What Is Light?

Originally posted by Unity_99
Light is the Creators/Designers/Goodness/God/Soul/US. The sun is the source of their power and through their Grace and Power all life exists and nothing would without Their constant input.

The projectors of the hologram is the Stars, and our home lies Beyond.

The Light is not the twisted version the esoterics maintain, or their distortions.

Agreed

reply to post by Mary Rose


That mainstream physics is wrong is no leap to make, unless one is willing to ignore all the significant anomalies. That does not, however, logically lead to the premise inherent in the title of the book, and God in this instance is NOT mathematical physics as far as I can tell from what I've read on Gaede so far.
That said, the needle/laser experiment was interesting. I hadn't even heard of the "bouncing off the windowsills" silliness.
I wonder though, if he pointed the laser through his ridiculous combover.......

reply to post by inanna1234


You need to re-read my post, which said that Gaede's theory is talking about EM radiation of any wavelength.

Might i offer a response to this post.

A light beam, refracted to form colours, when connected to the thought of a specific shape, actually forms the illusory shape conceived. The shape isn’t really there, only the illusion of the shape. The light beam, when divided, forms the atom symbol when observed in 2 dimensions. But how could the ancient mystics possibly have knowledge of the atom 6,000 years ago? There were no microscopes. The answer is, they saw this up close and first hand. They were in the presence of light energy at its origin, when it was first conceived or conjured forth. The luciferian group mind did everything. These THOUGHT FORM entities created this illusory light by just thinking it.

As light passes through a crystal, it is refracted into a rainbow. This is the origin of the term, christ. The luciferian egregore group of thinking entities is the father god, the creator of LIGHT or LIES, and their saviour is the crystal, the light of the world, the messianic christ-all, that convinces us the 3D illusion is real.

The creation of the number system was a crucial first step to global manipulation, and for that matter, global creation. In freemasonry, as well as in occultism, numbers are sacred. SACRED GEOMETRY is the number system presented as religion. This is the significance of the freemasonry symbol – the compass and square. This is the 6 pointed star, and is a from a Christian CROSS, or a SWASTIKA, and basically, it includes every religious symbol within its form in one fashion or another. Freemasons are not obsessed with the construction of physical buildings, just for the sake of building a building. Freemasons, and the INTELLECTUALIZED world as a whole, are fulfilling the agenda of the great god and architect of the universe, and to this end, apply the principles of their sacred geometry.

Freemasons run the governments of the world and strive to erect landmark buildings, monuments and national parks, etc., as strategic symbols of their influence and to instill the validity of the 3 dimensional realm. Not only as symbolic power, these structures act as direct subliminal hypnotic suggestion. Their agenda uses the flawed system of number and language rituals to build order out of chaos.

Without the number system there can be no global deception and manipulation. Every corruption in the world is the result of a religious or scientific system using numbers. Therefore, those desiring to control and manipulate must create some type of number system before they can proceed.

The 3 dimensional plane is just an illusion of Electrons Protons and Neutrons buzzing around at break neck speed creating the illusion of MATTER TIME and SPACE. - Bryan Kemila

From page 224:

I have shown here that the physical world that the mathematicians describe with their equations is unimaginable and counterintuitive only when we try to model it with particles. It is the particle hypothesis that should be discarded once and for all. A rope is a better hypothesis because it embodies the attributes of the two ‘entities’ that the mechanics have been describing for the last 400 years: particle and wave. The dozens of ‘particles’ of the Standard Model of Quantum are actually a description of a rope from every possible angle. Maxwell’s equations of ‘motion’ are actually different aspects of a physical structure. In Penrose’s words:

“ Somehow, Nature contrives to build a consistent world in which particles and field-oscillations are the same thing! Or, rather, her world consists of some more subtle ingredient, the words ‘particle’ and ‘wave’ conveying but partially appropriate pictures.” 63

The rope configuration is the only entity that fits this description.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

In the description that goes with this YouTube video, it is recommended for YouTubers who choose to comment on the video, that they first read the debate between YouTuber DoctorDave, a physics teacher, and Gaede because it will outline the differences between mainstream science and Gaede's theory. There is a link to a page that displays this debate.

One of the things said on this page that I'm struck with is this, from the physics teacher:

. . . (A "field" is either a mathematical construct or an actual physical entity, depending on your philosophical leanings.)The action of that field is quantized. The smallest quantum of the interaction of the field is called a gluon. (Actually - that should probably have been "the smallest interaction WITH the field is called a gluon".

Once again... it's in the linguistics where things are muddled. The mathematics are perfectly clear.) . . .

I can see where Gaede is coming from is his insistence on describing the objects one is talking about in physics. To me, one cannot say that a field is either a mathematical construct or an actual physical entity. If the mathematical construct does not represent an actual physical entity, what purpose does it serve in physics?

And how can mathematics be perfectly clear if the basis for the mathematics is not? Is a gluon an interaction of the field or with the field?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Can you explain a physical basis for the number e? I'm referring to the base of natural logarithms. What about "e to minus pi i equals minus one"? It may have some vague relevance to a circular object, but is there really such a thing as a perfectly circular object. Isn't a circle just an idealized analogy for objects whose mechanical properties tend to minimize their circumference. But isn't circumference a mathematical concept, rather than a physical one. How can you measure the circumference of a physical object to mathematical perfection? It can't be done!

Math is a tool for understanding our universe, but there are vast areas of math that have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
Math is a tool for understanding our universe . . .

Upon what should the math for describing electromagnetism be based?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
Math is a tool for understanding our universe . . .

Upon what should the math for describing electromagnetism be based?

edit on 05/29/11 by Mary Rose because: Wording

It is based on comparing imperfect measurements of observable effects on real objects to idealized effects on imaginary objects. When the observations match the ideals within the limits of accuracy, the math is an adequate analogy of the reality. It is a mistake to say that the math IS the reality.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . Gaede's theory is talking about EM radiation of any wavelength.

I used the comment section of his video to ask him about this and he replied:

"Your theory for light is referring to the entire EM spectrum"
.
Yes. The spectrum is essentially the rope at different link lengths.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I can see where Gaede is coming from is [in] his insistence on describing the objects one is talking about in physics.

The following quote from page 19 of the book sums up, I think, the point that Gaede is trying to make, and I think it is a good one, because math can become a world of its own unrelated to the task at hand if we're not careful:

. . . mathematicians can draw anything they want. The test of fire is for them to produce a mockup of their proposal in the lab.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Yes. The spectrum is essentially the rope at different link lengths.

From page 187, here is an example of how the proposed rope works in Nature:

A rope . . . is a continuous entity that doesn’t travel through a medium as waves or particles are alleged to do. A rope extends from an atom in the Sun, through the air, and through water all the way to an atom at the center of the Earth (Fig. 4.9). The rope has different link lengths (as opposed to wavelengths) in each medium. The speed of the torque signal along the rope is constant.

Here is Fig. 4.9:

EM ropes extend from atom to atom throughout the Universe. The link length is determined by the medium they happen to cross. The more the atoms of an object vibrate, the higher the frequency, and the shorter the length of the link. Here, a single ray from the Sun arrives on Earth and refracts through another rope or set of ropes interconnecting atoms that comprise a lake. The signal continues to be relayed from atom to atom all the way to the center of the Earth. The link length changes from an atom in one medium to an atom in another.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
One of the things said on this page that I'm struck with is this, from the physics teacher . . .

Here are the main points that Gaede lists that the physics teacher believes to be true - which also serve to summarize the mainstream view in physics today:

1. light is not a physical object

2. light cannot be illustrated because science does not have the tools to determine its true architecture

3. speculation as to its true configuration is an issue that concerns Philosophy (specifically, Epistemology) and not Physics.

Here are Gaede's contrasting beliefs:

1. the establishment does not understand the nature of the Scientific Method, which requires that an entity that is performing an action have shape. Concepts cannot be illustrated and, thus, cannot be placed as actors in movies of Physics.

2. light is a physical object and has shape

3. the establishment does in fact imply that light has a shape (although unknown specifically which) when it postulates that light is comprised of or comes in discrete 'packets.'

4. unfortunately, this description contradicts and is incompatible with the establishment's claim that light is also an extended object (has a wave configuration).

5. therefore, the establishment's proposal is irrational because no one, including the proponent can imagine a 'wave-packet', the alleged entity that we all see when a laser is pointed at a mirror.

From another page:

Summary

I briefly review a few of the golden rules, definitions, and principles of Science and Physics:

• If you cannot define a crucial word that makes or breaks your theory, you cannot and shouldn’t use it in your dissertation.

• A scientific definition is one that can be used consistently throughout the dissertation

• An object is that which has shape; a concept is that which doesn’t.

• Physics is first and foremost the science of objects, specifically of objects that exist. If you cannot draw it, it doesn’t belong in Physics, at least not as a physical object.

• Concepts do not have the ability to move. Movement is an attribute restricted to physical objects. A concept is a relation between two objects; it already embodies motion.

• Space is that which doesn't have shape and which ultimately surrounds and gives shape to all
objects. Space is not a thing. Space is a place.

• Space differs from concepts in that it is not artificial. Space was here before any of us came along and invented concepts.


The 5 strategic words of Mathematical Physics -- energy, mass, field, force, and time meet none of these conditions. They cannot and should not be used in science.

I noticed in the Wikipedia article about Gaede that his work is presented within the context of his merely quibbling over semantics.

I think that is untrue. I think he is pointing out fuzzy thinking that should cause cognitive dissonance for people studying and working in mainstream physics.

Just a viewpoint on the Op's question on "what is light" from my own perspective..

IMHO I think mainstream science is trying to use a foundation of observable data to base there theories or facts.

I think this is correct from our Current Observations but not accurate on the changing tides of the creation.

Think of a single point that almost instantly became everything...Light is slower than the rate of expansion. So depending on OUR perspective we might be observing Light that happened 2 days ago but science says it happened 200 light years ago...or 20 billion years ago.

Get a rubber band .. mark every mm with a pen..then quickly pull the band apart. .. it took you 20 seconds to mark it..1 second to pull it apart.. Now from your Observation those marks are 1mm apart at first..if you didint know that after you stretch it apart then you might conclude the distance between two marks are made 15 years apart.

Another one to consider..

Lets say your light ( a surfer for perspective ) your the light particle and the surf is the expansion of the universe. Now your going at light speed..but the wave is going faster then the surfer.. from your perspective your are the fastest thing on the ocean..but not really. The wake is Much faster then you.

So from your perspective .. you can only make an "observation" from your own location based on your current conditions.

Opens up possibilities eh .

JG.

Originally posted by jaduguru
So from your perspective .. you can only make an "observation" from your own location based on your current conditions.

Reminds me of a theory I've seen that black holes in one universe are stars in another and vice versa, and this is how energy remains constant within all parallel universes.

I have learned from posting questions on YouTube that Gaede's theory would not change the equations of Quantum. He says the abstract point particle is simply being replaced by the physical rope link. He also says that technology will not change. He says that Science is not practical - that it has to do with understanding - not with describing mathematically or making devices. He says that today we have Technology, but no understanding of how electricity or light do their magic.

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
Another point to ponder is that visible light only makes up for a very narrow band of the full EM spectrum, and our precisely tuned retina antennas pick up only the frequency they were built for, more or less. Supposedly we have three types of cones, One low band around the red color, one middle band around the yellow/green color, and one high band near the purple/violet color. The more info I bring up, the more they sound like little radio receivers.

You have it so 'hammer on the head'; I love your explanation and it is so on the spot.
Light is reflection of visible electromagnetic waves; in itself it does not exist. However, Light is not Photons.
We 'see' light as electromagnetic phenomena;

The string theory; Forget for a moment about the 'visualization of strings' between two points.
Take the two points of location and imagine a conscious energy linking them.

Light does not fit with normally accepted Electromagnetic energy;
Light can be multiplied; light and be diffused into darkness.
If there is nothing to reflect upon; then light can't exist.
Light is not the photonian . neutrino like particle which it is normally associated with.

Light itself is the "Rope" in the rope hypothesis;
Light is the origin, the divider and the nucleus of existence.

SORRY - Duplicated

reply to post by Aromaz


Personally, I wish the word "light" were not used in two ways - to mean only visible light, or to mean the whole EM spectrum. I find this to be confusing.

To be clear, in your post, are you referring only to visible light and not the rest of the spectrum?