[Fredrick]

Good question, Pat, and I would say 'yes,' but I would also say 'no.'

Let me explain how I see the five forces, including a separation of E and M, using a different concept to quickly show what I want to say this way:
In nature we discovered the following forces: father, mother, son, daughter, and family. These five forces are all that's out there, and everything can be brought back to these five forces.

We agree that gravity may be seen as 'family,' a force that is clearly noticeable, but a force that is hard(er) to explain within the whole set of forces than the other four forces.

If needed, and if I want to state that there are only 4 forces in total, then I can put both 'son' and 'daughter' in a single force called 'child.' Or, if I were to use the same set-up language-wise, I'd call it 'sondaughter force.' Either way, we end up with four forces: father, mother, family, and child.

Whether we consider E and M as separate forces or put them together as a unified force is truly not that important, as long as we understand what we are really addressing here. Yet seeing that this is a man-made distinction helps us understand why many people do not see the theory of everything, because they want to make a choice where making a choice is very distractive in our understanding the whole picture. Both ways to view E and M are correct, because they both capture the actual reality of E and M, and do not change anything about E and M. The danger, for us, is that we can get lost in a discussion which format is the only or the best format, or make ourselves one-eye blind when we overlook the complexity of EM and consider it simply a single force.

The title of my book In Search of a Cyclops is based on this phenomenon that we want to see things as cyclops, unified, and not as the two separate eyes they really are. Naturally, two eyes see one view, and if you wish you can call it 'vision.' But as a concept 'vision' is murky, while using the term 'two eyes' provides immediate and clear information.

A problem with using a different concept to explain the set-up of the forces is that we may then see something else as well, again based on specific concept-thinking contained within the words. For instance, when seeing the name 'son' we may think that the 'son' may become 'father' one day, and consider E (or M) to become S (or W) one day. It is important to know that the 'son' always stays the 'son' in respect to his own father, no matter if he turns out to be a father one day himself. Possibly, QM can provide the answer on how this all works, with an outcome always being a relative and never an absolute phenomenon, but nevertheless a phenomenon always occurring as a specifically declared result within the whole set of forces.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

It's interesting how both of our theories have color and family incorporated in them.

Mine at the particle level yours at the universal level.

Your suggestion that gravity is inside the forces is certainly true for it being a characteristic of mass.

I'm still reviewing your post for other insights. Please keep helping me in my search, the best you can.

Very best to you sir,

Pat

[JamesANicholson]

Originally Posted by Profpat It was Einstein himself who attempted to unify gravity with EMR. Recently with string theory it appears EMR may have been caused by gravity in the big bang ( negative gravity causing repulsion when everything gets compressed to the size of strings ) Quasars may be caused by black hole negative gravity. Additionally black hole radiation is caused by black holes. From Dr. Strominger of Harvard University: But the contradiction between gravity and electromagnetism has complicated any discourse on black holes for years now. As Stephen Hawking showed in the early 1970s, when you throw quantum mechanics into the equation, particles and light can "boil off" the surface of the black hole. This continues until the hole itself actually disappears, leaving no trace of what was inside. This concept, Strominger says, was "extremely disturbing" to physicists who believe in the principle of determinism - the idea that the laws of physics allow scientists to work backwards and reconstruct the past. Could string theory help explain away this problem? Best to all, Pat

----------------------------------

Hello, All,

I just wanted to jump in here with a couple of thoughts.

One, I don't know why Stephen Hawking and others assume that information is necessarily shredded and "destroyed" upon entering a black hole. Why isn't it just as possible that it all (the matter/energy/information/images/patterns etc) is neatly laid down in very dense film-like layers on the outer surface of the spinning mass just inside the event horizon and maintains its integrity by the same Newtonian geometric relationships of vectors interacting and conservation of momentum with relativity considerations from the point of view of the "particles" themselves taken into account? Similar to the way that data is stored on your hard drive.

My second point is about negative gravity.
What do you think solar winds are? Aren't they forces leaving a central mass with a reverse--inverse square law effect of getting weaker and weaker with the square of the radius from the source. No one has yet really identified this "force" of solar winds as another basic force, even though it is so obviously similar to the opposite side of gravity in strength and in directional orientation as gravity's inverse--going out from a central "mass" instead of concentrating into a mass point in a balanced way going into a central mass point.

If you read my hypothesis on gravity, it (Gravity)could easily be the geometric result of where solar winds meet each other in any balanced configuration of opposing directions.

One other point I am almost reluctant to mention, because I am an artist, also. It is very easy to be seduced by such lovely artistic renderings that might be given weight that they don't rightly deserve as factual depictions of the way things are actually operating. They are sort of like metaphors that take two dissimilar things and equate them based on the flimsiest tiny obscure stretched little similarity which usually isn't even that similar, and people use these in their "proofs" of their theories as if they were actually somehow truly supportive or representative of real constructs and actions. This sort of imagery can be very misleading and ultimately more confusing than helpful, Although they were lovely as art, they are not based on evidence and don't illuminate the workings of the various forces in a way that makes any sense. Not that graphics can't illuminate true constructs, because I believe that they can and are even necessary, but must be based on something more than proximity of position. Forgive me, if this comes across as a harsh criticism of the three pyramid drawings--this is a big pet peeve of mine with metaphor that is passed off as scientific "proof" in general.

Respectfully submitted, Aaron

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by JamesANicholson ---------------------------------- Hello, All, I just wanted to jump in here with a couple of thoughts. One, I don't know why Stephen Hawking and others assume that information is necessarily shredded and "destroyed" upon entering a black hole. Why isn't it just as possible that it all (the matter/energy/information/images/patterns etc) is neatly laid down in very dense film-like layers on the outer surface of the spinning mass just inside the event horizon and maintains its integrity by the same Newtonian geometric relationships of vectors interacting and conservation of momentum with relativity considerations from the point of view of the "particles" themselves taken into account? Similar to the way that data is stored on your hard drive.Good point Aaron. I believe Hawkings solution is to posit storage in an alternate universe. Some other physicist propose exactly what you are stating regarding the rims as storage rings. In my An Idea I suggested that the quarks may serve as a 3 dimensional storage rings. This could than preserve all information. If the entire black hole evaporates into Hawkings black hole radiation the storage rings you proposed may also evaporate into radiation. My second point is about negative gravity. What do you think solar winds are? Aren't they forces leaving a central mass with a reverse--inverse square law effect of getting weaker and weaker with the square of the radius from the source. No one has yet really identified this "force" of solar winds as another basic force, even though it is so obviously similar to the opposite side of gravity in strength and in directional orientation as gravity's inverse--going out from a central "mass" instead of concentrating into a mass point in a balanced way going into a central mass point. If you read my hypothesis on gravity, it (Gravity)could easily be the geometric result of where solar winds meet each other in any balanced configuration of opposing directions. Another good point. Quite honestly I didn't consider our sun producing negative gravity but it sure does produce light. I have to think more on this enLIGHTenment. Respectfully submitted, Aaron

Thank you for your input and very intelligent thoughts.

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by JamesANicholson One point I am almost reluctant to mention, because I am an artist, also. It is very easy to be seduced by such lovely artistic renderings that might be given weight that they don't rightly deserve as factual depictions of the way things are actually operating. They are sort of like metaphors that take two dissimilar things and equate them based on the flimsiest tiny obscure stretched little similarity which usually isn't even that similar, and people use these in their "proofs" of their theories as if they were actually somehow truly supportive or representative of real constructs and actions. This sort of imagery can be very misleading and ultimately more confusing than helpful, Although they were lovely as art, they are not based on evidence and don't illuminate the workings of the various forces in a way that makes any sense. Not that graphics can't illuminate true constructs, because I believe that they can and are even necessary, but must be based on something more than proximity of position. Forgive me, if this comes across as a harsh criticism of the three pyramid drawings--this is a big pet peeve of mine with metaphor that is passed off as scientific "proof" in general.

Harsh criticism has its place, Aaron, so don't worry too much about delivering it. Your respect is met with my respect. However, when delivering criticism it must be accompanied by good reasoning, otherwise it is only harsh and has no constructive meaning.

I have three points to undermine your comment, the first one being the mathematical information that supports the lack of singularity (based on the ever-occurrence of the number zero in any numeral system, except for the concept containing only one number (that of containing 1, and only 1; not even 0). You can find this information at http://pentapublishing.com/Math.html

The second argument I have is that any concept delivered is one-removed from reality, including any scientific concept. I will ask you to look at Austin's artful deliveries again, and focus just on the pyramid. It contains three pairs of opposition: top-down (singular vs. diversity), Strong-Weak nuclear forces (as forces that in no way belong to the other force, similar to yes and no being each others opposite), and lastly electric force-magnetic force (that show many similarities of each other, but not being one and the same). I personally would have left out the words: 'evolution,' 'unknowable,' 'materialization,' 'matter,' and 'motion,' yet its Austin's freedom to insert them and they should not prevent you from getting the general set-up of how the forces relate to each other in abstract positions.

Ultimately, the toe needs to be understood not just as having properties, but as a structure, too, and all that we do know needs to fit inside that structure. The pyramid is that structure. It is a concept, and concepts don't walk around in our streets, they exists in our heads; they take time to be understood. Austin's artist rendering is only a tool to view the positions (because that's what the pyramid ultimately delivers) of the forces and how they relate to each other. Gravity exists within the pyramid, is part of the pyramid, but is not an external force in the pyramid.

The last point I have to undermine your criticism is that your delivery to undermine the pyramidal concept as only art is itself also only words; words refer to something, they are not the actual something. So, if your words are true then you can also not use your words yourself, since each word is itself an image of reality, and not the real thing. But also no worries here; I am not going to have you eat your words, because I understand exactly what you want to convey. But please research the provided link plus the pyramidal display, so you can understand the scientific ramifications of the display. If you still feel the same about the display of information then substantiate your reasoning to the extent it contains a critique that can be validated.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick:

Your pyramid illustrations helps me to understand your theory Fredrick. I'm still pondering your concepts though.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat Your pyramid illustrations helps me to understand your theory Fredrick. I'm still pondering your concepts though.

For which I am very happy, Pat. One big hurdle to overcome is to see that we can have multiple concepts that cover more or less the same territory. I do not know if you have communicated much with Nobody. He and I have very similar ideas, but our delivery differs, according to me because Nobody works with one concept only, in which he then places all other concepts.

In numbers, we can capture anything, though number systems are crude abstract systems. Here are three of the most famous number systems/concepts:

1/ 1

2/ 1 and 0

3/ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9

It is easy to see that all three concepts can cover everything and as such they contain value for our quest to understand the theory of everything.

1/ everything

2/ everything and nothing

3/ nothing, one thing, another thing, multiple things......

With 3/ it is tough/impossible to use the word everything and see it in a specific number, but we can continue for ever in the decimal system, collectively delivering the same as with everything. Of these three concepts two are particularly hard to distinguish if you are not aware of them: 1/ and 2/.

1/ "Everyting contains everything."

2/ "Not everything needs to be mentioned in specific to understand everything."

The difference between both the singular concept and the binary concept is that the singular concept is truly one-dimensional; one cannot even use the negative, because the negative is a specific aspect. So if you were mentioning just the sentence as provided with 1/, I can see that you are using a singular framework.

However, as soon as you say something negative as well, as for instance in the sentence with 2/ then you are using a binary concept. It is still crude compared to the decimal system with its beautiful (but sometimes also confusing) refinements that are not available in the binary system, but 1 and 0 can state a lot more already than just 1.

Let's use another example to deliver the same difference: 1 = acceptance.

1/ acceptance: I am accepting acceptance.

2/ acceptance and rejection: I accept the act of accepting, though I also accept the act of rejecting. I do not reject the act of rejecting because that is not possible in itself. 1 = acceptance = meaning something is valuable. 0 = rejection = meaning something is not valuable.

However, and this is the crux, both acts (of acceptance and rejection) are valuable as acts, they cannot be not valuable as acts. Yet, someone can say that rejecting has no value, but that is a word play that does not exist in the binary reality. That person simply reverted back to the singular concept of only functioning at a level of acceptance (see 1/). I do not know if you communicated much with Lloyd, but this is where he and I did not agree. He rejected my evidence that zero is always part of number systems (except for 1/), turned it into something he considered as not important, while also not accepting that he did something one cannot do without providing real arguments. In the binary system, we accept two sides to one matter, in the singular system there is only one matter, and no sides.

If this were it then we'd probably all figured the theory of everything out by now, but the decimal concept (and the other concepts, such as pentaism/hexism) add to the confusion, especially because we often communicate using all these concepts whenever we please all of the time.

So, Pat, good luck on understanding the pyramid. The crux is understanding that it contains various concepts at the same time that collectively contain the above described conflict. We must separate the various concepts to get the overall picture, which means that the overall concept containing all concepts must therefore contain separation.

Last note: the pyramid is not a real thing; it does not exist in nature (except for the internal cone as the conceptual representation of gravity in all its forms). The pyramid is a concept, a fake/art and in some respects a one-dimensional delivery (since all concepts are one-dimensional), but it is the mother of concepts, the concept par excellence!

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick:

I use the binary numbering system in my An Idea. Why do you need others? It seems every letter, every number, every thought, every concept can be expressed by just using those two digits. The ulitimate math of representation. From our computers to our TV's and most other electrical devices are binary code dependent now.

To me it's the ultimate form of duality which perhaps runs our universe. Open/closed, yes/no, on/off, everything/nothing, yin/yang, can all be represented with our 0/1. You and I may be halograms created through the binary numbers.

I remember Nobody and I would have discussions, he seemed to favor 0 everything is nothing, I 1 everything is 1. ( What happened to Nobody? )

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

I think Nobody is still communicating on ToeQuest.

As far a the binary system is concerned: the theory of everything contains everything, and as such it is important to understand each concept within its own set of values. The binary system can be used for a theory of everything, but if you really feel that way, Pat, you must then also adjust your language to that of just being binary. Currently, everyone here at ToeQuest is using close to every format they can get away with; and that contributes to much confusion. For me there is only one way to show the pentaist toe and that is by showing it all in one concept of concepts.

The mathematical evidence I deliver is also not of much valua in the binary system, because close to no one imagines the binary system without a zero. The tricky part, the confusion, the options to leave out that very important phenomenon of nothing and then finding ourselves unable to discover the whole picture and have websites set-up to find the theory of everything is only done in the non-binary concepts. People communicate every which way they can, and by not realizing that, they forget the actual information and cling on to the concepts without making clear distinctions between them.

That is at least the result of a recent study that showed apes capable of repeating information on a screen much better than we humans can. The explanation given was that apes do not have (as many) concepts in their heads like apparently we have, so we can think faster and make bigger leaps of thought than they, but we can also forget to consider what is really here, and even look for something of which we do not have a good comprehension.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Fredrick ... close to no one imagines the binary system without a zero ...

Having spent 30 years as a bit twirler doing boolean algebra and other bizarre quirks of programming (grep anyone?), I am about as entrenched with the amazing capabilities of the binary system as anyone could be.

However, I am also aware that the brain has one interesting difference to computer circuits. Neurons can be set to a variable level like a rheostat. Though the all-or-none law says that a neuron's axon either fires or not, the frequency of axonic transmission is variable. It can be faster like a machine gun, slower like an old flintlock rifle, or somewhere inbetween. Meanwhile, its neighbor, who is getting "shot", has a threshold which must be reached before it, too, starts firing.

Thus, all of the neurons, even though they are "on or off" are actually somewhere inbetween. And since blood is fed throughout the brain, the neurons are never completely off (zero - unless the cell is dead), and yet they may never reach their max firing rate (on) either.

The brain is a system that seems to live everywhere inbetween zero and one.

Life is not black and white but all of the many colors inbetween.