An Idea

[Fredrick]

That's an interesting overlay. It appears the gray in the middle is darker than the gray in the background. I imagine that to be some optical illusion in that the values should be the same.

Regarding your question:

I imagine the average to be close to black, as it's average temperature is close to absolute zero. Absolute black being the absence of light or color is what I expect the Void to be.

I think it is just a matter of starting out, Pat, with two pictures that optically display each other's opposite colors, yet that in reality are not precise enough to turn the entire picture into one large gray zone. Because, that's what should happen if half of one opposite image is placed on the half of the other delivery: one big gray zone. What I tried to do was see if I could turn the right-bottom color into the same gray as the background; I failed since it is still slightly visible as something yellowish and almost dirty-looking.

To be honest, I do not know what the average temperature of our universe exactly is. I do think it is a bit warmer than zero K, but averages are indeed not that interesting in the larger scheme of things. Still, just like the night is never pitch black, the universe is not a dark place. I also do not know what you mean with the Void. Please, explain this, Pat. In your visualization, where do you place the ether, or have I not read enough of this thread and do we consider the ether similarly, as not existing, but appearing to exist?

[Profpat]

Hi Frederick;

I believe there is an ether, here are two of my prior posts relating to that subject:

Main article: Luminiferous aether
The basic idea of the æther as a physical transmission medium is simple, and like all media, if it exists, must have fundamental properties including a pressure, mass density, and temperature. Further, if compressible, it will also exhibit a characteristic finite propagation speed, c, at which all transfer of momentum and energy through it can be carried from one physical location to another. Compressibility also means that there will also be a distinct coefficient of compressibility (and its inverse, a distinct modulus), a characteristic impedance, and the ability to create and sustain wave activity. Any other properties, including ponderable matter and the specific characteristics of waves are solely dependent upon specifics arising from these basics.

Further Einstein whose theory didn't require an ether revisited it:

Such a view, however, contradicts the continuum concept of space-time and fields and Einstein's statements in "Aether and the Theory of Relativity", May 5th, 1920:
"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether." and "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever".

cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. (Hendrik Lorentz, 1906)

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)

[Profpat]

Hi again Frederick;

So yes I do believe in an ether. The void I vision to be just outside of our universal space. It is that which allows our space to expand. Once space expands into the void it is no longer the void however, but space.

It is therefore not " REAL ' in that it is not, nor could it ever be part of our reality. Our reality being the universe and the void is just outside of our universe.
So in a "real" sense there is no outside, since it is void and becomes the universe once the universe enters it.

Just some of my thoughts. I also think the ether is the EMR or whatever else which may be out there. ( Quantum foam, strings, neutrinos, etc. )

Best to you,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

(1) First with Pat's drawing of the 8 cubicles, 8 appears to be much more natural to me than I ever expected before. I remember having the same kind of surprise (of being puzzled) why the second electron shell (and third) has place for up to 8 electrons.

(2) In my theory, a single pyramid already displays all that is needed, and I regard a double pyramid as a curious visualization that may be intriguing, but not telling the story correctly (even kind of blocking a proper view on everything). However, when considering a pyramid as the basis of an abstract delivery of everything, then of course seeing a pyramid shape, albeit a double header, remains an interesting signal about someone's thinking about abstract structures.

(3) What I find interesting is that the first shell to the last shows a jump from: 2 - 8 - 8 - 16 - 16 - 32 - &... The first shell strongly points to a dual aspect of the principle in our universe (in my theory, duality plays a very important, but not all-exclusive role), and I would see 8 then as 2 to the third power. What is interesting though is that there is not a 'normal' increase, such a 2 to the first, 2 to the second, 2 to the third power, etc. But we see a 2 to the 1st, 2 to the 3rd, 2 to the 3rd, 2 to the 4th, 2 to the 4th sequence of electrons per shell. I found something similar (though different) in my mathematical delivery on number zero and the prime numbers.
It is almost as if indicating that the second and third shells (and the fourth and the fifth shells) are paired spatially/structurally, and should possibly be regarded as dual rows, in which one plays the primary role, and the second shell plays the complimentary role (like DNA sequencing?).

Hi Fredrick

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?

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

Hello Frederick and Felix;

My own thought is that the electron shells are more the cause of proton and neutron stacking. Similar to this:




Figure 22. Oranges or atoms in three dimensions
will stack in these three arrangements.


The problem I have, however, is that my theory has the proton “ dome like “ open so it is able to project an electron. Being computer illiterate I’m not able to come up with a program that will assist me in that endeavor. I guess I could make 300 or so pipe cleaner models and attempt it by hand. Also I believe there is a limit to this stacking and therefore we have alpha decay, the weak nuclear force.

You can find further information regarding stacking and the pentagram of the Pythagoreans at:
( http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/reza/reza2.htm )

Best to all,

Pat

[Fredrick]

So yes I do believe in an ether. The void I vision to be just outside of our universal space. It is that which allows our space to expand. Once space expands into the void it is no longer the void however, but space.

It is therefore not " REAL ' in that it is not, nor could it ever be part of our reality. Our reality being the universe and the void is just outside of our universe.
So in a "real" sense there is no outside, since it is void and becomes the universe once the universe enters it.

Just some of my thoughts. I also think the ether is the EMR or whatever else which may be out there. ( Quantum foam, strings, neutrinos, etc. )

Pat,

We may not be too far off then, though I would place that ether with the non-materialized part of the universe (which I think is a contradiction in terms, but you know what I mean). Ether, dark matter, and dark energy belong to that we cannot discover unless indirectly. That position of having discovered something indirectly is a precarious situation because it contains the option that we are seeing something incorrectly.

Always a fan of Einstein, and knowing he was a believer in god (based on his expression that god does not play dice, which turned out to be incorrect), I think he was creating space for the scientifically unknowable parts of our universe. As such, I think he indicated that science is a limited tool.

I hope you agree therefore with me that the question of the ether remains an open question — if ether really fits in the scientific dictionary. Personally, I feel strongly that the word void does not fit in the scientific dictionary, which may surprise you, since I am a big proponent of giving scientific prominence to the phenomenon of nothing.

My goal is to be clear about those words and concepts that help us understand the theory of everything, and to sift the words out that only muddy the picture; it is complicated enough to get the dual basics out when those basics each contain warped aspects of singularity.

Thank you for your reply, Pat, including all the gathered information you had posted earlier, which made it handy and easy to read for me.

[Fredrick]

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.

[Profpat]

Hi Frederick;

I agree definition is important. I have a difficult time describing Void because it's indescribable.
More of a Buddhist non-definition than that of physics.

The ether however is the heat, light, electricity, magnetism, throughout space. The EMR. ( In my view )

AntonioLao used the octants to visualize the 8 directions. Top front upper right; top front upper left; lower front right; lower front left; top rear upper right; top rear upper left; lower rear right; lower rear left. ( The 8 possibilities from the three combinatios of, left/right; backwards/forwards;up/down )

Best,

Pat

[JAK]

...
the pentagram of the Pythagoreans ...

This is off-the-track, but you guys could use a short "breather" from your intense thinking.

At the urging of his tribe, Chief Pythagoras decided to take a bride,
And three young indian maidens vied for the Chief's favor.
The first and most alluring maiden made him a handsome robe of elk skin.
The second maiden, known for her lilting voice, created a pair of beatifully beaded moccasins for the Chief.
Finally, the obese and unkept third maiden gave him a shoddy rug made from the skin of a hippopotamus,
And the rest of the tribe derided her for it.
Chief Pythagoras disappeared into his tipi for two days to contemplate his options.
When he emerge, he announced that his new bride would be the unkept third maiden,
And the elders of the tribe were aghast and shouted, "Why her? Why her?!"
To this, Chief Pythagoras replied, "I visioned my future with each of the maidens, and after much diliberation I decided that ...
the squaw of the hippopotamus was equal to the squaws of the other two hides.

Carry on, gentlemen.

[Profpat]

I often wondered how the Genius came up with his theorem that;
A squawed + B squawed = C squawed.