An Idea

[JAK]

... One reason I am very happy with Felix and your request is that I do not have to do this alone; we've got all the needed intellectual property right here on ToeQuest to establish this feet.

But also forgive me, I have seen the pyramid in so many different ways already, as indeed being complete and irrefutable (but also in some respects as only giving the conceptual format), that I do not need to get involved in having to deliver all and each utmost specific detail. ...

Alluding to sheep, the shepherd needs to tend the sheep lest they get into trouble. Fredrick, please help guide this "sidequest" that Felix and I are taking.

... I have been seeking to find common ground between some of the shapes you use and the structure of particles. ...

Felix, please start another thread so that we don't hijack Profpat's "An Idea" thread. Please PM the new thread name to me and Fredrick, and start the thread with the progress you have made so far - even if it is just a starting point. Thanks!

[Felix Schrodinger]

Felix, please start another thread so that we don't hijack Profpat's "An Idea" thread.

Hi Jak

See my article: http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html. I have covered quantum gravity, the strong and weak forces and time. I'm currently struggling with magnetism which has a lot in common with gravity.

regards
Felix

PS - no fleas on me!

[JamesANicholson]

What did I sow here?

Here is a diagram that I use in trying to illustrate the possible workings, of how, just photons and other "light" particles could come together to nucleate or form/reform elements/atoms using nothing but a three dimensional geometry. My drawing is in a two dimensional flat representation, but it should be easy enough to visualize as being three dimensional.

In this diagram, each of the individual arrows represents an "average" photon's momentum for simplicity.

It is reasonable to talk about an "average photon momentum" and represent them in this manner, because, if you simply consider the influence of each possible photon coming into a shared space, you could calculate the overall influence of each and then add them all together vector-ially and divid by the number of photons to determine the statistical "average" photon. This specific average momentum may only exist as a statistical ideal, but it will/should nevertheless give very accurate and reasonably logical results.

This represents a location in space where energy fields, say 'Solar' winds, meet up in statistically perfectly balanced configurations, whether the source of the winds are coming from just two opposing stars or one star vs the entire night sky at the other end of the balance.

Now, this is a drawing that relates a hypothetical (because we can't directly observe it) principle accurately to a possible real functioning model in a way that shows what could be a real-time event for an atomic model.

Now, somewhere around the Plank number or maybe exactly at the Plank number of average photons coming together at one time, you have reached the level of density that allows momentary solidification or elemental nucleation--the forming of an atom of mass 1, a hydrogen atom.

This is the point where gravity (the large expansive solar wind fields that have found their balanced opposition locations) push on each other with absolute matched resistance to the extent that they can only compress internally to grow in density (photonic concentrations) to the point of nucleation.

I know that this is a very different view from the current theory that the basic particles were formed shortly after the "Big Bang and have existed ever since and that the heavier elements are permanently formed in the aftermath of super novae, but I have good arguments why those theories are weak at best.

This is actually premature to share this image here before publishing it in my "paper", but I couldn't think of better way to illustrate my point about accurate (in representation) graphic interpretations.

But since I have, note that this model represents much more.

There is the electron "field" around the area of nucleation, which is simply the area where the direction of the individual momentums will end up being totally deflected into the nucleus and met with equal resistance (opposition) by the sheer density of the combined momentum coming together at that point.

This sets up the equal but opposite "charge" associated with electrons and protons. The proton is the compressed sum of a Plank number of photons.

At any moment there is an equal number of photons directed into the center as there are opposing or trying to leave the center, setting up the dual dynamics ("Positive" and "Negative" forces) of electrical charges with in the atom.

Then as a second stage, as the density grows over time in a "gravity" field where nucleation has initiated, a completely entrapped Plank number of average photons will be contained within the "proton" exerting no outward force or charge (therefore being "neutral" but having a local "mass" concentration roughly equal to the mass of the proton concentration which does interact with the outside "electron" force.

This could be the newest model for the atom, based on gravity being the grand outside force that actually causes atoms to form, tying gravity to the other forces in a rather ingenious way. But it is all based on one thing--photons (actually anything/everything with momentum) in geometry.

In cosmic geometries light particles, across the spectrum, create Gravity wells.

Within Gravity "wells" (destinations, really) you then get atomic geometry coming out of the sheer density of opposing "photons."

This geometry actually sets up the dynamic situation of electrons forming free form as the first nucleation phase--forming and unforming as electrons and positrons. Coming together as electrons and flying apart as the reciprocal positron (the opposite action of an electron)

From this model you get the strong nuclear force (directed toward the center or a molecule or element) when you get a significant gathering of "massive" elemental particles that they can "shadow" each other from directional influences between each other but not from the outside gravitational directional forces which are continually pushing them ever closer together. This gravitational "pressure" is also inverse square related as it gets closed to the individual particle point "wells." This would explain the seemingly "relative" strength difference between gravity, electricity, and the strong nuclear forces.

The weak Nuclear force is then the compressed photons pushing out from both the neutrons and the protons which are only able to break free when heavy densities like radio-active elements are brought up to geological levels of pressure that are too thin, in a Gravitational sense, to equal the internal pressures that were sufficient to create them and maintain them at a position closer to the center of, say, the planet.

There are your four forces neatly tied together and in the simplest straight forward manner using only the momentum of very light photons and Geometry.

And thank you all for the opportunity to express myself here. I think that I have just summarized my ToE here, better than I have been able to do up to this time.

I still need to explain how and why magnetism works according to this model, but it is also very simple as you will see.

'Til then, warmest regards,
Aaron

[dipayankar]

SHOCKING...

I'm not sure Dipayankar;

I'd like to think it's a premature announcement of his death. Does anyone know out there.

I'll put the question on the shoutbox.

[Profpat]

Hi Jak

See my article: http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html. I have covered quantum gravity, the strong and weak forces and time. I'm currently struggling with magnetism which has a lot in common with gravity.

regards
Felix

PS - no fleas on me!

Hi Felix;

It is a very nice theory, and I complimented you on it before at that thread..

"Felix;

Congratulations. I'm glad you were able to post your theory here. I would recommend all members to access the link that has your diagrams. It makes your theory much easier to follow.

Best to you,

Pat"

Please notice how I thought your diagrams helped to understand your theory. Some of us namely yours truly, requires them to aid in this understanding.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. You must have used flea powder

[Profpat]

Hi Aaron;

You have a very interesting theory there my friend, and needless to say I have a number of questions, but rather than posting them on this thread, I would prefer to post them at your thread theory.

Please give me a link once you have it set up, so I can further explore your theory with you. I also like your graphic, but could you enlarge it on your thread.

Very best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Alluding to sheep, the shepherd needs to tend the sheep lest they get into trouble. Fredrick, please help guide this "sidequest" that Felix and I are taking.

I will, JAK, but you must understand that the shepherd only tends the sheep. He does not make the sheep eat, play or multiply; the sheep do that all by themselves.

Felix, in light of what you are writing (and I may be looking at it with only a broad perspective), I need to refer to the fingerpointing to a plural situation. The ether is not a required part of the toe, but if it helps you understand it that way, don't let other ideas get in the way. The easiest way to point to ether is 'materialization' or to 'family.' While certain behaviors of people can only be explained due to the individuals belonging to a family, from a scientific approach a family is a non-entity. There is no logical set-up that makes you take into your home a human being in specific dire situations, but not any of the other human beings in exactly the same situation.

We ofcourse recognize the family bond immediately as something of importance, but that is only so because we are innundated with family values ourselves. If we were observers looking in from the outside, without the option to communicate with our study subjects nor familiar at all with family values, we can only conclude there must be something we cannot see. The choice to make that what we cannot see a separate part or an intrinsic part is the truly minor difference between ether = anathema and ether is fundamental.

Group think is just another example of a difference that is vital to understanding a specific outcome. Group think is (or can be) real, but it is intrinsic to the people within the group, and will actually not be found when taking each individual to a different location separately. It is a special form of relationship that comes out (under either general or special circumstances).

Just to give you an idea, a study was performed with children that identified 'leaders,' 'followers,' 'participants,' and ' drop-outs.' It turned out that the behaviors were not contained within the individuals, but within the circumstances of the group. When first identifying and then taking the 'leader' out of the group, a new 'leader' would pop-up from the remainder of the group. Even the set-up of only having a group of identified 'followers' in one group still lead to one playing the role of 'leader' rather quickly. Please note, multiple 'leaders' can exist within one group.

With this example I hopefully show that here too we find more than a black-and-white picture of just leaders and followers, but also of participants and drop-outs. I bet there are a few more categories possible. If needed, we can all play these roles, and it even looks like we will when the circumstances are there.

Ether in my opinion is therefore an intrinsic value of materialization. My suggestion is to overcome the minor distinction of having to choose between ether or not. Rather, it is important to always include an internal and an external aspect to the (collective) forces that can make a difference that cannot be explained from the outside only.

Word play: synergy is having more than the parts, but not having more than the parts.

[JAK]

See my article: http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html. I have covered quantum gravity, the strong and weak forces and time. I'm currently struggling with magnetism which has a lot in common with gravity.

Felix, I tried to reply under your thread, but I got a system error from ToE. I'll keep trying.

I will need some time to digest your material, but I should be able to respond this weekend.

Thanks! -JAK

[Fredrick]

Felix, I tried to reply under your thread, but I got a system error from ToE. I'll keep trying.

I will need some time to digest your material, but I should be able to respond this weekend.

Thanks! -JAK

Same here, I emailed the folks at ToeQuest to take a look at it; it appeared to me you had posted your long posting twice, Felix, creating an additional action that is seemingly not allowed.

So, let me continue here a tiny bit, Felix, because while I will see what I can do on your thread I would like you to also keep seeing how misconceptions are the real obstacle to getting to a toe. The separate aspects are not where the real action is for the entire picture. You may look at fascinating aspects of 'mother' or we can get lost in investigating all intriguing parts of 'son,' but if we don't take the quite ordinary intricacies concept of 'family' head-on, and stare blindly at the separate parts, you won't get closer to everything.

Making a distinction between an ether and not an ether is not really a question and this fits the pyramid quite well. It is like wanting to see everything, but only on the level of specifics; as if it must be singular and plural at the same time, and no one questioning if that can. Quarks are a clear example of parts, but that does not need to mean the parts can be brought back to one whole. The same goes for gravity, what if it can best be replaced by 'family' and is itself only measurable as part of the whole?

Imagine planet X, the debris between Mars and Jupiter. Some say it was only a single planet that exploded, and all that is found in this band belonged to that planet. But what if there were two planets in each other's vicinity that took a few million years to catch up with each other, slightly pulling each other off course, one slowing down the other speeding up, until they collided by the fast one hitting the slow one badly. The band of debris between Mars and Jupiter would then be of two planets 'exploding,' not of one. Looking for singularity where there is none (in science or anywhere else), is a certain way of not finding a satisfying answer. Einstein and Bohr, c.s. already delivered all we need to get the scientific picture: relativity and the knowable answer after it has been established.

Space and Dimensions
Why do we have three spatial dimensions? Obviously less than this number does not lead to a viable reality but why not more? The likelihood is that it is simply the way things are. Creating extra dimensions to make theoretical equations work is not an easy matter to explain and the use of additional ‘dimensions’ may simply be required in order to accommodate all of the parameters involved in the extension of the strings. These may be seen as degrees of freedom rather than dimensions.

And here we clearly do not have the same concept. Less than three is possible: two dimensions is all it takes.

[JamesANicholson]

Hi Aaron;

You have a very interesting theory there my friend, and needless to say I have a number of questions, but rather than posting them on this thread, I would prefer to post them at your thread theory.

Please give me a link once you have it set up, so I can further explore your theory with you. I also like your graphic, but could you enlarge it on your thread.

Very best,

Pat

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

Hi, Pat,

Here is the link to my introduction to Gravity on this forum:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...-geometry.html


I will try to see if I can post the diagram right in the (my) thread.

I am just transferring things over to my Mac computer and trying to see what kind of graphics program I can get my hands on and learning how to post an image into the forum thread, also. But I will get it figured out.

Best to you, as well,

Aaron