Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Speed 2, order

  1. #1 Speed 2, order 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Listen to sounds for example. At low pitch, we can get the ear to hear a high pitch where a low pitch is supposed to be and a high pitch where a low pitch is supposed to be. We do this by choosing to hear the front or back of the wave-traion from percussion -- however as the pitch increases the wave-train gets shorter and it is more difficult to make the difference happem.
    This an example of how our perception can alter reality: the whole wave-train enters the mind but we choose to ignore part of it.
    Are we doing the same with light?
    You may have heard of the rotating lady picture that spins clockwise for some people and anticlockwise for others? Some people can shift their perception and make the lady go either way.
    Then there are the psychology diagrams that appear to move and yet are just stable geometric patterns.

    Now does the sun shine? Most of us have seen pictures of solar flares and believe the sun is hot. Yes but cameras can take pictures in different frequencies such as infra-red, we can get night vision lenses. If we advanced our perception to a higher frequncy of the light spectrum and no longer perceived in the very narrow range of the visible spectrum, then we would fail to see the sun as hot, not see solar flares and not even feel sunlight; instead we might only see the light of this world, whatever it is. So visible perception depenmds on the visible spectrum used -- assumming we can or will shift that spectrum.

    Now I said sunlight does not move we just think it does, or hope it does. We could say that the sun absorbs radiation from things and hence forms shadows that way -- couldnt we? Things warm because light is being sucked out of them.

    Im suggesting nothing is fixed but all is perception dependent.

    And how can we suppose light just zooms out forever and never stops? Surely there must be a finite limit? If its moving at all.
    So i suggested light is part of a vast nest that bends space-time from beyond space-time and hence light manifests at all points in the geometry at the same time. But our perceptual predilection, our logic, wants to assume it moves so notices the brighter inner light before the less-bright outer lights and we suppose we see the light move at 300 million meters a second. AS I said, if we prefered to notcie the tracer or less-bright light of lightning first we would live in a society where we saw lighting go up all the time -- but our clever scientists would tell us there exists a heavier bolt that goes down to the ground, even though we would not see it.

    So light, is the nest order, is space-time -- what i think I am suggesting. That is, everything is made out of light, and the bending of space to form planets is light bending.

    Somewhere, far from our sun, light comes to a stop, if moving, and the light of the sun forms an orb. Or really the truth is were just seeing an orb of light and supposing it has movement in the part of it we can see?

    Order: order is the nest order, or it is order based on repetition of identicals or the closest thing; similiars linked togwether because approximately the same. The nest order has no repetition in it at all. But part of us wants to see identicals.
    (Part of us wants to see the nest.) So what we come up with, our science, is a compromise. For example the Periodic Table of elements and the musical do re me fa so lah tee doh that repeats endlessly in the pitch scale.
    Is compromise good enough?

    Another perception predelection is radial or circumferal perception. When we suppose we see light, we see the radial form of the light only and not as with water waves on a pond the circumferal edges. What about the measurement of the circumferal speed of light?
    Whats odd also is the speed of sound is said to be faster in solids -- this should not be! And does the measurement depend on whether the rod is struck at the side or the end? If we hit a solid long rod on the side, then the waves going along it are primarilarly circumeral not radial?

    I am seeking friends who seek a precision science not the quantitative science. I should be clearer. Precision is not pedantic or petty.
    The truth we seek is general.
    Mass is a quality, is a measurement of, if not disorder or chaos, a measurement of relative order -- it is difficult to describe. The inverse of mass is a then also a description of the behaviour of matter, but this time the opposite of inertia -- call it: conductance or propensity to flow and not stop, or transformation capacity, sometimes it is a capacity to resist movement such as in a steel I beam shape.
    We think the I beam has great inertia we call bending inertia when it is tall, but actually it has great vitality to resist change: the tall I-beam like an exclamation mark. 1/m is the ability to occupy space more efficiently.

    Last edited by Joshua Stone; October 9th, 2011 at 08:35 PM.
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  


Similar Threads

  1. Isoclines about a 1st order ODE
    By doctor_cat in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 4th, 2009, 05:46 PM
  2. Out Of Order!
    By William McCormick in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: April 14th, 2008, 08:54 AM
  3. order and none
    By parag1973 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 25th, 2008, 06:00 AM
  4. Introductions are in order...
    By Dimension in forum Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 11:24 AM
  5. the New Morgellons Order
    By TexasRose in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 10th, 2006, 12:40 PM
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts