Did you know this, about the Theory of Light ?

Do you see the Granular texture in the Black Disc in the Centre of this Animation ???

Make sure you view this 75 cm away from the screen. Observe this at different distances from your screen. Stare at the Centre of the Rotation.






And in this Animation also.





What actually sees this Yellow Granular texture on Black ???

Is it your……

a. Eyes
b. Brain
c. Your Mind (Consciousness)


This Function producing Granular textures, but in many other forms as well is a small "Component" of the development of Mind "Interfaces" I am involved with.

But more about this in the future.

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Thank you for posting on this thread...

EM radiation is really an oscillating field of both E and M components.

100 % correct....

What Produces these ???

And where do the Laws we have discovered, regarding EM come from and what, Not who, has produced these Laws and How ??

I frankly don't get your drift. There have been numerous physicists who spent their entire careers studying both experimental and theoretical aspects of E&M.

Nobody "produced" these laws.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Nobody "produced" these laws.

"Something" did... or they would Not exist would they, or remain constant ???

All things behave within the Laws of Physics ???

Now do you get my drift ???

[edit on 1-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

I get what you are hinting here, but why not say it clearer? You think our whole existence is basedd on something like computer code, a simulation if you will. And the source of this simulation has necessarily nothing in common with the simulation itself (think of the gamecode running in memory and compare it to the generated world of a RPG you can run around in)

The only link between these worlds are the api, or the rule set of how you interact/observe with the simulation. This could be called the laws of nature.

I have been pondering over this subject quite a lot, but find it so deeply philosophical in nature, that it is useless to ponder. As analogy: first figure out the control and rule set of the game you play, only then try to dig into the codebase and try to understand how its done.

reply to post by above

I get what you are hinting here, but why not say it clearer? You think our whole existence is basedd on something like computer code, a simulation if you will. And the source of this simulation has necessarily nothing in common with the simulation itself (think of the gamecode running in memory and compare it to the generated world of a RPG you can run around in)

The only link between these worlds are the api, or the rule set of how you interact/observe with the simulation. This could be called the laws of nature.

One way of describing it....

You are onto it…


I have the Construct, Source code and some of the Instruction Sets... Some thousand... But it is only scratching the Surface of the most powerful Computer ever Created.

This "World" (Universe) is the result of an "Animation Program" similar to what you have described above.

We have got well past the pondering stage, many years ago.....

I have posted many times, a 100% accurate Drawing of the “Partition Map” of the “Processing System” which exists in a “Plane” having 2 “Outer” Faces and innumerable “Inner” (Conceptual) Faces …

A separation must first have taken place for the first “Particle” to come into being, as a “Particle” is a Portion of something i.e. a Smaller “Component” of the former.

When a “Particle” has been formed, 2 or more “Components” exist, even if it involves the first “Particle” only…

The “Particle” comes from the separation of a “mixture” having 2 or more Components involved.

To show some interesting phenomena regarding this, I have chosen to use 2 Components which make up “Darkness” i.e. Lacking “Hue” according to some.

For something to have “Hue” (a Component of Colour) Contrast must be present, as “Hue” means according to an English dictionary;- “the particular shade or tint of colour.”

For a more technical meaning see….

en.wikipedia.org...


So I refer to Darkness as lacking “Contrast” between 2 colours in this case Black & White.
If we mix Black & White we get Grey.

The Grey is dependant on the Ratio of Black & White.

May I suggest that “Contrast” may be a more appropriate word to use, in that we are unable to see the difference between the Black & White “Components”, thus seeing both together as a colour of Grey rather than 2 separate colours.


If we Separate the 2 “Components” which make up the colour Grey by gathering one “Component”, in this case the Black “Component” to a single Point (in the end), having no Size or Shape, we form a “Particle” of Black, leaving its Surrounding as the other Component which will be White.

Black & White are of course “Opposites”.

The Word “Particle” meaning “a part of”, in this case the Black is a “Particle” from the Grey.

We can in fact choose any location, within the “Boundaries” of the Grey, to Separate off the Black to.

Animation 001.



In this case described above, the “Particle” is said to be the “Inner” Component, being smaller and its “Environment” it exists in, is said to be the “Outer”.

Note carefully; the “illusion” of the receding Black caused by the separating off, of the Black to a single location, in this case to the Centre of the Grey (Vanishing point or Eternity).


But in this next animation, I have shown the Black gathering into a small area (Disc) in the Middle of the Grey, instead of into “Infinity” or “Vanishing point” in the absolute u]Centre, ….

Animation 002.



In this next Animation, I have shown the “Separation” of the Black into a location, other than the Middle of the Grey.

Animation 003.



The next animation shows the Black being separated out, into a small Disc.

Note here; the Black is seen to Recede to a lesser distance, than in the First and Second animations.

The Distance the Black recedes to, is expressed in 2D, i.e. The Smaller the area containing the Black, the further away it appears to be.
So in this next animation, the Black appears a little closer than in the Second animation.

Animation 004.



It can also be treated as looking through a “Tube” where the internal wall surface, is White and at the far end of the “Tube” is seen to be either, a Black “Wall” (Disc) or is seeing as being Black “Outside” or beyond the far end of the “Tube”.

In this next animation, I have shown the Black (Disc) moving about within the boundaries of the White “Component”, as though the far end of a “Tube”, is being moved about in your vision.

Animation 005.



A “Particle” can either have size, or No size or shape, depending on its definition.

So the “First movement of the Mind” is expressed as “To & Fro” from observing the change in Size according to the Separation taking place. This is if interpreted as if giving the impression the Black is receding.

Now “Rotate” the Concept 90°….

Animation 006.



So the forming of a “Particle” is the Separation of 2 Components, which are from a single Component involving 2 sub “Components” which were a mixture before.

If this was Not the Case, there would be no Environment for the Particle to be in ???

In this Case the forming of a Black “Particle” is the separation of Grey into its 2 “Components”, Black & White where the “Inner” Particle is Black and the “Outer” Particle is White.

We can also produce an “Inner” Particle as a White Particle and the “Outer” Particle as a Black Particle using the same model…
I refer to the "Outer" as also being a "Particle" as it is the other "Component" (Opposite) of the Grey.

Animation 007.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Ive been reading this thread, and it is long. Not that Im complaining just its Long haha

Anyways I was coming to the same conclusions as your last post.

Well the last animation you showed of rotation 90o of the seperating of the particle, that is what i was thinking was like the beginning of the universe.

Because the big problem with most theories is that you cant creat something out of nothing, therefor the BIG BANG theory is garbage.

I digress, the animation is more like a model for the universe. And that stretched out area is the universe as we know it. But here is the rub, We live in an oscillation of the universe, and say you took that animation and reversed it once it reached it paramount.

In this way the universe could be created and recreated over and over, only through oscillations.

reply to post by KingAtlas


Thank you for your post...

In this way the universe could be created and recreated over and over, only through oscillations.

This is based on the "First Movement" (Conceptual) discovered by "Awareness" (the Awareness of its own existence i.e. the result of “Comparing”. We can call this underlying “Awareness” as the LIFE in The All) which was / is "To & Fro"

LIGHT is actually the Activity within this “Awareness”.

What the human scientific world does Not understand yet, is that our real world is actually within a “Construct” which manifests 2 base pictures interacting with each other.

a. the “Environment Program”.
b. the (individual) “Species Program”

Regarding the “Environmental Program” we all continuously "Write" to unconsciously and a copy is played in all of these “Constructs”. (The Construct being the place where each of our own worlds are manifested.)

The "Environmental Program" exists in the form of a “Memory Map” which we all are continually "Updating" (Modifying) and is experienced by us all, who share in the experience of this Little Universe. The Universe being the manifestation of the “Environment Program” in the form of a “Dynamic Memory Map” and Not what humanity expects the Universe to be at all as in the so called physical sense.

The Second Program is the “Species Program” which our own little droplet of Consciousness experiences the “Environment Program” through by the interaction between these 2 Programs.
Each in groups of multiple Faces, the “Environmental Program” in one Face (of multiple Layers or Faces) and the Species Program (i.e. your human form) in the other Face containing its multiple Faces.

So our field of perception is our real world (Not the whole Universe) and the images in this, are being change billions of times a sec. This is where the oscillation of “To & Fro" can be found between multiple faces within a Plane which our “Conscious State” resides in.

There are innumerable "Constructs" (Planes) within an endless "Network" of Planes which is "Generational" in nature. These Constructs are the Partitioning of the All which “Awareness” resides in.

But it is important to realise that “Awareness” in reality has no size or Shape and All is produced by strict rules involving Concepts which the All (“Awareness”) Collectively Constructed.

Now in understanding the process of the “Separation” of Darkness into Black & White forming a “Particle”, realising we interpret this in many different ways at the same time. Imagine if multiple “Particles” are produced at the same time, from billions of layers and each layer having its own source, with a continuous stream being generated from each source if required, the illusion of the so called physical nature can be manifested within each Construct (Plane) where "Awareness" resides, experiencing Communication between the "Outer" Faces in the form of Glyphs of a Program.

This Communication (Program) controls the behaviour of this Phenomenon between the Faces of the Plane, our Awareness resides in.

The brain plays a very large part in “Decoding” and “Encoding” these programs.

While the brain is operating it is involved in decoding the "Inner" Program which allows us to see the manifestation of the Environment and our own body or “Species Program” (Singular).

There is another Program which is the "Outer" Program which involves the control of the "Environment Program" which is continually being updated.

In time we will learn how to edit these programs through Interfaces.

I hope to expand on this in the future showing where these Programs are contained and how to access them.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

are you showing a variation of the double slit and claiming it is new?

reply to post by Aeons

Originally posted by Aeons
are you showing a variation of the double slit and claiming it is new?

Thank you for your Interest...

The short answer is No....

This thread is more about the "interpretation" of what we assume to observe...

I am certainly Not the first to bring this up... in fact there was a famous German Scientist who touched on this theory, regarding light and colour, but his work had been pushed aside...

What I have shown, is the result of findings while being involved in R&D for the last 17 years full time with "Interactive Interfaces" with the Mind...

This enables us access to the very "Programs" which produce all.

To understand fully you will need to go through all my posts (Drawings) in this thread... That is if you have not already done this ???

In this thread I have shown that there are 2 "Components" which enable the display of the visual Spectrum and Not just the One being the Prism only...

If we pass Light as to say through a Prism only... this has No affect on Light except for Refraction and similar optic effects.

Prisms are also used as Mirrors in many optical functions.

The 2 "Components" required to display Colour are in this case...

a. An Edge (affecting Light)
b. The Prism..

Through the work I have been involved with, reveled that Light is in fact Not what it is believed to be today by Science, i.e. as in electromagnetic nature only, although it can display such phenomena in some areas.
But this is only a small part of the overall picture, and is only the End Result after the Programs are decoded via the Brain.

What is responsible for producing what we experience (See) and what we see are two entirelly different things.

If you open up the accepted "Slit", you will then discover what I am talking about... You can in fact do this at home yourself... Prisms are very easy to come by as you probably know...

If we open up the "Slit" and observe, you will find that there are 2 Colour rangers and White Light passes through the Prism between these 2 Sets of Colours unaffected (That is with regard to Colour).

If you use only one edge, instead of 2 as in the Single "Slit" all the colours are Not displayed at the same time???



Now Invert the "Edge"…



And it doesn’t matter which side the "Edge" is placed on regarding the prism, the outcome is still the same…






This next Drawing shows the Open “Slit” (top) and the Narrow “Slit” (lower) conditions….

The “Slit” is made up of 2 "Edges"… One inverted over the other.
The Green comes from the fact of some of the Yellow is merging with some of the Blue if the "Slit" is made Narrow and the appearence of the Green will be determined by how narrow the "Slit" is...



And once again each edge…

So the big question is then....


a. Is what we see within an interactive media defined as being Light?

b. Or is it what causes the Disturbance within the Transfer Media..

First....

Light is said to behave like “Waves”...

If so then this is the observation within some sort of “Interactive” or “Transmission” media...

Example… Like a “Stone” being dropped into a pool of still Water.

Where the Stone (influenced by Gravity) causes the disturbance in the Water, resulting in a Wave front propagating "Outward" from the Source.

The movement of the Water does Not involve "Outward" movement, that is across the “Face” unless influenced by changing depth of the water and velocity of the propagating “Wave Front” as such.
But instead movement of the Surface (a Face) at 90° to the propagation of the wave front, in an "Outward" direction from the Source of the Disturbance.

As you can see it is the “Interactive Media” which is changing, forming the Wave (the surface movement up and down) in the “Transfer Media” in this case the Water.

So is it then, only the behaviour of the “Transfer media”, we identify as being LIGHT or is it the source (the disturbance itself) we call LIGHT ???

If we consider Light as being Electromagnetic, this is rather the effect than the “Source” itself…

For example in electricity the Electromagnetic Field is only a component of Electricity and is Not the sole Component.
We also have the “Electric Field” and we also have what causes these 2….

But if we view this in the Geometric sense we find the “Electric Field” is in one axis while the “Magnetic Field” is in another. Perhaps this is why LIGHT appears in a duel nature…

a. Wave theory..
b. Particle theory…

Just as there are 2 Outers in 3D

a. Across your Vision…
b. Away in your Vision (Depth)

I guess Duality can be found in All regarding existence…

In the case of capacitance…

Drawing 01…



Drawing 02…



Where…

a. ef is the Electric Field.
b. mf is the Magnetic Field
c. d is the Dielectric holding the Opposites apart.
d. V is the source.

But in the case of LIGHT, a different "axis" is present regarding the "Magnetic Field"…

Drawing 03...



Where… S is the Source.

Because of the “Opposites” (the + and – Plates) a field of stress is present between the plates where each of the “Opposites” are attracting each other. This is the Electric field.
There is No movement within the Magnetic field in the other axis but is merely a state of Stress also.

If we increase the stress within the electric field by increasing the charge on the plates i.e. increase the “Opposites” so too does the "Magnetic field" increase.

Now if Light is in fact what we describe it to be as “Electromagnetic”, then there are also similar components that can be found in LIGHT.

a. The Source.
b. The Media which can be understood as the Dialectic which Separates the “Opposites”.

If this is Not the Case, then Light can Not be electromagnetic …

But we see Light in the form of "Waves" ???

Therefore these Waves are seen as a changing “Amplitude” in some form of “Transfer Media”.

Just as in RF, the "Transfer media" is a “Magnetic field”, where the behaviour in this “Transfer media” is in the form of AM (Amplitude Modulation) or FM. (Frequency Modulation). Note again the Duality…

If there wasn’t already a Magnetic field present in the environment, then Radio broadcast could not exist, unless we establish a magnetic field first from the "Transmitter" and the "Receiver" at least.

Our normal transmission is only “Interfacing” with a Larger Magnetic environment (electrically) and causing a disturbance to propagate through the larger Magnetic field media.

For example if we transmit across our Galaxy it is Not the "Magnetic field" we generate with an antenna, that reaches across the Galaxy.
But instead the "Magnetic field" we generate, is only the “Interface” (link) allowing us to “Disturb” the Greater "Electromagnetic media" through Space.

The Magnetic field which is already present, is like the "Water" a stone is dropped into producing "Waves".

So it is with Light…. Our observation of what we call LIGHT is only One of the “Components” of LIGHT. (Just like the waves produced by the Stone which disturbs the water.

The “Wave” Phenomenon is that which is experienced in the “Transmission media” or “Transfer media” and Not what is the "Source"...

If we are to understand LIGHT, then we need to Identify the Cause and we can’t do this by observing the Phenomenon in the “Transfer Media” as it is a completely different Phenomenon, than in the "Source.

What we see is the Nature or behaviour of the “Transfer media” and Not the "Cause".

Whichever way, we look at LIGHT, it involves the “Opposites”…

a. The Source
b. Other than the Source.

Another pair of "Opposites"....

a. Black.
b. White.

And the 3rd state which is between these 2 Ends, i.e. the “Transfer media”.

What are we really measuring when we relate to the velocity of light ???

Are we measuring the change in the Amplitude of the Wave (interpreted as the Velocity of Light) ???



Or are we measuring the Propagating Wave Front (interpreted as the Velocity of Light) ???




Or is it bi-directional (Oscillating both in Amplitude and Propagation)



Or is Light we see, the Modulation of the existing Magnetic environment (That is if, LIGHT is Electromagnetic Radiation alone ???

Perhaps the electromagnetic interpretation is only one component of LIGHT ???




Where “a.” in the above drawing represents the Average Ref of the Magnetic transfer media.

Do we ever see the Propagation of Light in space i.e. the leading end of a beam of Light or wave, travelling or propagating at any time ???

Is there any record of this happening

As there are huge clouds of gasses in the Universe surely we would see the leading wave travelling through such at times ??? i.e. the change in luminosity travelling through such gas clouds or other clouds in space containing partials.

If we look at multi-slits producing an interference pattern, does this only involve the inter-phasing of Light Amplitude, or are we looking at the edge of light beams, being opened by angular shift and inter-phasing with each other ???

All our experimentation is subject to interpretation by the human species….

Is our interpretation always correct???

Again great stuff and keep posting it.

I shall digest this stuff over a period of time and eventually have a decent reply to give you on the subject.

So is it then, only the behaviour of the “Transfer media”, we identify as being LIGHT or is it the source (the disturbance itself) we call LIGHT ???

This is what i find interesting about the whole subject.

The opening of an edge….

Here is the behaviour of LIGHT when interacting with an edge.

The edge of the LIGHT beam is spread, (Slight Rotation about the Edge which affects the beam) giving the impression of “tilting back” slightly, seen as “anti-clockwise”, in this drawing…




And then the Lower Edge… seen as “clockwise in this next drawing…





If we take any object, even if only a white sheet of paper where the edge is see on a white back ground there will appear to be a very fine line (usually Black or sometimes another dark colour) at the edge.

(I apologise...Not good photography; so check this out yourself using a couple of sheets of A4 with your own eyes)



Using a Camera Flash.


And without a Camera Flash.




Here in diagram form….




This Line is the “In-between” component (between the “Inner” and “Outer” Components) or 3rd Component Containing a Program.

The components in question…

a. The “Inner” contents of the object.
b. The "Outer” of the object.
c. The "Inner" of the environment the object is in.
d. The "Outer" of the "Inner" Environment.




If we see a source of LIGHT in the environment it can be understood as…



This next Drawing shows the 3 Components…

a. The “Outer”….. Grey.
b. The "Inner" …......White
c. The "In-between" (where the Programs are for the Contents and interactions with its “Environment”).




Note in the Drawing below; the Yellow Line indicates the Angle of the opened Edge of LIGHT and is similar to the angle of the face of the prism indicated by the tick. The Blue line indicated by a cross is considered to be the “Opposite” angle with respect to the perpendicular




And notice in the next Drawing; the “Blue angled line, corresponds to the other surface of the prism shown by a tick which is “Opposite” to the Yellow line indicated by the Red cross.




So the Edge which "interacts" with the LIGHT “Opens Up” the Edge of the Light Beam and the Prism selects which range is shown i.e. Yellow to Red or Blue to Violet.
Lines also are introduced which contain data, regarding the material the Light has come in contact with.

This is detected using a Spectrometer.



I realise we can also detect emmision lines as well.

So again here is a drawing showing the “Yellow” to “Red” coming from the Information contained in the 3rd Component i.e. the Program itself. If we look at the combined information contained within the 3rd component (Between the Edges; “Inner” and “Outer”) it is Green and Violet seen as Grey extending from the edge that is affecting the LIGHT Beam. (a variation of Grey i.e. Light Grey to Darker Grey when observing White Light).





And when the Prism is Inverted…..




[edit on 18-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Hey Thanks again Matrix Traveller for all that input data and I must admit I have to actually re-read it and keep re-reading it because I see it is a total paradigm shift in my own understanding of the belief definitions I have on various Physics understandings I have been led to believe in this world.
And as Dr Steven Greer said once,
" The truth will set you free indeed, but it will surely piss you off first!"

[edit on 4-9-2010 by Epsillion70]

reply to post by Epsillion70

as Dr Steven Greer said once,
" The truth will set you free indeed, but it will surely piss you off first!"

Very very True....

I often find others are pissed off at first, and some flee from the very thought that things may Not be what they seem, seen through the Human Species.

Yeah at least we know it is not so much as the material you have given them its just they have to learn to totally see their reality in a completely different light. And being Humans being creatures of habit that can be sooo scary if one isnt open-minded at all

It’s a crazy situation at times, because essentially we are “Comparators” and we Compare one thing with another. (or even a number of things with each other at one time)

So to see “White”, we need to compare it with something else, suggesting there are two or more components to Light.

We can't read White "Letters" on a back-ground of the Same White.

In order for the White Letters to be seen, requires a different coloured back-ground.

It is all very well to say that LIGHT is in the form of “Electromagnetic Waves” but this does Not define LIGHT but rather only its “behaviour” and its theoretical transfer within an environment.

Without the “Black”, the “White” can Not exist.

For darkness to exist; it has to be a level between two thresholds i.e. “Black" & "White".

No matter what we become Aware of, all still exists within “Boundaries” or “Thresholds”.

If “Darkness” was Lacking Light, we would NOT be able to see “Darkness”.
Therefore Darkness exists between thresholds.

In the case of Alternating Electric Current; there is a increase and decrease in electrical potential and we don’t say that only the “Negative” potential exists as without the “Positive” (or Less Negative) the “Negative” can’t exist.

When the profile of a sine wave, passes through the theoretical “0” the Potential still exists but is in equilibrium at the location of “0”.

If we consider “Electromagnetic Waves”; LIGHT Waves behave in a similar way as RF in that they are both “Electromagnetic Waves”.

I have asked for others to explain the measurement of LIGHT waves.
In other words does such pass through a “0” point as in AC or is the Wave in an “Offset” position i.e. above or below a “0” reference, where supposedly in the case of LIGHT there is No Light (in the "0" location of the sine wave regarding LIGHT) “according to wave theory”.

But this “0” reference can be understood in two different ways.

If we consider electric current (“DC”) which is the result of two different potentials across any given Conductor, when we measure the “Current”, these three things are involved…

a. Potential a. (if a Constant source)
b. Potential b. (if a Constant source)
and…
c. The Resistance present, in the Conductor

So if one Potential is say 100 Volts and the Other is 50 Volts, the Differential is said to be 50 Volts.
But if one Potential is 100 Volts and the Other is also 100 Volts even though there is No Current, we don’t say there is No Potential present.
(To do so, we would have to ignore the Environment, such Potentials exist in.)

In this case “0” represents the mid “level” between the two Potentials in Question, yet when both Potentials are the same, we still refer to the mid position as being “0’”.

So what I am trying to say is that what we often refer to as “0”, does NOT always suggest an absence of everything, yet contradictory to this may be interpreted as such.

Often we as a Species, fail to consider the “Dual Nature” of everything.

This “Duality” is the result of things being Constructed within an Environment of “Opposites”.

What makes things so difficult for the human Species, is their "Analytical processes" within the brain, are based on “Double Logic” hence the need for "Experimentation" and the necessity for Proof.

If our "Analytical System" within the brain was of “Single Logic” we would Not have to "experiment" or have to prove everything as we do, and ALL would be known or could be known, by/through Mathematically forecasting knowledge.
There would be No need for “Research facilities”.

The very fact we have “Research facilities” is an admission in itself, that such a “Double Logic” "Analytical processes" exists within the human Species.

My theory of light is that it is, as physics states, a particle and wave. All particles have an associated wave. Genesis 1 is light and John 1 is Logos(Word/wave). I see light as a double helix of information. DNA is a material representation of this helical structure. Light is streaming data. We see the wave as flat because we only see it like time--in a slice. It is really a vortex. Light projects substance into form.

I agree. Light is still a mystery. My feeling is that the Higgs Boson particle and associated wave will answer the question of streaming data from another dimension. The tree of life is like this light. One side is the material world we see. The other side is the side of the tree we create from the roots below.

I enjoyed your post. Very informative.


reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Thank you for your Post...

I hope it bumps this Thread again... Many thanks.

It has to be remembered we are experiencing the Result of Programs, the Language being referred to as The WORD (implying Communication in the context of biblical material).

But what Produces your experience, referring to LIGHT is nothing at all, like what is involved in the end Experience of LIGHT in the World.

This, (referring to) the "Experience" of LIGHT, comes from a source which is both Non-Dimensional and having No Energy…

(( The SHIN has two parts, What is referred to as "The Coal " (Static) and The "Flame" (Dynamic) referred to as "The Dance of LIGHT". )).

What we experience in the Form of “Energy" is the product of “Programming” by “The Outer True Mind”.

In the Work I am currently involved with, I am learning more about "Programming" The SHIN as it is referred to, in The “Technologies” of “The True Mind”, or LIFE.

I know you are aware of some of the meanings around the SHIN, (which you also know is also the twenty-first letter in many Semitic alphabets)

If you want to know more about The SHIN and the "Technologies" involving The SHIN please feel free to U2U me.

If this thread becomes alive again ?

I will Post a “Conclusion” regarding LIGHT.

It must be remembered there are “2 Stories” involving our Universe…

a. What the experience appears to be. This is the area Science is Studying…

and the Second Story…
b. The "Technologies" which Produce our "Experience", i.e. the “Species” and the "Environment" the Species Interacts with.

And this story has nothing to do with religion but involves “Technologies” yet to be discovered by the general public and much of the Scientific world.

In adition I will either start another Thread or continue in this thread and go into The "Technologies" of what is referred to as The SHIN and its Practical aplications in this World.