Solving E=mc2 ?

While thinking about the conversation I had lately about the manifest world being an interference and that spirals are expressions of intersections of light, I thought about Einsteins' equation... and remembered that not too long ago I applied the golden mean, 1.61 to Einsteins' E=MC2... I think I may be getting somewhere with all this physics stuff and think that conventional physics is extremely wrong in some things... but then I realized I already came to this conclusion last March when I wrote my "Traveling Faster than the Speed of Light" post.

E = 12.0107 (amu of carbon) x 2.61803399 (golden mean squared, c2).

E= 31.4444

If we move the decimal point over, it would be E=3.14 and that would be Pi; or the intersection of linear and non-linear reality!

So Carbon would travel 3.14 miles per second*. 

E= 15.9994 (amu of oxygen) x 2.61803399 (golden mean squared, c2).

E= 41.8869 or E=4.1886  ... oxygen would travel 4.18 miles per second. 

* this means that it would travel 3.14 miles each second

 Silver would travel...


E= 107.8682 amu (amu of silver) x 2.61803399 (golden mean squared, c2).

E= 282.4026 ... E=28.2402 miles per second

According to this treatise... Pi (3.14) is the intersection of linear and non-linear reality. This would also correspond to the idea that spirals are expressions of intersections of light. If carbon is a fundamental element of the manifest world, it could perhaps speed up or slow down light helping to create the interference. Pi creates a spiral, which is seen in nature... http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_09_02_02.html

E= 1.00794 (amu of Hydrogen) x 2.61803399 (golden mean squared, c2).
E= 2.6388 / 10
E= 0.2638

Hydrogen would travel 0.2638 miles per second

If we wanted to find how fast water traveled, it would travel 4.7162 m/s. ( Hydrogen + Hydrogen + Oxygen)

0.2638 + 0.2638 + 4.1886 = 4.7162 miles per second

The Manifest world is an Interference.

I have one -- er, colleague -- that I theorize with on occasion because we both study light, sound and form in a similar fashion. For me, its a bit more formal, but she is interested in light, sound and form as well in the same view. We're often theorizing about ideas and old hypotheses in hopes of retrieving some kind of truth, whatever it may be.

Last night, while procrastinating packing my dorm room up, I ran across an alternative science database that I haven't found before and this article. The article focused on the age-old idea that the earth is flat. I have had written ideas before suggesting that the earth/universe could indeed be flat: Holographic Reality and the World is Flat and the Universe is Flat. Apparently there are a few people out there that still believe that the world is flat. 

We got into an interesting discussion about the possibility of the Earth being flat and how it could possibly function as a flat surface.

I posted this link onto my colleague's facebook wall and the conversation began like this:

She commented jokingly, "All photographs of Earth from space are taken with FISH EYE LENSES to TRICK US!!!" 

In all seriousness, I then asked, "No, seriously have you thought about it though?"

She responded, "About a flat Earth? Not with my understanding of physics, which may or may not be faulty. But the Sun is visibly spherical, the moon is spherical, and the planets I've seen through a telescope also have the same light shading as a sphere rather than a disc. I wouldn't consider the Earth to be a special case.

Expanding Earth, that I've considered. "

"But isn't there always a dual option though in this world? What's the opposite of spherical? Flat. If everything is an illusion in this manifest world, things that would appear flat, would be spherical and vice versa, theoretically," I insisted.


She then replied, "I don't really believe the world operates on duality as much as a refracted spectrum of plurality. We could divide numbers as even or odds, but we could also differentiate by multiples of three or fives. I feel it has much more to do with perspective than duality. All illusions are equally false."

And then added, "Can we count a Mobius strip as being flat?"

"It looks like its technically a spiral, so yes," I answered.

Continuing, she said, "I don't know if there's physical evidence to support this, but I still think of the universe as expanding from a central point and collapsing back into itself when its expansion is no longer enough to overcome its gravity."

"Yes. I've seen that in Tibetan art," I said confidently. 

Then I asked, "what if our eyes are natural fish eye lenses?"

She answered, "That's still assuming physical matter is actual rather than perceptual. But we could also be light, shining onto inert information and perceiving it as experience..."

I then asked, "Light shining upon light equals what?"   

"Experience," she said simply.

Then she added, "We could equate light with attention, as we equate darkness with the unseen. There has to be an interaction of some sort for there to be anything to experience."   

"A world between worlds," I said.
 
 Then she asked, "If we perceive no opposition, interference, interaction, can we perceive otherness or plurality?"

"Are we built to do that? I don't think so, if we could, there would be no division," I responded.

"Light absorption," I then added.

 "That would be the point where illusion refracts as a distortion of reality. We can take a flat sheet of paper and pinch it somewhere, perceiving it as something other than paper, just because it has an apparent shape other than that which surrounds it. It's still the same thing though," she responded.

"Exactly," I said.

Then I added, "If we are beings of light, entering a world of light -- a different kind of light -- we would distort that reality because the present reality of who we are is already light ... the distorted reality is the reality we perceive to be real, as in the world we exist in now."

Continuing, she said, "Holographic apparitions rather than solid, actually separate entities. Perhaps this is why dimensions intersect each other at 90 degree angles. It's just us coming back on ourselves in new ways to experience multiplicity.

So particles are twists of space-time... "  

"Intersections of light. And! If absolute zero is no vibratory motion of any particle, it's because there is no interaction. It would be uninterrupted flatness," she added.

 "Ah ha! Flat," I exclaimed.
  
Then she asked, "We can extend on forever uninterrupted, but projecting requires an other to bounce off of. 0D as a source?" She laughed.


Laughing with her, I responded, "0D would be light though, it has to be."

Thinking out loud, I said, "but things can't bounce off if there is no density to it..."

"It's pretty awesome that we had the same thought train about interrupted light and projections," she said.

Then she asked, "But what -is- light? Consciousness? Beingness? That Which Is or the attention thereof? We seemingly innately equate it with positivity. So that which we see is light and that which we refuse to attend to is dark? I feel like the metaphor works in a literal way, I'm just not sure how."

"Oh shiny!!" I exclaimed.

"Actually, I think "oh shiny" may be the answer to your question," I added.

Pondering, she asked, "How does the light in a holograph work? Bounced off of a reflection?"

"What happens when physical light reflects off a metallic surface? It catches our attention, because we somehow can relate to it, for whatever reason," I said.

Continuing, she said, "That is precisely why, as I've gotten older, I've become more interested in sparkly sorts of things. Every living thing flourishes with light, and many animals instinctively collect shinies."

Finishing the conversation, I said, "By the way... spirals as expressions of light intersecting with each other? perhaps why they appear -everywhere- in nature?"

Tattwas - Sanskrit language of shapes and designs

My current inspiration is the Tattwas:

Tattwa are geometric images from India. they are  symbols  that can be used in mandala.  One of the most traditional symbol sets and one considered to have innate power to effect realization is by using  Tattwa. These simple geometric symbols can be used in  meditation.

 Tattwa is a Sanskrit word meaning energy. Tattwas are  five geometric symbols which represent the five universal energies.  Each Tattwas symbolizes unique energies with specific properties, potentials and frequencies. In varying combinations, these five energies make up the sum totality of everything in our physical and spiritual universe. These five basic symbols are combined to create symbols of many different kinds.
 The  tattwa symbols are the ovoid, the triangle, the half-moon, the circle, and the square. These definitions are minimal and in no way represent the totality of the symbol.  Source: http://pjentoft.com/on-Tattwa.html

 

These would make an interesting language. For example the Circle represents air, and we could have all words associated with the element of air. The prominent shape in the mandala would represent the main theme of what is being expressed. So if we are talking about miscommunication, we would probably have a large circle, in orange. As that is the complimentary color of blue (opposite). So a plain orange circle would mean no communication.

If we were talking about something about selling something like a house, the prominent shape would be yellow square it is represents Earth. Earth is all things materialistic. It would be paired with a smaller blue circle since blue circles represent thought and communication, etc.

They [the shapes] would be layered on top of each other above to create a geometrical story...

Shadow Divides

One of the twitter accounts I follow called, "Spacefuture" posts tweets about space and everything about it. They posted today this: http://robertlorayn.computersclub.org/universe.html it is a computer generated model of a cyclic universe. Using the idea of the big bang and the ever expanding vastness of the vacuum.

It got me thinking, it really did.

The page begins as a white screen. Think of this white screen as light, and all the things of this world are united within this glowing, white light.

Then suddenly shadow appears. Shadow is the dagger. It cuts and divides objects making them the 3-Dimensional things we know of today.  When the shadow begins and slowly expands, as seen in the model. Stars start to appear. Again this is because shadow divides.

Someone had commented on an earlier post about crop circles and they mentioned that they wondered why everything in this universe was constructed by a sphere. They are not spheres, but balls. Everything is a ball. There is a difference. Spheres are constructed by lines and points. Balls are constructed by the shadows that are created by light.

When you draw a 'sphere' or ball on a piece of paper, you don't start drawing it with lines and points but with shadow and light. 

Just like how in the cyclic universe model, when the shadow begins to expand, it shows stars and stars are balls of light with shadow attached. 

And then just as how shadow expanded, at a certain time when the shadow has completely taken over, the cycle begins again and the shadow begins to retract and dissolve. Then what is left is a shadowless light in which everything and anything is connected to.