[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]

Originally Posted by JAK

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]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

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]

Originally Posted by JAK

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.

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

My idea about the structure of atoms is stated in the attachment. Please take a look and let me know about your thoughts.

Pat, I'd like to take this conversation back to the image that helped me in this thread:




In this picture, the three-directional (two-dimensional) reality is expressed by 8 cubic place holders, showing that the three directions create not 3 dimensions, but 3 lines of division. Eight is of course a dualistic number of 2 to the 3rd.

You know that I prefer to speak in ordinary language because the theory of everything must be simple enough to be explained to a three years old, according to Einstein.

If I take a child's hand and see ten fingers, how can that be when there are only eight place holders?

Each hand has five fingers, four plus what we call a thumb. So, if we divide up these eight place holders in two, then we have at least the eight regular fingers, but not yet the two thumbs. I do not mind if you take the four front vs. the four back, the four top vs. the four bottom, or if you take the four left and the four right place holders as the universal basis on which we were able to base ourselves.

As I have said before, there are not eight cubes, but nine, since the overall delivery of eight cubes together form a cube as well. So, silly or not, a fifth overall place holder can be added to the four of one side (being the overall image including the other four cubes from their overall but not from their specific perspectives), plus the same but then for the other side. If you wish, one can see the dividing lines of the four front, but not of the four back cubicles. It does not matter which pair you choose, the divisions of the opposite four cubicles in each pair are not visible. We know they are there, but they can never be experienced by our eyes at the same time except through trickery or conceptual thinking.

Though we have ten numbers in our decimal system, there are only nine of them that have value: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The tenth number — being 0, of course — belongs to this system and is just that little zesty no-thing that makes it funny.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

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.

Hi Fredrick

The concept of the aether is fundamental to my TOE and underlies the whole paradigm. IMHO the difficulties in modern physics arise from the rejection of the aether due to erroneous interpretations of the MM experiments.

We have four 'forces' of nature to explain and need a framework which encompasses them all. You may see this in terms of a diagram or family relationships but I see it as the underlying structure which gives us the matter which we experience in our real world. I have found Pat's Yin/Yang diagrams invaluable in terms of tring to understand charge and have even made a cardboard model of it (in all three real and colourful dimensions!). My own diagrams are simply an aid to understanding and not an end in themselves.

Pat's 'Idea' thread has been instrumental in accessing the ideas of others, some of which have been very useful to me. But if you reject the very concept of the aether then we have little common ground.

regards
Felix, fleas and all

[dipayankar]

HI Felix (without the fleas)... unless we understand completely what is ether and whether it exists at all, we cannot in any way define a TOE using it. I read yesterday that there is an intermingling of atoms and molecules in space, is it what you call ether???

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Hi Fredrick

The concept of the aether is fundamental to my TOE and underlies the whole paradigm. IMHO the difficulties in modern physics arise from the rejection of the aether due to erroneous interpretations of the MM experiments.

We have four 'forces' of nature to explain and need a framework which encompasses them all. You may see this in terms of a diagram or family relationships but I see it as the underlying structure which gives us the matter which we experience in our real world. I have found Pat's Yin/Yang diagrams invaluable in terms of tring to understand charge and have even made a cardboard model of it (in all three real and colourful dimensions!). My own diagrams are simply an aid to understanding and not an end in themselves.

Pat's 'Idea' thread has been instrumental in accessing the ideas of others, some of which have been very useful to me. But if you reject the very concept of the aether then we have little common ground.

regards
Felix, fleas and all

[Profpat]

Hi Felix ( with no fleas, but who has a lot of little microscopic beasties on you as I do ) and welcome back Dipayankar.

Felix, you, I and Einstein all believe there is an ether out there. Exactly, what it is is still unknown.

But it really makes no difference what we believe, in that it is either there or not there.

I think Dipayankar is correct, and that most physicist accept something being out there, whether it is quantum foam, strings, radiation, etc.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I think our numbering system is arbitrarily set as a base 10. We could have just as easily set it as a base 8, or a base 2, or some other base.

When we look at the octant cube, I come up with 10 things. 8 small cubes, 1 large cube, and 1 area in which that cube occupies.

Best,

Pat