The internal geometry of a Light wave

[Epsilon=One]

The internal geometry of a Light wave

The internal geometry of a Light wave is, heuristically represented by a two-dimensional Brunardot Ellipse (BE).

Light "waves" are expanding, dissipating, ellipsoidal structures that are generated; by functions of time and rotation about the major diameter of said, heuristic, Brunardot Ellipse (BE); from seminal motion that manifests as Triquametric motion (TM): relativistic, complex oscillating, ellipsoidal structures with internal resonances. The internal resonances which manifest as mass are referred to as Resoloids. Light is the traumatic ejection of said Resoloids.

Only Pulsoid Theory (PT) precisely explains where the almost inexhaustible energy within a light wave originates; which is also the identical locus of the, hitherto, inexplicable energy within the atom.

The light wave is the resultant of the seminal motion of the Unified Concept (UC), where the geometry of dynamic, emergent separation (DES) also establishes: the orthogonal dimensions; The Inverse Square Law; fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT); Natural integers and their basic arithmetical manipulations that underlie all mathematics such as the Natural function NF and it corollaries: the Golden Ratio, the Brunardot Series of which the revised Fibonacci sequence is a sequence; and the Natural prime numbers that are the “yardsticks” of Nature's scale.

Legend for a Brunardot Ellipse

Line AD = radius = r
Line BA = hypotenuse = h
Line BC = soliton = s
Line BD = wave = w
Line BF = vector = v
Line CA = diagonal radial = d
Line CF = amplitude = a
Line EB = perigee = p
Line ED = apogee = o
Line EF = diameter chord = c
Line EG = major diameter = M
Line FH = minor diameter = L
Line JA = diagonal = D

©Copyright 2005-2008 by Brunardot. All rights reserved.
Terms: Dialogue21.com, Brunardot, and Pulsoid Theory must be cited.

Sorry! This Thread has not been completed.
Please Bookmark and return to this site often.

If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
requested otherwise.

Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.

Please ask questions.

With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required.

.....
..........
..........If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.

[Midgar21]

If the glove fits...

I would assume that one of the greatest statements Pulsoid Theory could claim would be the structure and composition of light. Can this be empirically supported, aside from inference?

I'm not sure of the following question's validity, as I don't believe I am familiar with much of Pulsoid Theory's supplementary content as of yet, but perhaps it can illicit certain responses.

It seems that Pulsoid Theory has been constructed in such a manner that it, itself, cannot actually be proven; rather, it can only prove. We know that PT starts from the ground up, starting with the most fundamental concepts of math and science to eventually explain even the most seemingly-complex natural phenomena. It would make sense, then, that the explanations behind said phenomena would be ultimately correct because of the source from which they are constructed (PT utilizes no assumptions or theories that are not ultimately derived from simple Nature, [this may be from the idea that the derivation of Epsilon refutes the Incompleteness Theorem; not sure] and so generally, the only thing left debatable within PT are esoteric arguments of visualization, confusion, conception, or word-use).

It would seem that the essence of Pulsoid Theory is that the physical phenomena of the Universe can all be ultimately described by the most fundamental, simple, and natural systems of mathematics. If the glove fits, great. But does that mean that it's the glove being worn? Is there a way we can see the glove of reality? Pulsoid Theory is supposed to conform to (or be a product) IPSO. So aside from the argument that "it is the most logical explanation of Reality to-date," there must be some observable, empirical evidence that directly supports Pulsoid Theory, which can allow us to point and say: "this proves that the tenets of Pulsoid Theory prevail throughout physical reality." Is there?

If there is none, then a more ontological question is appropriate for finality: If System A accurately describes a subset, and System A cannot be proven as incorrect using any another system, is System A truth? Is Pulsoid Theory proven solely because it cannot be disproven?

Not sure if any of this makes sense...not really feelin on-the-ball today (sick; not too keen on re-reading). Of course, there actually may be empirical evidence that heavily suggests PT, in which case this argument is for naught

[Epsilon=One]

The glove fits . . .

I would assume that one of the greatest statements Pulsoid Theory could claim would be the structure and composition of light. Can this be empirically supported, aside from inference?

Yes; quite a bit of observation can leave no other conclusion concerning radiant energy (bosonic phenomena) than as represented by the heuristic symbolization of its internal structure as a pulsating Emergent Ellipsoid that is a Resoloid ejected as the consequence of Critical Compression (CrC).

I'm not sure of the following question's validity, as I don't believe I am familiar with much of Pulsoid Theory's supplementary content as of yet, but perhaps it can illicit certain responses.

Excellent approach . . .

It seems that Pulsoid Theory has been constructed in such a manner that it, itself, cannot actually be proven; rather, it can only prove.

The proof may be somewhat subjective; i.e. Pulsoid Theory reconciles known enigmas in accordance with IPSO; however, there are certain significant observations and philosophical logic that strongly supports many of Pulsoid Theory’s most contentious premises.

We know that PT starts from the ground up, starting with the most fundamental concepts of math and science to eventually explain even the most seemingly-complex natural phenomena.

Exactly. An approach that no Standard Model theory utilizes . . . even the Big Bang theory is silent concerning its genesis . . . and “container.”

It would make sense, then, that the explanations behind said phenomena would be ultimately correct because of the source from which they are constructed (PT utilizes no assumptions or theories that are not ultimately derived from simple Nature, [this may be from the idea that the derivation of Epsilon refutes the Incompleteness Theorem; not sure] and so generally, the only thing left debatable within PT are esoteric arguments of visualization, confusion, conception, or word-use).

I agree. Pulsoid Theory is intended as a superstructure to be tweaked as knowledge and wisdom increase.

It would seem that the essence of Pulsoid Theory is that the physical phenomena of the Universe can all be ultimately described by the most fundamental, simple, and natural systems of mathematics. If the glove fits, great.

”The glove fits.”

But does that mean that it's the glove being worn? Is there a way we can see the glove of reality? Pulsoid Theory is supposed to conform to (or be a product) IPSO. So aside from the argument that "it is the most logical explanation of Reality to-date," there must be some observable, empirical evidence that directly supports Pulsoid Theory, which can allow us to point and say: "this proves that the tenets of Pulsoid Theory prevail throughout physical reality." Is there?

Yes. There are many. Such as: “dark” matter effects; accelerating, galactic recession; high energy, background radiation; the Pioneer anomaly; a philosophically logical explanation of the Universe’s “container”; the particle/wave duality of light; an explanation of what “half-spin” is; an explanation of why mathematics is apt for explaining Nature; etc.; etc. You seem to understand the “drill” . . .

If there is none, then a more ontological question is appropriate for finality: If System A accurately describes a subset, and System A cannot be proven as incorrect using any another system, is System A truth? Is Pulsoid Theory proven solely because it cannot be disproven?

I do not consider that PT rationalizes the metaphysical. I do not consider the fundamental concepts of PT to be an ontological argument; for the reason that: I consider solid philosophical logic to be something more. Of course, I understand that concepts such as Infinity can never be observed.

And, Yes!; much of PT's strength, beyond logic and observation, is that it cannot be disproven. The proof of a negative is one of the strongest arguments.

Not sure if any of this makes sense...not really feelin on-the-ball today (sick; not too keen on re-reading). Of course, there actually may be empirical evidence that heavily suggests PT, in which case this argument is for naught

I can empathize with feeling sick; lately, it has been difficult for me to apply myself as much as usual; thus, the unseemly delay. Each day is much better.

There is much to be desired from rapid forum postings; I do not consider your argument or time “for naught” . . . just the opposite. As for re-reading, I find it, for myself, as almost useless until some significant time has lapsed. Which never seems to be the situation in forum posting.