Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger  I have been intrigued with Pat's shapes since I first joined the site and Kigs has made some really nice illustrations of them. My main interest in the shape is in relating it to the 'masons' and gravitons of my own TOE. The mason is the node at each corner of the cubic structure of the aether and the gravitons are the links which join the corners together. I had been toying with the octahedron as an alternative but now realise that the cube and the octahedron can be viewed as similar structures: The cube has six sides and eight nodes whereas the octo has six nodes and eight sides. Both have eight links. I am finding the cube easier to work with now.
(1) I feel that the eight electrons of the second and third shells is no coincidence but is related to this structure. But more immediately, I find that by marking each of the links with plus and minus ends, I get a structure which is identical to Pat's eight cubes within a larger cube and with their tangrams at the nodes (corners). Is this just something obvious or does it have a deeper significance particularly for the electron shells?
(2) Could you please provide a link to your article or paper
(3) Are you suggesting two sets of eight creating the fourth and fifth shells? |
Felix, I am fascinated by Pat's visualizations, too. Any visualizations for that matter. I love structure, because I consider it the basis for everything. I am so happy to read that you see both the eight and six in the cube and the six and eight in the octahedron as performing same/similar functions. As mentioned, my theory of everything is based on duality (though not all-exclusively so), and with that I don't mean half of this and half of that, but very much like two eyes seeing the same stuff from slightly different points. I believe there will always be different ways to view the same reality.
1/ If we agree that the center spot is taken in by duality that helps create the first shell having two electrons (max), then we have 8 spots around it. In our three directional view we should actually only see six spots: front-back, up-down, top-down, but the octahedron Pat showed us let's us see that the
maximum occupancy of that same space is 8 and that 6 is just the spatial
minimum.
The third shell is (apparently) not based on even more spaces that the octahedron creates outside the second shell, because in numbers it is a mirror of that second shell. It is as if the duality of the first shell is so prominent that the second shell itself only delivers a partial function when using up all spots, requiring the third layer to fill up those 8 'slots.'
3/ I am suggesting that each shell is based on a power of 2. The surprise is that the entire group of three shells (18 electrons) somehow creates 16 slots outside of them. The first surprise I had occurred when realizing the steps are not 2 to the first, 2 to the second, 2 to the third power, etcetera, for the number of slots in each following layer. The second surprise I had occurred when realizing that the fourth and fifth shells were not delivering slots 2 to the fifth or sixth, but
just 2 to the fourth.
What I find fascinating is that therefore the first group of double layered electrons uses the
maximum available locations (eight) , while the second group of double layered electrons uses the
minimum number of locations (16) to create the subsequent layer instead of the maximum (32 or even 64). The last completed shell, only 'goes for' the minimum number of locations (32) as well. I consider this an indication of the pattern created by the electromagnetic field, as first visible with the first shell.
So the image I am seeing here is like that of many people jumping out of a plane (parachutes on their backs), and going to build a human structure. At the core of the structure-to-be, two of them get close, but they are not holding hands. Around them 8 people, and each of them is holding an arm or a leg of the two people in the middle, using one arm to do so. These ten people are not fully connected, just five each are connected (four each to the two center people); eight hands (of those eight people) are 'available.' The second shell group then needs 8 others behind them, holding the unused hands of the people of the second shell, while holding also one arm (not a hand) of another person of their own third shell. Now all people are connected, and this is the accomplished level.
To build the human structure out further, 16 people hold on to one leg of the 8 of that third shell and leaving one arm available to the fifth group. Then these other 16 grab these people's available arm and grab one arm of a person from their own group, forming the fifth shell. Then the sixth shell contains 32 people holding on to one leg of the 16 people in the fifth shell. While the 16 holding on to the 8 could withstand the various pressures well, 32 people holding on to 16 pair of legs requires coordination.
A seventh shell is never completed because there is no time left for an additional 32 people to attach themselves to these 32 with one arm stretching out. I am leaning towards a spatial explanation, with being a tiny bit further removed from the center in this seventh layer, but confusion could actually be part of the reason this shell could not be build in time. Several people could have just grabbed whatever, with the earth getting closer and closer. In either explanation, the whole scheme did not line up properly. Only a certain number of people were able to start forming the seventh shell. In the end, all people landed safely.
So, the seventh shell is the weakest shell, because the sixth shell is based on the
minimum number of slots, while the 4th and 5th shells are also based on the minimum number, though connected more strongly themselves to the second and third shells (that are based on the
maximum available spots). The sixth is therefore giving the seventh shell not enough strength/clarity/slots/space to complete the layer with 32 people. The bonds are weak, the overall view and coordination too complex, and requiring almost super-humans to close the gaps, it did not become completed.
2/ Before I give you the links to my site, please understand my language is that of a person writing for the lay-person. While I provide scientific evidence of my theory, it automatically indicates that science itself is limited. I therefore write for everyone and do not specifically target scientists. The answer for the theory of everything does not lie within science, but within comprehending structures.
Links to my site are:
http://pentapublishing.com where you can find links to two sponsored free chapters.
http://pentapublishing.com/Math.html where you can find the mathematical evidence I discovered for establishing the scientific information that our universe is not based on a single platform, unless the single platform is based on (partial) separation.