keep an open mind

[stapel]

What are you supposed to do with the posted homework essay? Are you to evaluate it in some manner? Develop equations to support it? Or something else?

When you reply, please include a clear listing of your efforts so far, so we can see where you're getting stuck. Thank you!

 

[HallsofIvy]

if E: Engery M: Mass C: Light speed So we are familiar with E=MC^2 , correct? The Speed of light can be measured in both Particles and Wave that being said imagine C^2= Particle speed and Wave Speed;

I think you are misunderstanding what you have read. Light has both "particle properties" and "wave properties". That does NOT mean that it has separate "particle" and "wave" speeds. And they certainly do NOT add to c. Experiental evidence shows that the speed of light, whether you think of it as a particle or a wave, is c.

changing the equation to:
E=M(Particle speed + Wave speed)^2 the combination cannot exceed 1c. a

Non-sense. The "two" speeds are both c. They do not add!

Because Wave speed is not what traditional scientific mathamatics accoutns

What? The first measurements of the speed of light were done assuming it was a wave. It was only later that it was shown to "have particle properties" (not that is was a particle).

for I will now suggest and introduce a new equation by substituting out (c) in E=MC^2 for:
A=Alpha
QM(t)=Qp1+AeffQp2
To explain: Quantity of Measurement in being viewed in Time and is represented by QM(t). The wo constituent parts of matter, that of the particle and of the wave are represented respectively as the Quantity of Possition 1 (particle) and possition 2 (wave) the wave represented by the AeffQp2 and include what is called the Alpha effective.
accounting for variability we add to the equation i.e. The theory of Relativity.

Again, you are mistaken in thinking that light has particle and wave parts that can be treated separtely.

Now, is the wave is close to 1 then we are to say that we have quantified the speed of a wave in Time. [/quote]
"Close to 1"? Close to 1 what?

0 } Aeff { 1
This is what I have been studying in an attempt to mathematically describe whether someone is experiencing Particle Reality that is what we assume to be physical reality and is close to 0 then to describe what is called Reciprocal reality.

So basically "Particle Reality" and "Reciprocal Reality" are just words you made up and do not wish to define?

 

[HallsofIvy]

if E: Engery M: Mass C: Light speed So we are familiar with E=MC^2 , correct? The Speed of light can be measured in both Particles and Wave that being said imagine C^2= Particle speed and Wave Speed;

I think you are misunderstanding what you have read. Light has both "particle properties" and "wave properties". That does NOT mean that it has separate "particle" and "wave" speeds. And they certainly do NOT add to c. Experiental evidence shows that the speed of light, whether you think of it as a particle or a wave, is c.

changing the equation to:
E=M(Particle speed + Wave speed)^2 the combination cannot exceed 1c. a

Non-sense. The "two" speeds are both c. They do not add!

Because Wave speed is not what traditional scientific mathamatics accoutns

What? The first measurements of the speed of light were done assuming it was a wave. It was only later that it was shown to "have particle properties" (not that is was a particle).

for I will now suggest and introduce a new equation by substituting out (c) in E=MC^2 for:
A=Alpha
QM(t)=Qp1+AeffQp2
To explain: Quantity of Measurement in being viewed in Time and is represented by QM(t). The wo constituent parts of matter, that of the particle and of the wave are represented respectively as the Quantity of Possition 1 (particle) and possition 2 (wave) the wave represented by the AeffQp2 and include what is called the Alpha effective.
accounting for variability we add to the equation i.e. The theory of Relativity.

Again, you are mistaken in thinking that light has particle and wave parts that can be treated separtely.

Now, is the wave is close to 1 then we are to say that we have quantified the speed of a wave in Time.

"Close to 1"? Close to 1 what?

0 } Aeff { 1
This is what I have been studying in an attempt to mathematically describe whether someone is experiencing Particle Reality that is what we assume to be physical reality and is close to 0 then to describe what is called Reciprocal reality.

So basically "Particle Reality" and "Reciprocal Reality" are just words you made up and cannot define?

If you are keeping "an open mind", why have you not considered the possiblity that 1+ 1= 3?

 

[Deleted member 4993]

I think you are misunderstanding what you have read. Light has both "particle properties" and "wave properties". That does NOT mean that it has separate "particle" and "wave" speeds. And they certainly do NOT add to c. Experiental evidence shows that the speed of light, whether you think of it as a particle or a wave, is c.


Non-sense. The "two" speeds are both c. They do not add!


What? The first measurements of the speed of light were done assuming it was a wave. It was only later that it was shown to "have particle properties" (not that is was a particle).


Again, you are mistaken in thinking that light has particle and wave parts that can be treated separetely.


"Close to 1"? Close to 1 what?


So basically "Particle Reality" and "Reciprocal Reality" are just words you made up and cannot define?

If you are keeping "an open mind", why have you not considered the possiblity that 1+ 1= 3?

HoI - before responding seriously to this OP, read his/her previous posts. I did not delete it because of its entertainment value!!

I have attached his/her previous ramblings, just to remind us.....

 

[HallsofIvy]

Time & Space are up for interpretation by the observer proven through the Silt experiment, If Light speed remains 0 because the equation remains relative and Probability is measured by a numeral between 1 & 0 and Possibility is measured by + & - Wave forms if you square everything It becomes Positive and thus controlling slightly in a sense the cause of Probability vs. Possibility! simply put Time & Space are possibly controllable through Scared geometry just not in the way the Multi Media has presented it.... ok, I know, I know but before the Theory of relativity was proven by Nasa two years ago someone declaring the gravitational pull literally distorts time and space would have looked about a 40oz deep as well, right?

English is a remarkable language! Note how one can form words and even whole sentences that LOOK like they mean something!

 

[paradoxed21]

obtuse

You mean the Slit experiment...is this you? :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

You may use negative criticism to describe my previous post but it doesn’t bother me. If you would like a more precise break down by a practicing quantum physics article, look up William A. Tillers work whom brakes this equation down. Mr. Ivy: no sir, I did not make up those words. Particle reality is a way of describing what we think is our physical reality on a micro level and reciprocal is a way of describing the energy that lies in between matter that can be manipulated by some means. The equation is an attempt to separate esoteric/Occult Science by a means of mathematic and scientific reasoning. I fully admit when presenting theory’s that are in the building process they seem and I’ll use Mr. Ivys description, word salad. That is why most don’t show their theory’s until complete. I just thought I could gather assistance from individuals in a educational environment expecting to receive if any criticism in the least constructive. If truly here to help I would understand if someone is not up to par in an understanding you cannot fully help but that would be part of the learning process correct? But instead I’m met with obtuse, destructive and negative mannerisms as if in grade school. Good lust on those high horses boys, festering in a pool of false elite status. You successfully diminished the entire purpose of this sites mission. its a sad day for education and if a supposed mentors acted in the same, there is no hope for humanity. good day.

 

[HallsofIvy]

You may use negative criticism to describe my previous post but it doesn’t bother me.

What negative criticism do you mean? The quote you are replying to asked if by "slit", which could be a very simple typo, you meant "slit". Without knowing exactly what you meant, he could not reasonably answer your question.

If you would like a more precise break down by a practicing quantum physics article, look up William A. Tillers work whom brakes this equation down. Mr. Ivy: no sir, I did not make up those words. Particle reality is a way of describing what we think is our physical reality on a micro level and reciprocal is a way of describing the energy that lies in between matter that can be manipulated by some means. The equation is an attempt to separate esoteric/Occult Science by a means of mathematic and scientific reasoning. I fully admit when presenting theory’s that are in the building process they seem and I’ll use Mr. Ivys description, word salad.

I have looked back through my posts and do not see the phrase "word salad". Are you sure I used that description?

That is why most don’t show their theory’s until complete. I just thought I could gather assistance from individuals in a educational environment expecting to receive if any criticism in the least constructive. If truly here to help I would understand if someone is not up to par in an understanding you cannot fully help but that would be part of the learning process correct? But instead I’m met with obtuse, destructive and negative mannerisms as if in grade school. Good lust on those high horses boys, festering in a pool of false elite status. You successfully diminished the entire purpose of this sites mission. its a sad day for education and if a supposed mentors acted in the same, there is no hope for humanity. good day.