perspective relative views simultaneously. Or an eye-brain coordination that would allow light photon as received by the eye to be reasoned upon through established principles ( regardless of restrained relativity) in a way that would predicate any and all of the information being viewed from a certain relative view.

 

What I am saying is that the ability to comprehend all of the information ( dimension or depth of light) innate to light and sound could relate to the collaboration of the visual/auditoria processes ..relative to ..the minds awareness of consistent and reliably predictive laws or principles. Thus if these principles of the phenomenon of light were understood fully ( as to any potential result of light interacting with itself and "mass " object…from any relative view) then by storing all of these insights one could make a statement as to what will be happening if one were viewing the same phenomenon or action from a different relative position. Thus seeing through or around objects would be actually be possible merely by applying solid principles as to light then utilizing this consistent system to derive information about a complete system regardless of a set relative perspective relative to the system being viewed.

 

I will attempt to demonstrate that there are such principles and laws of light that if understood and comprehended as to consistent patternization and constant effect would result in one being able to accurately conclude what IS happening at any point within the system or along the line this regardless of the observer being confined as to the ability to view the system from all perspectives. Thus true relativity has not much to do with 'where a person is relative to the object being viewed" nor is true relativity really altered due to any perspective motion( or 'body at rest' ..argumentatively) ..rather; . True relativity can be perceived regardless of motion, lack of motion, or relative positioning. True relativity can be arrived at and derived from the application of consistent and solid principles of how light and sound functions..this relative to the origin or source of light/ sound as well as THAT light and sound as interacting with other light sources or sounds. In this scenario the word "interaction" would refer to the overlapping of sound waves and the overlapping of light rays. The product of the interaction would be the "emergent geometry" as well as the animation ( motion) of the geometric forms . Forms of light and sound energy. "mass" as equivalent to "energy" due to the constant and infinite relationship and interaction between light and sound. Light as representing the energy and geometric shape of the "mass organism" sound as that which results in and maintains the motion and animation of the "geometric form(m) light/sound.(e). Thus "m"("mass") would equal "part" of the energy of light and sound.

 

I will continue to elaborate upon these postulates as well to begin to illustrate these things through posts and images.

 

Before doing so I would ask that those who are not familiar with the word "mirage" to research this actual optical phenomenon. I would equally encourage one to rationalize any relationships between this phenomenon( mirage) and the holographic proposals of Verlinde. I will say: Information is all around us and transmitted to us due to our relativity to light photon ( eye) and sound( ear, touch). Yet this information is communicated to us via the inferiority of the human eye and ear. If the information could be perceived in its full and complete form this would result in our being able to perceive the depth of the information.( extra dimensions infinite) Thus due to perhaps our existing within a holographic framework( and thus we are part of the information dwelling within the information thus not being able to see the full preponderance ..such would require stepping outside of the information and looking at the whole holographic screen)… the entirety of the information is obscured from our view. Thus: Is the information representative of a vector (A) entirely separated from the screen (vector B) and as a result the information we see is merely a "mirage" (vestige) of the quality and dimension of the progenitor ( vector A) . Is their a way , regardless of our inferior relativity to the whole system, to begin to perceive the extra-dimensional quality of the whole screen? If this were possible then due to such enhanced ability to more accurately see the information more fully and comprehensively …we may, through scrutiny be able to derive reliable mathematic, geometric and physics principles and laws that would allow us to more fully understand and even perhaps "see" the dimensions that are demonstratively their but not visualized due to an inferior eye. This would represent bypassing the eye as a fitting way of observing things( with a view to understanding) and utilizing solid mathematic and geometric principles that would result in the ability to mentally see these things then transmit the mental derivations to accurate and equivalent images.

 

It is the purpose of this thread to show what is going on all around us and what it STATES as to what is occurring within the universe as well as our terrestrial stratum of existence.

 

Pictures say a lot where words fall short. It is the aim of this thread to allow PICTURES to encourage a new cognizance of solidified principles and laws. Principles and laws related to light and sound.

 

The human body ("mass" ) is representative of a:

 

 

"

 

"2D surface within a 3D geometrical space."

 

What information is discovered relative to the human anatomy. Is their holographic information ( infinite) to be found relative to the "mass form human anatomy"?

 

Is the human form representative of a '3D geometry….emergent?' what resulted in the emergence of the human form ( information) as well as all flora and fauna ( information stored…holographic ally)..?

 

If there is information "stored" within the human form ( as well flora and fauna) such information if holographic ally communicated to the screen ( earth) ..should be demonstrative. Is it? If it is whatever 'properties' are to be understood and gleaned from it(them) would most certainly be 'independent of a physical manifestation." Indeed! The properties ( principles) found therein and upon would not be so easily discerned if we depended solely on the capabilities of the human eye as transmitting light photon information to the brain. We have to step outside of the visual process as communicating pictures and view the information innate to the pictures. This requires more of a "reasoning process" than a visual process.

 

 

 

 

Is their vast amounts of information stored upon all 2 dimensional ( or 1 dimensional) "surfaces" found within ….NATURE? If this were true then information should be coherent and harmonious and should link the parts of information to the whole screen of information. In other words is information found on the 2 dimensional surface of the rabbit be also represented within the information stored upon the 2 dimensions surface of the human form. If a holographic pattern were discerned would this demonstrate that the information being communicated to the screen actually represents itself fully at any point within the screen as well is represented in full relative to viewing the whole screen as a holographic system. 'What this would mean is':

 

"

'that all the information you can stuff into a 3-dimensional volume, can also fit on some related surface …. Or : At the very least. A large portion of the screen( a large portion of the information) could also fit into a small portion of space( small area of information) along the screen. As well ; the reverse: A small portion of the information can be represented the same on a large portion of the screen. Or: The holographic scenario would represent the entirety of the information as represented on any point ( no matter how small or large) in the screen. As well: The holographic scenario would preclude lack of consistency of information ( geometry, mathematics). Therefore anywhere upon or within the screen has the same potentiality of defining the whole of the information as derived from the light and sound existing outside the screen as being transmitted to the screen. Thus a "microscopic grain" ( one "pixel" within the screen' ) has the same volume of information as the entire screen. One only has to magnify the information from the "grain" ( magnify the atom) and they will see that the information stored in the grain is exactly proportional to the entirety of information existing upon and within the screen. As well this would indicate the energy( information) that is stored within a small "grain" ( grain= "mass") as being capable of exploding into its full information ( energy) potential.

 

Indeed! To quote the poster ( as I have on occasion relative to this post):

 

 

 

2. Each point on a hologram's surface encodes information from all over the volume.

If you consider a physical hologram for a moment, think about looking at a single point on it while moving your head all around. That single point will show what all sorts of different parts of the 3d image look like, depending on your point of view. That means that information from all over the 3d model being represented, is encoded into each point on the hologram.

 

How can we come to see these things? Is it possible to actually see this vast information? Is it possible to see undeniable evidence of the Holographic physical universe?

 

We shall see.

Edited March 2, 2011 by soundoflight

[soundoflight]

When “unified theory ( unification)” is discovered it may be something so strange as to defy the imagination.

 

The following represents certain physics terms. Can you see a distinct relationship between these terms? A common denominator? Granted there are an infinite amount of associations between these terms. I would request that those familiar with these terms to think of the MOST distinct relationship they can derive from these words and subsequent definitions. It may be that there is a ’dynamic’ principle to be discerned. A principle of light as well as sound. Namely(terms):

 

 

COSMIC RAYS

GAMMA RAY

ELECTRUM

LINEAR MOTION

MICRO

OHMAGE

TRIGONOHMETRY

THERMODYNAMICS

SPECTROMETER

THERMISTOR

THERMOCOUPLE

THERMIONIC EMISSION

PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM

PARAMAGNETISM

BOHR MAGNETON

ISOTHERMAL

HARMONY

SPECTRUM

ELECTROMAGNETIC

GREY MATTER

CHARM QUARK

HOLOGRAM

MEGAHERTZ

 

GRAM

GEOMETRY

 

DIAGRAM

LOGARITHM

GRAMMER

ACHROMATIC

ALGORITHM

ANGSTROM

RHYTHM

PRIMARY COLORS

IMAGE

VIRTUAL IMAGE

SIMPLE HARMONIC MOTION

 

 

*** WHERE “REAL IMAGE” IS NECESSARILY PRECLUDED FROM THE ASSOCIATION(S)

 

If the room would indulge me I would ask for those competent with regard to a knowledge of these terms to post what they would feel is the most defined relationship between the terms. In order to do so it may require a sort of scientific “reading between the lines.” (reasoning on the relationship verses the perspective definition of terms)

 

I will also post the following:

 

(HERM)(HARM)(GREY M)

(GEOM)(GRAM)(HARM)(ECTROM)(CTRUM)(CTRUM)(GRAM)(HERM)(GRAM)

(CHROM)(RITHM)(RHYTHM)(STROM) (ARCHIM)(OHR M)(MIC RAYS)(RAMAG)(GAMMA RAY)(GRAM)

(IMAGE)(EAR MOT)

(GARITHM)(MEGAHERTZ)

(MICRO)(OHMAGE)(MARY CO)(HEOREM)

 

 

(HARM)(CTROM)(HERM)(HERM)

(HERMO)(TRIG)(OHM) (IMAGE)

 

 

 

As you are considering this I would ask you to also direct your attention to the accompanying picture. Look closely at this conglomeration of images. What “mass objects” do you discern are being represented?

 

***Note: What we may conclude due to our relative view may be quite inconsistent with true relativity.( Phenome/Phonome. Phenomena real vs. Altered relativity view of phenomenon)

 

 

[soundoflight]

If information is spread out over a holographic screen then the information will be communicated through sound as well as light photon image. Language represent intelligent interpretation of the holographic information that exists within the screen. Primarily the information is derived due to human interpretation of light photon image as well as the sound produced relative to the light photon.( whether or not sound is part of the quality of light or not? Sound IS 'relative to' light.) Perhaps "sound" is NOT SO independent from light, rather sound is a part of the quality of light.

 

We see things due to the visual process ( we see light as refracted ) …after seeing these holographic representations of light photon(= "mass object/being) we subsequently translate the images to corresponding sound equivalencies. This phenomenon of translating light and sound information(holographic ally communicated to the screen) is closely linked to our use of language. Language has afforded humans the intellectual means of representing the sound and imagery innate to light by using symbols ( letters, alphabets, pictograph, rebus). These "symbols" correspond not just to the pictures but as well the sounds produced within the holographic screen.

 

The following picture demonstrates how holography ( refracted light) can also result in motion. I will be showing many pictures that will begin to show how the holographic principle is most certainly a phenomenon that CAN be observed if one discovers the principles and utilizes them in methodologies of observation and experiment. I assure all visiting this thread ( and by all means participate) that this will be a very unique experience and it will begin to explain many things that are occurring all around us ( extra-dimensionally) yet to date has been obscured from our relative view.

 

Postulate: If our relative view has not produced much in the way of defining physics I would propose that we alter our relative view. ( we have the intelligence to devise a way of doing so, if predisposition does not hamper the objectives). If we do so perhaps brilliant principles of light and sound will ensue ( accompanied by principles of language as necessarily the means of understanding the information resulting in light/sound interaction with… screens). Such interaction of light/sound with a refractive/ reflective screen results in all "mass" form… "emergent geometry"…as well as the animation of the "geometric forms" of light and sound, I.e.; "mass".

 

I have much INFORMATION to share that could potentially represent an infinite amount of new perspective on physics study ( as well all sciences) . If the things I present are categorically scrutinized in the framework of scientific methodologies ..and if applied relative to the principles derived from such presentations .. This may perhaps lead to VERY surprising results. However the study that I have did over the last 20 years ( and the principles discerned as to the quality of light and sound due to such study.) is very difficult to state as to postulate in any effective , systematic or chronological way. ( in principle its application(s)are myriad) These discoveries are vast in implication. Thus I will simply begin by expressing one principle of holography as able to reflect the MOTION of light .

 

Thus:

 

When a person closes their eyes we would say that the motion of the eyelid is at rest. When a person opens their eyes and blinks we would represent this as the eyelid being in motion.

 

The following image was extracted from the former picture.( strange conglomeration of images "seemingly" incoherent yet full to overflowing with …holographic information)

 

You will see in picture 1( relative to this post) that this looks like a very strange "animal." It looks like an "eel," as well its face looks very similar to the symmetry and proportions of a snakes face. If we factor in the teeth we would see a resemblance to an alligator or crocodile.

 

Actually this picture is a "holographic" ( "inverted color") representation of another "mass object" that would seem to be remotely associated with this "creature." You may be surprised when we discover where this animal is represented. ( remember the real image that represents this image has been inverted as to color) Yet when we discuss the phenomenon of language as recording and symbolizing holographic information we will quickly begin to see the relationship. ( latter on in the discussion).

 

 

Picture one represents a "strange emergent geometric form." Due to its being a still image we would state that this image is at rest and no motion is detected. However! How can "holography" begin to animate this image?

 

Look at picture 2. In this box I have enclosed the eye in a small box. If you have a paint format copy these images to paint. After doing so ..highlight the blue square ( where the eye is relative to picture 2). Now invert the colors inside this box. After doing so click the inverted colors off..then on. Then off.

 

Here we see that "holography" ( a principle of the inversion of color..refraction of light) has resulted in a still picture becoming relatively animated. Holography resulted in in the action of the eye relative to the still image. The eye blinks!

 

What principles are beginning to show themselves?

 

We may come to understand these things as we proceed into our fresh perspective( altering of relative view and opinions as to nature and the way it functions relative to light and sound.) on the study of "nature" ( physics).

 

As well we will begin to discern holographic associations not only to imagery but also to sound. Sound as transmitted and approximately represented relative to human language systems.

 

Go back to picture 1. Highlight the image and invert the colors. What do you see? What is the significance of this? What are these observations and experiments producing. What information can we derive from this phenomenon? What scientific principles can we derive and how can we apply them.

 

Note: The images that I will continue to post along with commentary will indeed! Be something so strange as to lead to sobriety of scientific thought and resolution. Are we headed toward …unification? Perhaps.

 

Note: Principle: Magnify ones view. Extract the surroundings of any image which serves to obscure the holographic information. When viewing any "mass system" realize that the parts of the system are equally proficient at relaying information as the system viewed as a whole.

 

Side point: ( implied principle) when viewing a macro system consider its perspective parts ( perspective spacing and distance) in a micro way as well as a macro perspective. While telescoping the vast space around us( stars, nebulas, galaxies…"black holes") don't forget to microscopically view the system after magnifying it to view through telescopes. Remember ever infinitesimal point in space holds a certain volume of information. Map the microscopic spaces and record the information then gradually expand out within the space while consistently mapping all points in the system. After doing so ..then and only then can the information be discerned as the whole of principle and law as to how the universe is functioning.

 

 

Note: We will not get technical as to a "snake" NOT having "eyelids." Aligators do. The "symmetric emergent geometry" found on this part of the human anatomy( Information verses a living entity) is not a matter of "pareidolia"( imputed to the poster) rather it is found their because it is revealing information that..believe it or not is explicitly associated to the information known relative to this part of the human anatomy. ( as well relates to phenome, phonology, phonetics as well idioms within language systems). I have a vast sum of pictures that if viwed in entirety ( or even in vestige) that will demonstrate that these things are certainly relevant to science. The relevancies will be discerned due to many principles that will be percieved as the presentations continue. The phenomon that you witnessed with just these pictures is occurring in an infinite way all around us. The information that is to be discovered relative to the principles will show a shocking( though equally scientifically consistent and demonstrative) relationship between images and sound. These things will be considered relative to images as well as already established principles of science and physics. Language is very relevant to the discussion( as well)

 

Note: (for arguments sake )... The word "para" means "alongside." The word "idol" represents "an image or representation". Indeed! Most every pursuit of man has occurred due to his observing "objects" as well as the "action" of objects so as to derrive understanding from them. In order to complete this process of observation and understanding language is necessary and NOT to be precluded from the discussion. Language is that which affords one to put those observations and results into words. (postulates, theories..ideas). Thus the whole human experience seems to be one of "observing images"("observing pictures) and then communicating those observations to language. Language is that which allows the sound information innate to images to be expressed and described. Those descriptions are just as much a part of physics expression as they are of normal every day observations, experiences and experiments. Thus the whole human experience is contingent upon observing "images" dwelling right "alongside" of us and all around us. Thus : Any imputation that would suggest that ALL observations that reflect the semblance of of pareidoiliac methodology are "farce" would defy the evidence as it concerns the human experience. Those experiences represent from the begginning to now humans seeing and hearing images and sounds and due to close observation of the light photon and sound ...arriving at the conclussion that pictures do have relevance and can explain things. Otherwise humans would long ago have closed their eyes to the phenomonal information stored in "nature" and would have been embarrassed to think that this information really means things.

 

That being said. Dont jump to conclussions as to the author of this thread. Pictures WILL and DO speak volumes. Infinite information extant all around us.

Edited March 4, 2011 by soundoflight

[md65536]

If information is spread out over a holographic screen then the information will be communicated through sound as well as light photon image. Language represent intelligent interpretation of the holographic information that exists within the screen. Primarily the information is derived due to human interpretation of light photon image as well as the sound produced relative to the light photon.( whether or not sound is part of the quality of light or not? Sound IS 'relative to' light.) Perhaps "sound" is NOT SO independent from light, rather sound is a part of the quality of light.

I don't know what all this is but it's not science.

The holographic principle is about science. You're taking it very far out of context, ignoring the science, and applying thick layers of interpretation (I suppose we all do that to some degree and must allow for it among us amateur scientists in a speculations forum). But I don't think your ideas have any correlation with the holographic principle that you mention in your original post. Misapplying other theories to your own probably does little more than confuse yourself and others. Admittedly I am guilty of it too.

 

I don't plan to read through all of your posts but I think I've seen enough to say that the holographic principle does not back up your claims.

 

 

 

[soundoflight]

I don't know what all this is but it's not science.

The holographic principle is about science. You're taking it very far out of context, ignoring the science, and applying thick layers of interpretation (I suppose we all do that to some degree and must allow for it among us amateur scientists in a speculations forum). But I don't think your ideas have any correlation with the holographic principle that you mention in your original post. Misapplying other theories to your own probably does little more than confuse yourself and others. Admittedly I am guilty of it too.

 

I don't plan to read through all of your posts but I think I've seen enough to say that the holographic principle does not back up your claims.

 

 

 

 

 

Md65536

 

 

It would seem from your response that you are in acknowledgment of the reality that science is a relative term. I will not digress into any semantic arguments as I have been there and done that. However I do appreciate your modesty is saying that ' we all to some degree' and I would add; of necessity, must use interpretive and reasoning abilities when it comes to approaching the sciences( all of them). I will confine my response to the study of physics. Most certainly we would all have to agree that with regard to this noble human endeavor that a lot, if not most of it represent interpretations of data verses much in the way of a solidified reconciliation(s) with regard to the functioning(s) of the universe. A large 'degree' of physics study is in reality admittedly theoretical with not much in the form of absoluteness. However it is a worthy task and no one who has the ability to observe and experiment ( most normal humans) should be barred from the pursuit.

 

It is agreeable for me to remain "in the fringes" of things ( characteristic of most theoretical physicists) until such time that I present something of substance and scientific veracity. Thus it is favorable for me to remain in the "trash can" until such time as certain principles and laws are explained and elaborated upon. Being called an amateur is equally agreeable to me. Some of the greatest contributions to science originated from "children,". and even seasoned veterans who were scorned due NOT to competent statements relative to observation rather due to the strange implications of the postulates as well those postulates as received by 'others' who were much considerate of their own ideas while relegating the observations of others. I have settled into the plight of one contradiction or inconsistency trumping other statements of contradiction.( though trying to rehabilitate this plight as well). While many would embrace this sad state of physics ( verses any individual) I have always refused to. Nothing of substance and explanative ability ( save interpretation) has resulted from such seeming predisposition imputed to physics.

 

Indeed the holographic principle is about science. I agree wholeheartedly . May I remind you of the definition of science:

 

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.7.skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency." (Reference: dictionary.com: Science)

 

I will merely say with regard to these abbreviated definitions of science the following:

 

I have spent many years.. ( from a child observing my surroundings to an adult with a greater ability to reason on information found relative to observations)..studying the great 'body of facts' dwelling all around us ( and not necessarily appropriately explained relative to individual or collective human thought) . Flora and Fauna. (nature-physic) As well I have ( and many of us have) studied processes and interactions within the universe. ( equally to date not sufficiently explained) . I have my entire life observed both "object mass" as well as "forces" demonstratively in action relative to mass ( energy relative to "mass"). I have read many books of amateurs as well as so-called peer reviewed ones. I have maintained constant dialogue with those equally interested in in these things and have sufficiently and do presently to a sufficient degree listen and learn from these ones. I would say that for the most part it has been a matter of: perspective discussions representing "iron sharpening iron." However the true thing which sharpens ones relative view of things is observation and experiment. Both of which represent principles of scientific rationale. As well:

 

( And only those who indulge this thread( and participate) will be better able to perceive)

 

I will: …'systematically arrange (nature) and show the operation of general laws: "

 

Such systemization represents a fresh approach to organizing information ( verses any desire to compete). When the information is so organized in a unique yet highly efficient manner then …MATTER! At hand, may become more refined as to understanding. I will not go so far as to say that what I will present will be THE pattern ( patterns that have not been definitively discerned) rather ,with the utmost of modesty I will show a devised system of organizing information found within flora and fauna as well throughout the universe This system when explained and illustrated will stand on its own merits.

 

The principles will present themselves with not much need for interpretation. ( the geometric, spatial, symmetric as well mathematical consistency will unnerve even the most austere person). Spatial temporal reasoning reveals much. Observations relative to this natural or acquired ability allow one to look at the whole system of information by viewing the perspective parts. This visual dissection of 'matter" ( whether viewing the tiny microbes or the milky way galaxy) helps one to appreciate how the parts ( some infinitely small others gigantic) really do serve a purpose in picking up on the patternizations within all object or energy existing all around us. Patterns are relevant. There are many patternizations occurring in nature. If one is careful not to relegate thewse patterns perhaps an understanding of the whole system may result. Perhaps not. However it is certainly effective to look for patterns within all things if one really and sincerely seeks the accurate and appropriate outcome. With regard to the patternizations of information found within every inch of the physical universe ..one must be cautious with regard to over magnification while failing to remember the equal relevance of examining every square inch of that which has been magnified to view.

 

While physics has indeed became 'proficient' in surmising facts as well many times been 'skillful' in the application of such facts the problem it would seem has resulted AFTER acquiring the facts and the skill in utilizing ..facts. Thus: The paradox results in the deviation from the facts at times into constant theorizing that those facts are wrong. Or: Physics has not been appropriately " precise" in the "application" of said facts. Many times this is related to incurable predisposition and scorn for those who equally apply the facts ( equally factual) relative to an "opposing"(?) relativity. Thus I would say that the real problem in physics is the seemingly insurmountable view toward RELATIVITY!( and not necessarily any stubbornness or defying of principles and laws). Our focus should then be toward one thing with a fervor..the problems with relativity.

 

This thread will demonstrate due to principles of patternization that will be categorically presented …that there is a way NOT around inferior relativity, rather there is a geometric and mathematic ( as well other ways once one sees the principles) way to manipulate relativity as if we were not on the receiving end of energy and sound but that we were actually riding along with light rays and sound and as a part of it( as separate from the universe but interacting within it ) ..then we may be better equipped to understand true relativity. True relativity as being the phenomenon verses perspective, inferior relativities as existing alongside the phenomenon. Relativity has not much to do with position rather relativity has to do with WHAT we are relative to. Something very profound represents relativity. What we call relativity ( full to overflowing with seemingly inconsistent resolve..though we have wittingly even explained these away) is deficient and represents being on the inside of something looking out verses being outside looking in. ( or part of the phenomenon itself) . Thus if we are inside out, logic would say : Turn our view outside in! This would represent a complete about face. This would represent reversing the holographic effect perceived in all creation so as to see what the true relativity looks like. What would we discover? Perhaps: Information is folded up within and around all nature. Nature is a scroll if you will. Thus: unwrap the scroll and layer by layer, page by page the information can now be viewed in a true linear fashion. Unwrap the dimensions lying through the thickness of the scroll…layer by layer..scrutinize each layer ( surface) record the information. Unroll it further. Record the information.(perpetually). Eventually as we reverse the tightly rolled and compacted information and span it out while dissecting each letter( infinitesimal space) and word( an expanded area of space) paragraph( earth) solar system( book) universe( encyclopedia)… we may be able to see the greater informational landscape.

 

Natural(physics)… Information tightly rolled up into micro and macro geometries.

 

First the surface will tell us things( The surface of the human arm as shown in a a former post.) The surface geometry of a flower. The informational value of the surface-human eye. The surface geometry of a human fingerprint. The surface value of waves on the sea. The surface value of the earth.

 

Secondly: Observe and record the information through the thickness.( x-ray, MRI, Laser and dissection).

 

Thirdly: Observe and decode the information innate to the core.

 

Information IS communicated everywhere and follows distinct and absolutely predictable principle of design, geometry, mathematics, symmetry, proportion. The principles are as harmonious as an orchestra that never misses a beat and all the sounds blend to maintain the chronology and information dictated by the "conductor." As we gradually organize the information of necessity principles and laws of nature and the physical universe will no longer "hide" from view. ( two slit experiment…?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion… Md65536 ( and for the benefit of those visiting this thread)

 

I hope that with time this thread will serve to place things in context verses any sophomoric stretching of things beyond there true relevance. ( " far out of context")

I try to never ignore science( as confined to principles of sincere observation and experiment). I do however seek to separate the wheat from the chaff. In other words dispose of things riddled with inconsistency or outright paradoxical fantasy..and try to maintain the integrity of reasoning that results in carefully embracing things as clearly viewed.

 

I am in a speculation forum so as to accommodate the rules of this forum. Information is information thus anywhere you can present information it is being dispensed and can be reasoned upon by others. Oscar the grouch was effectively dispensational from a trash can. Granted he was gruff..but I always saw him as realistic and sober with what he knew and how he perceived what others "knew." However "amateur" I am not. My posts as well as elaboration on principles relative to imagery as speaking volumes with myriad physics implications …will stand on their own merits as worthy of consideration or worthy of being thrown into the "iggy bin."

 

I accept that you do not 'think my ideas have any coloration with holographic principle.". Of course I haven't said nor presented much up to this point. Feel free to state your opinions as well stay involved in the discussion. Scientific 'debate" if maintaining respectfulness and open-mindedness is a very effective tool in the exchange of information with the intent of scientific progression.

 

I am not confused. Admittedly.

 

We all are "guilty of" many things we must try not to be repeat offenders.

 

I have made postulates ("claims" if you will). However, to reiterate: The "proofs" will be forthcoming.

 

 

note: with regard The former picture of the human arm( with the information stored on it). Take this into paint and magnify the eye.( small box). There is no doubt that this is exactly representative of the shape and design of an eye. Just a coincidence. We will see. How many images would i have to present to demonstrate that something strange is going on relative to "mass" and light. I could show you 30 a day for the next 50 years and still only represent but a fraction of one percent of the information stored relative to all terrestrial beings. Again..what will be shown in this thread will be unlike anything witnessed anywhere else. The principles and laws will become self explanatory in but a little while

Edited March 5, 2011 by soundoflight

[soundoflight]

The following images begin to unfurl the scroll of holographic geometry and will begin to express principles of nature(physics).

 

The picture labeled one(1) is representative of a certain area of the 2-dimensional surface of the human anatomy. ( 1 dimensional pictures). Pay close attention to the "brightest" area(s) of this image( where light photon is reflected to a larger degree).

 

Picture 2 represents this image after having colors inverted.

 

You will notice that 'one of the' bright areas forms the eye ….(relative to the semblance geometry of the elephant) ( emergent geometry of light)…of the elephant.

 

Note: The angle of the arm picture is slightly different than the angle of the picture of the elephant.( picture 3). Therefore if the elephant picture ..head were rotated a little to the right and upward you would realize that they eye falls relative to the elephants face exactly as it does relative to the 'holographic' image elephant that appears on the arm.( picture 1).

 

Picture 4 represents the "real elephant picture" ( verses the holographic image elephant found when these human muscles are inverted as to color. I.e picture 2)... …"inverted as to color."

 

I represented the conture of the human muscles relative to this inverted color elephant picture.( by adding lines and shading).

 

Do not be quick to say this is just one relative picture that describes the symmetry ( as well: proportion and spacing of anatomic organ) of an elephant. Do not be so quick to assume that this is coincidence.

 

I will continue to rotate the human body relative to perspective rotations of the elephants face( in subsequent posts). We will come to realize that this emergent holographic effect as well the emergent equivalent geometries will remain consistent. That is to say: These muscles of the human arm and chest will consistently ( experimentally-scientifically) form the symmetry and proportion of an elephants face, trunk, head and ear…regardless of altered degree of relativity.

 

I assure you..It gets much more profound. The profound consistencies are exactly proportional to the principles that will be derived from this holographic phenomenon.

 

I will allude to the "sound quality" as equally proficient( precisely scientific due to principles of observation and experiment ) in describing the 'holographic=information' .. associations. This will necessitate occasional digression into the linguistic implications of it all.

 

 

Inquiry: What are the science-principle 'relationship(s)' between pictures 5 and 6? What are the "sound"(language) relationship(s) between pictures 5 and 6?

 

More geometric information.

 

These strange metric-holographic correlations ( specifically confined to the distinct relationship between this part of the human anatomy and the elephant) could be represented infinitely just by altering the relative angle and position of the arm and then corolating these perspective images with elephants placed at the same relative angle.

 

We will move on.

 

 

Note: while the principles are consistent ( as will be demonstrated as occurrent in all of creation..forthcomming) ...some principles are suggested as being evident.

 

For instance ( as you will discern relative to the pictures I will present) :

 

when comparing two or more seemingly unrelated mass objects in the way that we are ( alternating from human vision to inverted color...."holographic insinuation") I have discovered that many times ( more often than not) when an object is veiwed before inverting color obviously certain parts of the object will reflect light more so. This is NOT the interesting phenomon ( as this is understood from an artistic as well physics standpoint).

 

What is strange is that when an object is inverted as to color the associative geometries that emerge(flora or fauna) seem to always represent the "eye" of the "holographic emergent geometry" in close, if not exact proximity to the strong reflections of light.

 

Obscured principle(?): strong light reflection when inverted forms distinct shapes, sizes, proportions, eyelids, eyelashes..of the eyes of associative geometries. This as opposed to other parts of the anatomy of the holographic flora and faun that emerge.

 

 

Another interesting fact: The Egyptians used "animal determinatives" when naming the human anatomy.

Edited March 5, 2011 by soundoflight

[soundoflight]

***In cse this image accompanies post #11 the commentary below is with regard to images 3.-------------------------->

 

Brief SOUND digression. Holographic, sound-geometric… equivalencies.

 

 

The small picture at the top is a picture of the arm ( used in a former post). Highlighted with a red circle is called the : BRACHIORADIALIS

 

The middle image is an another image of this part of the arm along with the arm itself.

 

The lower image is the inverted equivalent of the first picture. As you see it resembles the face of an alligator or crocodile.

 

 

What is the sound information that accompanies these light photon images.

 

 

 

Bra……………chioradialis

 

Chiorcadialis……Crocodiles.

 

Ailiachadior…..Alligator ( minus the letter "b" in the word " ….brachioradialis)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If this were NOT representative of a mathematical and scientific principle it would be a coincidence. This IS a principle of science. The science of sound as accompanying emergent geometry. Sound as representing information . Such information as transliterated by language systems relative to emergent geometry . ( language= translation of image to sound equivalences).

 

This thread will demonstrate that sound principles as expressed in the above considerations happens 100 percent of the time relative to ALL flora and Fauna.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Spatial-temporal reasoning is the ability to visualize spatial patterns and mentally manipulate them over a time-ordered sequence of spatial transformations.

This ability is important for generating and conceptualizing solutions to multi-step problems that arise in areas such as architecture, engineering, science, mathematics, art, games, and everyday life."( Wicipedia)

 

Amendment: Spatial-temporal reasoning…important for generating and conceptualizing solutions to multi-step problems that have arose relative to physics study.

 

(Cont. Wicipedia)

 

Spatial temporal reasoning….fresh 'human perspective on the physical reality.'

 

'..common sense background knowledge..'

 

Information derived from viewing holographic backgrounds/foregrounds.

 

".Methodologically, qualitative constraint calculi restrict the vocabulary of rich mathematical theories dealing with temporal or spatial entities such that specific aspects of these theories can be treated within decidable fragments with simple qualitative (non-metric) languages.

 

 

Holography as viewed relative to this thread represent 'fragmented' information with 'simple qualitative aspects' (light photon and sound ..as information communicative. Principles of holography as qualitatively represented and discovered within image( light photon) as well as sound ( languaging).

 

"..reasoning about entities located in space and time."

 

The entities of light and sound as recorded within resultant emergent geometries located ….all around us.

 

"handles queries efficiently"

 

Spatial-temporal reasoning along with a scientific resolve is efficient in discerning principles of nature (physic).

Edited March 6, 2011 by soundoflight

[soundoflight]

"CHICK-ING UP" on nature. (First picture)

 

Recording information. Sound and Light information.

 

Is this just ...."speculation".......?

 

A-NATURE( amature)........"trash talk(ing)"......?

 

 

 

It gets more profound. Every image to follow will be more vivid than its predecessor. Principles of holography and sound will continue to "blossom."

 

Either the former picture was just coincidence OR: This picture(picture 2) represents principle of observation, experiment, science and nature( physics....study of nature verses the complascent ideas that observation is merely peripheral to science.)

 

Trivia: What mathematic term is defined as .........peripheral?

 

Is the answer(?) a trivial matter?

 

Would asking what a "hen" has to do with the human cranium be as absurd as asking what a "chick" has to do with the human brain?

 

Are all of these holographic (trivial ) questions worthy of observation?

 

Postulate: Focusing on the relationship space has to mass, as well always aknowledging that holography and sound represent information may allow us to see and hear that theoretical absurbtities are inferior to observations. Or that, at times that which is considered absurd may turn out to be observationally SOUND! This along with the illuminations ( broadening the horizons of reasoning and logic) of light. Both Light and Sound as competent in both the production of "mass" as well as the storing of information relative to "mass"

Edited March 6, 2011 by soundoflight

[soundoflight]

I will preface the commentary in this post with the following excerpts from the body of work called "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton…Erik Verlinde)

 

 

"…a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario….. changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. …is intimately connected with the structure of space-time…., and space-time geometry are emergent… central notion needed to derive gravity is information. More precisely, it is the amount of information associated with matter and its location,…represented holographically either on the

boundary of space-time or on horizons…correspondence one can move the boundary inwards by exploiting a

holographic version of the renormalization group…exist ideas that the information can be stored on stretched horizons. Furthermore, by thinking about accelerated observers, one can in principle locate holographic screens….should exist a general framework that describes how space emerges together with gravity.." gravity= information.

 

The following images will begin to elaborate on the proposals of Eric Verlinde relative to his paper.

 

We will first imagine that geometry has already 'emerged' ( this is represented by picture 1..the first picture in the top left showing a series of geometric figures.). This picture is representative of one dimensional geometries as viewed by the human eye.( I am working on 3-dimentionalizing the accompanying images relative to limited resources, save creativity..forthcoming.) Imagine that you are seeing these shapes as they are represented on a 1 dimensional surface ( plane).

 

The bigger picture to the right represents a series of circles relative to the solid colored geometric shapes. You will also notice that a small section of the picture ( extroverting the geometric shapes) is framed into a rectangle with a upside down triangle connected to its base. ( it resembles part of a sharpened pencil as to geometric shape…this shape is irrelevant to the significances). This "pencil" represents a plane if you will that exists within the space of the universe. This 'plane' represents not only that which reflects light photon but as well refracts the light. A pocket of space separated from bulk space ..that which receives light photon as well as sound onto its surface and through its "thickness".

 

The circles within the "pencil" represent reflected light on the surface of the plane. The circles that exist outside of the plane of reflection ( as part of the area of light reflected onto the plane) represent the light circle communicated outside of the plain( from origin of light photon traveling through space) of reflection and represents that light continuing its forward progression and constant light speed beyond the reflective plane. Thus whatever part of the light "ray(s) come into contact with the plane surface ..its light is reflected onto the plane. The area within the light ray that does NOT collide with this reflective- surface- stratum continues beyond the plane ( pencil= plane within space relative to light photon and sound)..out into space unobstructed.

 

The distinct, 1- dimensional- geometric , colored shapes within the pencil represent the light on the surface of the plane being refracted into the thickness of the plane. Thus this refraction of ..surface- light reflected ray… results in the light ray being converted to dimensional geometries. Or : light being bent or molded into geometric forms of itself. As each light circle ( large or small) overlap within the thickness of the plane ( screen) of necessity this represents overlapping of refracted light. As this light is refracted and as each perspective light ray overlaps this begins to create dimension and thickness of the emergent geometries. ( forms of light ).

 

If you look closely you will notice that each diameter circle is representative of the color of the geometric shapes within. Or: If the circle is red its circumference upon entering the refractive quality of the plane( pencil area) falls relative to the sides or line measurements of the corresponding "red" colored geometric shape within the plane( colored shapes..circle, triangle, square etc..). This begins to demonstrate how the circumference of reflected light circles bear proportional line measurements that can begin to form line measurements of non-circular geometric shapes. The line measurements ( sides) of the refracted solid-geometric shapes within the plane will always represent "vestiges" of the larger circumference reflected light ray that is forming it. Or: The larger a reflected circle is (greater diameter circle with a larger circumferential area) the larger the geometric side of an emergent geometry will be. The smaller the circumference of the reflected light ray is it can only accommodate a certain line measurement "length" relative to the emergent geometry. This is why some circles are larger than others. If you look closely the larger circles fall on the emergent geometric shapes ( solid colored shapes in the plane) whose sides have longer measurements. This also indicates that the light rays are either closer or further away from the reflective/refractive plane relative to the light rays. The farther the light source is away from the reflective plane ( area inside the 'pencil) the larger the circumference of its reflected light ray will be once it reaches the reflective plane surface. Once its ray reaches the plane its circumference as reflected upon and within the plane accommodates a longer line measurement of the emergent geometric shapes. Not only is each light ray circumference refracted into the thickness of the plane but as well its light (as refracted) is overlapping other light rays being equally refracted into the plane. Thus all of these varying overlapping of light rays refracted as well the angles of the light rays ( incidence angle(s)) result also in different shades produced relative to the emergent geometries within the plane. As well results in the "angle" the geometrics dwelling within "take on."

 

To us this looks like a very confusing state of conditions. To us this is very hard to comprehend. Yet we have not yet represented the holographic effect ( light refracted) that occurs relative to this universal system. A system that represents the relationship ( relativity of) between light and that light communicated to reflective/refractive planes. Actually there are many more considerations ( principles) we must represent for all of this to become more clear .

 

Now direct your attention to the next picture.

 

This picture is designed to more appropriate how we see space. Imagine that the reflective plane ( pencil) represents a nebula. The surrounding space represents the dark of night or the darkness out in space when we zoom in with our telescopes. I merely darkened in the space around the picture while retaining the color of the circles as well as the "grey area" ( pencil) along with the color of the emergent geometries found within the plane ( representative of the refraction and overlapping of reflected light circles ..as well representing "angle" of "circle."

 

Or imagine that you are holding a little chick in your hand at night under illumination of the moon.

 

In the reality we would not see the circumferences of the light 'outside' the pencil. The circles outside the pencil actually represent light rays traveling through space. ( we will come to understand this relative to subsequent pictures and considerations). As well we do not see the circumferences of the circles 'within' the pencil( plane.)… we are altering our relative view a little here. Rather we would view only the product of light rays reflected/ refracted onto the plane( emergent forms= "mass") ….( while failing to see the light rays outside our plane) and: we would realize these refracted/reflected 'emergent geometries' because we are dwelling within the plane and can only be aware of ourselves and other reflected/refracted being circles within. This indicates to us that only what is in the "grey matter"(pencil area) represent things we can perceive. This would also mean that all of the white colored circles outside in the dark space( simulating stars) may themselves represent reflective refractive planes as receiving light photon on there surface and through their planed thickness. Thus since we would not see the light ray circles outside the pencil..and ..if the "stars" are also themselves representative of 'grey matter' reflections then this would mean that ONLY the "dark matter" ( black space) is actually what we cannot see and that which represents UNREFLECTED/UNREFRACTED pure white light photon. Or: The only purely white light is actually representative of what we have considered as "purely dark matter.

 

Quote: (Wicipedia: Dark matter") "In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation…"

 

The main thing in the universe that is inferred is LIGHT! The main thing that is elusive as far as seeing..'undetectable' is pure white light. ( It is interesting what occurs when one inverts the 'color' white. If one does white converts to black). ( Is this suggesting in principle that if we reverse the holographic effect of light refracted that we will be better able to visualize and reason upon black space as representing pure white light?)

 

Quote: Wicipedia( Dark matter)

 

"According to observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe. In comparison, ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy.[2][3] From these figures, dark matter constitutes 80% of the matter in the universe, while ordinary matter makes up only 20%."

 

What may we have to acknowledge from these observations? Is dark matter actually representative of pure white light. The epitome of light as UNREFLECTED/UNREFRACTED!? Is the physical universe actually representative of 'bulk light' ( 80 %…unrefracted/unreflected) with lower forms of light( "mass"…20%…"grey matter")

 

Quote: Reference: Science and Nature: 10 strange things about the universe. (interesting reading)

 

"The universe can be a very strange place. While groundbreaking ideas such as quantum theory, relativity and even the Earth going around the Sun might be commonly accepted now, science still continues to show that the universe contains things you might find it difficult to believe, and even more difficult to get your head around.

 

Now consider picture 3. (top left box)

 

If al the black space represents actually pure light ( that we cannot see…imagine what we would see if we learned how to look). Then the "door" in the middle actually represents a plane within space that reflects the quality and attribute of light ( and sound). This first box ( top left) is actually representative of a grey area in space ( enclosed portion of bulk light space) that reflects and refracts light.

 

Note: go to paint ( or other format) and draw solid squares representing the colors of the spectrum. Alongside these colors draw a solid "grey" square. Invert the colors of all these squares. What defies the principle of light inverted? What I mean is this: All the colors if inverted alter to entirely different colors. What of Grey? Is Grey an appropriate medium that does not follow the principles of inverted color. This may suggest in principle that the color grey is impervious ( or at least less susceptible) to the natural principles innate to light refracted. Thus if Grey matter represents the phenomenon of areas inside space that do not respond to light the same as other colors( less refractive?…?) then these grey matter planes would be an appropriate medium relative to white light that could contain the spectrum of light without itself being altered significantly. I will discuss this latter on.

 

Look at the box top right( picture 3).

 

This represents what occurs after the light rays that collide with the surface of the plain , and that overlap ( as well refract into the plane). What occurs is that light circles reflected/refracted overlap and their perspective size circumferences form emergent geometries ( whether circular-spherical or square-cube…line geometries) …within the grey matter plane. The surface geometry( 1&2 dimensional surfaces) is represented on the surface of the plane( holographic screen). There thickness or 3 dimensional quality occurs relative to the combination of the surface geometry and the refraction of light within the thickness of the plane.

 

If you look back at picture 1 ( or any picture representing space outside the pencil…you will see that the depth of dimension ( overlapping of circles) is stranger to the visual processes than what exists inside the pencil. Thus the universe within this framework ( framework outside of the reflection/ refraction of light) represents myriad dimension or perhaps an infinity of dimension.

 

As it is the space inside the box is part of the space outside the box. Thus the "emergent geometry" inside the plane is actually part of the light outside the pencil. In fact! The light outside the box( overlapping light rays out in space) actually results in the emergent geometries within the pencil.(plane= inside circumference of pencil). Remember what lies in the box ( geometric forms refracted) actually result due to light rays being reflected/refracted and due to this overlapping of light circles other geometric shapes emerge. And they emerge with dimension due to refraction of light rays overlapping.

 

I have taken the shapes appearing inside the box and framed them in as if they have already refracted the light rays. You will see a representation of a "chick." ( Compare this picture box( top left relative to picture 3) …to the first picture representing the large and small circles( light rays reflected) overlapping. .)

 

Look at the box lower left( picture 3).

 

This represents the reversal of dark space ( dark matter- light) into white light. Thus this would represent a bright day and what we would see …a 'chick'. Of course this is just a representation of what we would see relative to the way our perspective eye functions relative to light photon. How would an animal see it. Perhaps an animal ( with a different eye) might see in a way representative of box 4( lower right). Or an animal 'at night' would see box 3( lower left) while we "at night" would see something to the effect of box 4( lower right).

 

What both human and animal may not realize is the phenomenon occurring outside or relative view( the ability of our eye to see white light) …this would be representative of the dark space ( pure white light) as well as the many circle diameters existing outside the pencil. As well what we the human may not realize is that we are a product of light. We emerge relative to the reflection and refraction of light. Our existence is contingent upon light reflected, sound reflected,… light refracted, sound refracted. We may be animated holographic forms relative to the motion of light reflected and refracted to our very being. ( upon screens..planes..stratum..medium).

 

Picture 4 demonstrates may be occurring.

 

Light from out in space( bulk light photon) is reflected to screens. The screen represents light trapped inside of "grey matter." ( bubbles, planes….?) and is represented by the box with the pictures inside. These light rays form "strings" when they reach the surface of the reflective plane. Or: From origin of light to the plane represents point A to point B as attached and forming either a microscopic string or a macroscopic tube. Both representative as closed systems. ( the mirror imaging is irrelevant in this regard and only serves aesthetic purpose as implying the principles being postulated.

 

 

What of Gravity, entropy…intelligence? I will attempt to explain these things from a different relative perspective subsequently.

 

I will leave the discussion for the moment with ….question:

 

What does the opening quote ( Verlinde) have to do with these …"matter"(s)?

 

As well just as a "fringe" benefit. Consider picture 4 as a means of "broadening the horizons."

 

PICTURE 3, 4 & 5

Edited March 8, 2011 by soundoflight

[md65536]

This is amazing. I don't know what to make of it.

 

Do you think Verlinde was talking about images and the sounds of words in his paper? Or do you think it is the key to understanding his work, which he perhaps failed to grasp?

 

Do you think that this really has any relation to an actual physical reality or to our understanding of it? If so, how could you demonstrate its physical reality, or what test could disprove it?

So far all I got out of this is "Some things resemble other things (in shape and/or word sound)". To me, this is completely explainable in terms of how the brain interprets shapes and images, the development of languages, and the statistics of coincidence. None of these need to have any relation to a holographic nature of the universe.

 

For over half a year I've resigned to labeling myself a crackpot, but I will stop now. I don't have nearly enough imagination for it. I'm way out of that league.

 

But I see a familiar attempt to put complex ideas into simpler understood ones, which leads to analogies that may seem silly at first but can lead to better understanding after a lot of analysis. I think you have a lot of work to do before this will come near to any useful conclusions, and that you will completely change your understanding of all of these topics several times before that happens. Are you prepared to throw away all of this work several times over in order to truly understand it? If not, I fail to see any useful conclusion.

[soundoflight]

This is amazing. I don't know what to make of it.

 

Do you think Verlinde was talking about images and the sounds of words in his paper? Or do you think it is the key to understanding his work, which he perhaps failed to grasp?

 

Do you think that this really has any relation to an actual physical reality or to our understanding of it? If so, how could you demonstrate its physical reality, or what test could disprove it?

So far all I got out of this is "Some things resemble other things (in shape and/or word sound)". To me, this is completely explainable in terms of how the brain interprets shapes and images, the development of languages, and the statistics of coincidence. None of these need to have any relation to a holographic nature of the universe.

 

For over half a year I've resigned to labeling myself a crackpot, but I will stop now. I don't have nearly enough imagination for it. I'm way out of that league.

 

But I see a familiar attempt to put complex ideas into simpler understood ones, which leads to analogies that may seem silly at first but can lead to better understanding after a lot of analysis. I think you have a lot of work to do before this will come near to any useful conclusions, and that you will completely change your understanding of all of these topics several times before that happens. Are you prepared to throw away all of this work several times over in order to truly understand it? If not, I fail to see any useful conclusion.

 

 

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."

Edited March 21, 2011 by soundoflight

[soundoflight]

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.

Edited March 29, 2011 by soundoflight

[soundoflight]

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)

 

　

 

[Klaynos]

Would an accurate summary be "If things looks the same they are the same"?

[soundoflight]

Would an accurate summary be "If things looks the same they are the same"?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[soundoflight]

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

[Klaynos]

I don't have a clue what your point is, but it sure as hell ain't science.

[soundoflight]

I don't have a clue what your point is, but it sure as hell ain't science.

 

 

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

Edited April 22, 2011 by soundoflight

[Klaynos]

It is not science. The human brain is designed to recognise patterns it doesn't mean there is any connection really there though. You need some causal link to consider. There isn't one presented here. It's not science.

[soundoflight]

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")

Edited April 22, 2011 by soundoflight