Unfortunately, if you want to understand this world view, beginning by light is the wrong way.
It was you who began with light - it was mentioned right up front in your first point.
So the "seven frequencies/vibration states of light" are apparently radio, microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma-ray, which is merely one way the electromagnetic spectrum is traditionally divided and is a human, not a natural, construct. We humans divide up the electromagnetic spectrum into ranges in other ways, too. The Wikipedia article on the electromagnetic spectrum divides the spectrum into 19 ranges in the table at the top, and then further on they present another way of dividing the spectrum into 9 ranges. And there are other ways to divide the spectrum. Some birds can see in the ultraviolet, which merges ultraviolet into the visible part of the spectrum, leaving you only six divisions. Some animals can detect the infra-red, putting that also in the visible portion and leaving you only five divisions.
You need to show how your "seven frequencies/vibration states of light" are fundamental to nature and not just an arbitrary human construct.
quote:It was you who began with light - it was mentioned right up front in your first point.
No, Percy, I don't mentioned it in my first post,...
I wasn't replying to your first post, I was replying to your Message 7. I asked, "What's the algorithm?" In your reply in Message 7 you at no point describe an algorithm, but instead write:
TheMatrix/DNA in Message 7 writes:
1) This is a common pattern identified at all natural systems, from light waves to atoms to astronomicals to cells, etc. 2) The first time this formula appeared was in shape of a natural single wave of light. Each one of the seven frequencies/vibration states of a light wave is one of the seven function...
But it turns out your seven states is just one way of dividing up the electromagnetic spectrum. You go on to say:
Maybe it is my arbitrary human construct, that's why I named my results as a theory (not a scientific theory...
Yes, obviously not a scientific theory.
I see ICANT has joined the discussion. I think he's the most suitable person for evaluating your "theory."