East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

more simply - an evolutionary transition (life-cycle) which we understand from nature (caterpillar to butterfly) and astronomy (the dying star)
- a pattern which we may reflect back onto ourselves - can use to define our own context within reality.

Over the years, my reasoning has shown that all the external realities of not only the greater universe_out there_but also the greater super-consciousness of all Earth's citizens, can be isomorphically mapped to much of our internal quantum world of mind and body, as well as the quantum wells of QED and QCD. There's just far too many close matches, and not only the one's you've posted about, but hundreds more I've witnessed over the years.

Take a look at a star__It's truly philanthropic__it gives all life to us worthless greedy Earth-Creatures. Look at a star__It's studied by Cosmologists_hydrodynamically, as are galaxies__Why not QCD...? Atoms, to me, are like micro galaxies__It's just the absorptions and emissions are so close we can't measure the gravity, due to the density of both A's and E's. Protons are like micro-black-holes__Maybe even have weak event horizons. They sure have a close geometry, except for the electron's changing orbit, but if I were wizzing through that many in and out waves, I think I might change orbits, as I absorbed and emitted em-waves. And back again to galaxy collisions of the many geometries we've witnessed, there's many different voltages and velocities, due to the elemental table's densities of materials involved. Yet, there's a universal geometry of the total symmetry of the laws of physics, acting in all these processes, so far discovered, and others not yet discovered.

Then when I relate this all to the internal geometric symmetries of perception's necessities, of an information preservation paths, not only for life long memories, but the more obvious continuity preservation, of us seeing the preservation of informations, when we purposely join lesser concepts of knowledge, into greater concepts of higher knowledges__We see this__We know it. It's an obvious universal geomentry, which requires a universal isomorphic symmetry of the laws of physics to be present. And, when we take in all the logics of the outer and inner worlds, we should start to be able to put this jig-saw puzzle together__completely...

I'm looking at the hydrodynamic seed geometry of the entire Universe. I think we need look at the hydrodynamic limits of black-holes' geometry to mass-radiation, to better understand QCD. The hydrodynamic seed-force of the entire universe, all the way to geo- and bio-protons' differences. Is a proton a close micro-cousin of a black-hole...? Does the sun show us a close map of a proton's hydrodynamics...? What's the difference between the hydrodynamic geometry of the Universe, and the hydrodynamic geometry of light...? Is the Universe the perfect hydrodynamic geometry__Everywhere...?

The Universal Geometric Hydro-Seeder...?

Lotta foolish questions, but I'm just throwing them out to tease new ideas into the logics...rrr

[Graybeard]

I think different bio-organisms and plants would have different rates of spins/chirals also, and possibly some right handed, while others would be left handed, thus creating the cross-complexities of the bio-world, i.e., RNA/DNA.

I think there was a choice between right and left handed .... somewhere, sometime a single organism chose between the two. Chose right (right ) randomly .... and since then we're stuck with it

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I think there was a choice between right and left handed .... somewhere, sometime a single organism chose between the two. Chose right (right ) randomly .... and since then we're stuck with it

cool bananas ... greg

You sure you're following what I was saying, Greg...? I was talking about the handedness of fundamental wave motions...rrr

Unless you were just being funny...?

[Graybeard]

You sure you're following what I was saying, Greg...? I was talking about the handedness of fundamental wave motions...rrr

Unless you were just being funny...?

its 06:00 here (rushed coffee, rushed smoke) and in a few minutes I have to get down to the construction site ..... didn't read all the posts. I probably didn't get the right slant.

I think we live on a 'right handed planet' .... that is our DNA/RNA favours 'right handed' because of an original random choice. But both choices existed originally.

No offence

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The #1 Problem of all universal theories...:rrr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia#cite_note-pmid11823804-3
[quote=Max™;84475]Please elaborate on your framework further, but do try to understand where my issue arises.

I can't simply accept any statement that there is no problem between GR and QM as they are formulated, I've been horribly aware of the issue between them for 20 years now.

The two theories do not describe the same Universe, it isn't just a matter of perspective, it is impossible for QM to be correct as it is written, and exist in a universe governed by GR.

QM depends on the assumption of a stable absolute background, it doesn't work without one.

SR and by definition GR tells us that there is no stable absolute background, the universe doesn't work with one.

Since I can observe the truth of GR, I hold it to be a more important description, and thus more fundamental, than QM. QM must be wrong in some deep way.

There is no way to simply adjust the principles of QM and make it mesh with GR, without first discarding the reliance upon a defined background, and this absolute sense of space you seem to be describing does not mesh with GR. This lights up big red error lights in my head. ENK ENK ENK WARNING WARNING!

The background problem is that there is no preferred frame of reference you can define events against in reality.

This is easily determined without the assumption of any physical theory, Relativity simply codifies this into the format of a symmetry of nature.

QM assumes a preferred background frame of spacetime, an absolute against which the events described in QM occur.

Most assume that QM should be more fundamental, and that some quantum theory should ultimately have the equations of relativity emerge from it naturally.

This is a dead end, I fear. It has led us nowhere for the last 40 years, String Theory was the best bet for a quantum theory to resolve the background problem, but it has no ties to reality, making it a curiousity.

Spookiness at a distance is unresolved, contrary to what some may claim.

It happens, for sure, why it happens, and how to explain it without violating the locality demanded by Special Relativity, that is unresolved.


The room which Fred is describing, with it having some fundamental existence regardless of the rest of the universe, is exactly the problem I am describing.

What he is speaking of works fine in Quantum Mechanics, yet there is no evidence that there is any reality behind that assumption.

There is no reason to assume a preferred reference frame, we simply have failed to find the correct description of QM that does not rely upon such an assumption. That is not evidence of some underlying truth that there is in fact such a preferred frame, there is only evidence that it is invalidated by General Relativity.

If it helps, dark matter is dark because it does not interact electromagnetically at all.

Most of our day to day experience is based on EM interactions.

Touch your keyboard.

You're pressing the electron shells in your fingertips against each other and the electron shells in the keys.

The heavy part of you is as far from those shells, relatively speaking, as I am from the moon.


So now lets use that image.

Imagine if you will that the earth is composed of three smaller objects, which are themselves tri-lobed shapes. Except these objects span scales on the order of continents.

These three objects are huddled together into a roughly spherical area the size of the earth.

Now zoom out to the moons orbit, but there are two moons, as this is a helium atom.

If there was another helium atom in "contact" with ours, there would be a second set of moons out just beyond our moons orbit, then as far again as we are from our moon, would be the second "planet" nucleus.

The purpose of this is to illustrate the vast distances within atoms, and to reinforce that it is the inability of electrons to share positions which gives the illusion of solidity we observe.

Now, the "earth nucleus" is positively charged, and the "electron moons" are negatively charged.

Imagine an object with no electromagnetic charge at all passing through this system.

If it didn't encounter the electron shell interactions, and wasn't disturbed by anything short of a direct collision with the nucleus, all it would "see" is empty space.

It would note that there was a slight curvature to that empty space, and be puzzled by the presence of gravity perhaps.

We are as transparent and invisible to dark matter as it is to us and photons.

[SteveA]

The basis to 'God is within us - in the air we breathe'. I've been saying we could understand the TAO for years, yes...

...

I see it all as a hydrodynamic geometry, but very complex, so I only see it at present as a general flow. Of course I'm just theorizing from what the universe, and everyone's threads and posts on ToeQuest has offered, plus my inter-relationships of how our internal hydrodynamic geometry of perception, must function to maintain the continuity of images(present and memory stored), all our lives, and this would be required to be an information preserving path of em-waves/photons, etc, but always symmetry preserving, and our perception would have to be acting with the same mechanics of QCD, to preserve the uncertainty principle of free-will__bio-choices over field/s actions/motions, etc.

Imo, it's one completed hydrodynamic universal geometry at all levels, from the squirting black holes' jets' geometries, you've pictured way back in your posts, to a seed to grow a tree__Imo, it's a hydrodynamic geometry in, and a possible semi-fractal/fractal geometry out, due to all the geometric paths required of fields to travel, which would include the isomorphic extensions and entanglements, as roots and branch systems, etc., plus the fermions basic asymptotic non-entanglements. Of course all the wave/particle interferences direct the path of all em-wave/particles, between fermions that can't directly entangle and bosons that can directly entangle__My picture is still building__Imcomplete as yet, but seems to cover everyone's sensible ideas, on this forum__So far...

Realize, this is just my theorizing__Not fact yet, so take it all with a grain of salt...rrr

I tend to think this is true also, but a liquid is only one form we could represent it in - I think a liquid is a good representation though because it more strongly implies a continuum.

Though we could also transform geometric properties within a liquid, such as encapsulation/containment into properties of serial logic as well.

Basically there's just a small set of operations needed by any form of computation in order to be capable of performing an equivalent computation in another form.

So this implies that there could be a more "natural" representation that most closely matches the natural distributions of forms of computations/interactions in nature, though also it may be easier to transform representations in order to describe properties with different qualities.

For example, in a fluid, a resonance arises within a closed 1-D space of motion and intersections between such resonances could be interpreted similar to string theory as tangled strings.

But we can untangle this by recognizing that information is only available at an observation point, hence only those pathways of information capable of intersecting that point would be seen as a component of the system.

This immediately creates the equivalent of a resonance field surrounding an observer (similar to the previous posts).

If we ignore the continuous component of the system then we're only working finite quantities of information being transformed into various representations over time - this ultimately would have to repeat as we can't reconfigure a finite quantity of information into an infinite number of representations without repetitions.

But with such a finite approximation we could then convert these mappings into the equivalent of algorithms running on a serial computer.

Notice that we could construct the equivalent of a nested computation or subroutine in a liquid with a variable speed of sound if we had a central point emit a strong impulse that spread at a slow rate and then emitting a weaker impulse with a faster rate of propagation, this would then cross interact with the previous emission and we could have the equivalent of one computation nested within another in a geometrical sense and such a layered structure would also have layered properties in terms of the information it's processing at any moment (everything done would ultimately be undone as they diffuse or expand into space). Such a medium would appear similar to interacting with echoes within an expanding universe (sound familiar?) dark matter would then be similar to these compression waves that distort space and gravity would be the general phenomenon of diffusion within it.

Anyway, I was just trying to toss out the idea that there could be transformation between a computational liquid and more digital view of computation, with a "stack" to store currently active elements and computations being similar to functions with parameters passed to them etc.

One (massive) difference though is that actually none of this would exist in terms of an "algorithm" because algorithms are finite (so in a sense a nested structure could be considered finite, if ultimately returns some result) and it doesn't appear existence can have finite constraints ... (and as you know that's one of those things that really hit me in how significant that influences things).

[SB_UK]

- the butterfly wings (ribosomal subunits) (green and purple) traversing mRNA

green on grey string purple on red string

- the bird on a wire.
- the gastrointestinal channel running through the body (caterpillar part) of the butterfly

- God is within us.



A 1-d (unidirectional) motion (the white line)
noting that evolution is unidirectional
- gravity

The electro-magnetic transverse waves (blue and red butterflies)
- electromagnetic structures (polarities)
- structures formed from electromagnetism with N/S polarity
- deliverables of Quantum Mechanics.

~*~

So - Quantum mechanics as the mechanism by which structures are formed from (folded from) gravity.

Gravity as a 1d motion to be imagined running through a standing wave network
- that standing wave network is space-time
- may be studied hydrodynamically because the standing wave network which passes a 1d motion behaves like a fluid.

So... ...

-> energy (1d motion) -> standing wave (fluid) network ->
gravity
[gravity as smooth motion (1-d synchrony) in flow through the standing wave substrate or matrix forming that underlying network]
... ... ... whereby ... ... ...
-> increased energy (1d motion) -> standing wave (fluid) network carrying capacity exceeded -> evolution
- exceeding the local carrying capacity in a segment of space-time leads to evolution
quantum mechanics
of structure.


So - gravity as a smoothly unidirectionally flowing river
- as we increase the strength of flow of the river -
the smooth flow becomes volatile ... ...

and (this is where the analogy breaks down)
- as we continue to increase the strength of flow of water within the river -
- a defined geometric (evolutionary) process occurs giving us a more mathematically complex (water) system (and not breakage).

This is why the nuclear mushroom cloud always presents itself as a mushroom cloud -
- a massive infusion of energy beyond the carrying capacity of local space-time has the option of generating increased complexity of structure (to dissipate the energy availed to the system)
or
dissipating the energy in some other manner (breakage)
~for example~ exceeding the elastic limit of a spring.

The selection involved in evolution relates to the evolutionary structure being chosen and the broken structure discarded
~that is~ that selection occurs because the structure continues to exist post incorporation of additional energy
- whereby (we'll soon see)
- that this can only occur when a defined geometric process of evolution is followed.

We observe a very definite barcode (geometry) within evolutionary structures
- because these are stable.
The rest are discarded (are not selected for)
- because they are not in the conformation required to pass increased energetic flow without shaking apart.

This stable structure is an n=24 Lorentzian attractor
- which evolves by generating a higher hierarchical n=24 attractor before itself then (itself) evolving.

)
->-
))
->-
)))

Evolution to complexity by geometric barcode
- selected for, for no other reason than it's the globally most stable structure which is itself capable of seeding child structures.

To be imagined in the exact same manner that quantum wave collapse results in just one wave configuration chosen from the many possible
- and then upon collapse - seeds child through its point of inflexion (into an orthogonal plane of motion).

What does globally most stable mean ?
It means that energy has driven local structure formation (the posts above featuring n=24 figures of 8 with the 2 edge figures of 8 in red)
- and that ring closure has occurred

- globally most stable means that there has been a wave collapse in a recursive structure.
Energy + a system -> defined structure formation -> ring closure

- at which point the entire (evolved) system repeats the process on further energy availed to the system.

~*~

Both gravity and QM (structure,EM) are correct
- gravity is more fundamental than QM.

Gravity relates to a fundamental 1d motion in our environment (holistically)
- a motion which we're not aware of
- because the motion translates itself (via quantum mechanics) into our structured (polarity,electromagnetic,quantifiable) Universe of action.

... ... ... or put another way everything moves.

[SB_UK]

QM depends on the assumption of a stable absolute background, it doesn't work without one.

SR and by definition GR tells us that there is no stable absolute background, the universe doesn't work with one.

gravity (1d motion) is the substrate which may evolve to give us structures (polar EM)
- is the stable absolute background which QM requires

- where gravity (that motion in a 1d space-time matrix network) only becomes that stable absolute background which QM requires when it's about to exceed its (the network's) local carrying capacity.


\ gravity (string - fluid behaviour (hydrodynamic)
\\ - 1d unidirectional linear (over a torus) motion)
\\\

->-

\/ EM

\
\\
\\\

/\

[SB_UK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics
The Standard Model has 17 species of elementary particles (12 fermions (24 (if you count antiparticles separately) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor
When ρ is larger than 24.28, the fixed points become repulsors and the trajectory is repelled by them in a very complex way, evolving without ever crossing itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
22+X+Y == 24

Symmorphosis
~24 branches in the lung

~*~

24 - revolution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day
1 apparent sidereal day - a single rotation of a planet with respect to the distant stars (for Earth it is 23.934 hours) ...

Upon revolution
- we (specifically the structure which confers mind) reflects back on its(our)self(ves).

~*~

Reality isn't difficult to understand
- learning and teaching human beings mutual respect
much
more
so.

[SB_UK]

)
->-
))
->-
)))

==




................(....(................(

The transition between layers gives us the basis for

when ρ is larger than 24.28, the fixed points become repulsors and the trajectory is repelled by them in a very complex way, evolving without ever crossing itself.

- or the fracture in fractal -
where that artificial notion of separateness is seeded.

Abstraction layers
) to ) to )
are effectively independent
- though effectively independent as part of a continuous structure.