[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by JamesANicholson (1)I am unsure of what you could mean by "uniform structure" but "not uniform in consistency." Do you also mean density? Or do you mean that the mix of elemental parts, bits and pieces, particles and frequencies is statistically different in ratios of representation, by "being different in consistency?" (2) And more importantly, if you believe that mass is the driving "force", rather than solar winds, for gravity, can you explain just how that works exactly? Or "WHY" does mass suck? And "HOW" does mass suck?

Hi Aaron
These questions are best addressed in my thread rather than poor, long-suffering Pat's.

(1) Yes density is probably more appropriate if you want a word to describe a situation where the relevant 'particles' (masons in my model) are closer together.

(2) I don't believe mass is a driving force. The aether/fabric of space deforms in the prescence of mass giving us the effect we call gravity - as regards 'how' you need to refer to the section on gravity in my article.

regards
Felix

PS - for Pat - PRRRRRRRRR PRRRRRRRR etc....

[Mikal]

Hi again Jak...profpat and I may be.. beyond each others horizon but he is gracious and so is so nice to meet in the middle...someday our horizons may meet and the limit of our individual understandings may grow into the "bigger picture

peace...Mikal

[Profpat]

TWO DIFFERENT WORLDS

.” But Profpat is following the non-magical path which has rules and pleasures of its own. And your suggestions and questions are presently beyond the horizon of Profpat's methodical path. One day his progress may substantiate your views.” ( quote from JAK )

JAK I believe in two different worlds: One Parmenidian ( Absolute, Permanent, Stable ) The Other Heraclitan ( Changing, Flux, Movement )
One world is ABSOLUTE, one world is RELATIVE.

When I tranced myself into an OBE, my physical form of Pat was left behind, and only awareness remained, ( The I AM ). Pat was not real, nor was anything else on our physical plane of reality. Truly all was illusion. This experience was more real, than anything that Pat has experienced, on this illusory planet Earth. Today I believe much more in this Absolute Reality than I believe in the Relative Reality, however, I accept both.

While in this tranced state of Awareness, The I became aware of another presence, not physical, just a feeling of another being or entity, that was there. It was, I guess through a telepathic communication, came the realization, that all is illusion, constantly being created by ( us ). Again this realization was Absolute. It was at the time of this realization that I felt my awareness being erased, like you might erase chalk from a blackboard. It was at that moment that I panicked and quickly found myself in Pat’s body again.

I read later, I should have allowed the I AM to be erased, to discover Nirvana. I find myself stuck between two worlds.

Now Aristotle accepted Plato’s views that this world is illusion, the shadows on the cave, and yet, his philosophy was why not study the illusion since it is here, and we appear to be living in it.

Since being at this forum I received two insights regarding this phenomenon. One from Michael who stated this is a relative reality, not absolute. The other from Nobody who stated while this reality is an illusion, it’s a real. illusion

And so I study both, the Absolute and the Relative. This thread is dedicated primarily to the relative world. The world of quantum mechanics, general relativity and special relativity. The world of nuclear physics to astrophysics.

I hope this explains where I’m from, if it does let me know, if not where I’m from, than maybe at least where I’m at.

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Hi Aaron These questions are best addressed in my thread rather than poor, long-suffering Pat's. (1) Yes density is probably more appropriate if you want a word to describe a situation where the relevant 'particles' (masons in my model) are closer together. (2) I don't believe mass is a driving force. The aether/fabric of space deforms in the prescence of mass giving us the effect we call gravity - as regards 'how' you need to refer to the section on gravity in my article. regards Felix PS - for Pat - PRRRRRRRRR PRRRRRRRR etc....

Thanks Felix;

I'm reminded that love is long-suffering, and I have no objections to discussions on this thread which doesn't deal directly with my An Idea. If it strays too far I usually bring it back home. But I agree items which deal with other member's theories are best addressed to them on their thread.

Best,

Pat

P.S. You like that catnip I see.

[dipayankar]

Hi any idea if the LHC has started functioning??

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi any idea if the LHC has started functioning??

Hi Dippy

Depends on what you mean by 'functioning'. I understood that it's running but could take anything up to two years to calibrate etc. Does anyone have more up-to-date info?

Felix

[Profpat]

Hi Felix and Dipayankar;

It planned to circulate the first beams in May 2008. First collisions at high energy are expected mid-2008 with the first results from the experiments soon after.

The above is from CERN'S WEBSITE AT:
( http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ ) updated 5/26/2008

So I guess any day now.

Best to all,

Pat

P.S. Have a purr-fectly enjoyable Memorial Day for we Americans.

[dipayankar]

I really wonder if this machine would juggle up the Higgs Boson. Does this particle exist?

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Felix and Dipayankar; It planned to circulate the first beams in May 2008. First collisions at high energy are expected mid-2008 with the first results from the experiments soon after. The above is from CERN'S WEBSITE AT: ( http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ ) updated 5/26/2008 So I guess any day now. Best to all, Pat P.S. Have a purr-fectly enjoyable Memorial Day for we Americans.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar I really wonder if this machine would juggle up the Higgs Boson. Does this particle exist?

I don't know if it does or doesn't exist. Until proven otherwise, I tend to doubt it.

I'm hoping they come up with some information on strngs myself, since it is now the fundamental particle of my theory. Otherwise the quark would be my FS, but where did that come from if not strings?

Best to you Dipayankar,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Mikal It is interesting that gravity appears as an attractive force yet there is some evidence it also may be repulsive. I note this because before all these strange experiences began in my life...when I was passing through the process of integrating my consciousness..I experienced getting caught between two forces...great battle with an outside force that was attractive and an inner force which was repulsive. I was the battleground between these two forces which I little understood. I had to put some effort into conquering the attractive force...after that battle..all my experiences began that kind of defied the whole idea of gravity. If I am off base here...do not fear to tell me. Am ernestly seeking to understand this part of the Integration of Consciousness and whether gravity has anything to do with it

Hi Mikal,

I think your experience is right-on, and you should be thankful to have these experiences. Sometimes, the truth reveals itself best from the inside out.

The toe cannot be told without a concept explaining the dimensional set-up, and it is really surprising that 3D does not contain the most obvious aspect of them all, one that explains your experience quite well.

Currently, 3D is considered up-down, left-right, front-back, yet in our universe the most important pair is not captured by any of these three: in-out. Meanwhile, we all know that our entire universe has been found to move outwardly, so if there is a toe, this would be the one pair that must be explained. Without this pair, no toe is valid. 3D is therefore in its current state not a valid concept that explains the toe, for it is only static, and does not give prime position to in-out, the most important spatial aspect in our universe.

What is fundamental in the toe is that one of these four pairs, and one only, contains a limitation, while the other three can be considered infinite. Spatially, one can go right, for as long as one wants, and the same goes for left, or up, or down, or front, or back. One can go outwardly also infinitively, but one cannot go inwardly infinitely. If you go inward, there is always a moment you must go outwardly again. Our universe is moving outwardly, because once it went inwardly and experienced the limitation. It came outwardly containing that experience, showing limitation, each part itself.

The most important aspect in our universe is the pair of in and out. From what I read in your delivery, from the moment you realized the battle between in and out, your consciousness started to integrate all this information.