[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

I thought the lemming story was an urban myth? But then nobody knows!

regards
Felix

While many people believe that lemmings commit mass suicide when they migrate, this is not the case. Driven by strong biological urges, they will migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Lemmings can and do swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat[5]. On occasion, and particularly in the case of the Norway lemmings in Scandinavia, large migrating groups will reach a cliff overlooking the ocean. They will stop until the urge to press on causes them to jump off the cliff and start swimming, sometimes to exhaustion and death. Lemmings are also often pushed into the sea as more and more lemmings arrive at the shore. [6]

Personally, I think they get chased by a cat.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

[quote=Felix Schrodinger;55689]Hi Pat

(1) This is not right - classical physics ceases to hold sway at around 10^-17 when the strong force becomes dominant. The Planck length is very, very much smaller at about 10^-35.

(2) This is simply speed = distance over time. If there is no smaller division then we must have an underlying granularity - hence an aether.

(3) Where did this come from???

From the earlier, and much longer post, you appear to have become an apologist for sting theory? You can't have a fundamental particle that is made of something else. Also if BG's vibrating loops are not all the same then they are not fundamental - they have to be made of something even smaller.

As you know, I use string in my model but it's very different from the string you are describing.

Hi Felix:

1) I think they did say the Planck length is 10 to the minus -35th power.

2) Strings could be the ether, but until proven I'm sticking with EMR as the ether. They may be the same.

3) http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae635.cfm

I agree. I think strings are the FS.

Best to you,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Three of the fundamental constants of nature are: c – the speed of light; h – Plank’s constant; G – the universal gravitational constant. The various Plank values are determined by these constants. In particular, Plank’s length is given by (hG/c3)1/2, about 10-33 cm. Now, what is the significance of this?

Originally Posted by Profpat

There are two pillars of study in physics: Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. All matter is affected by these two pillars to some degree, but they typically can be considered as mutually exclusive. If a particular mass is of a size to be greatly affected by relativity, there usually is little quantum affects. Or, if a particular mass has large quantum affects, there usually is little relativistic affects.
For a given mass, the distance over which relativistic affects are dominant is called the Schwarzschild radius. If a mass is squeezed smaller than its Schwarzschild radius it becomes a Black Hole. The Schwarzschild radius is given by Gm/c2.
The distance over which quantum affects are dominant is called the Compton length. For a given mass, anything smaller than its Compton length is strongly quantum. The Compton length is given by h/mc.
If we compare the Schwarzschild radius and Compton length formulas, as the mass varies, the two lengths are inversely proportional to each other. This is why the two affects seem mutually exclusive. The question becomes, “Is there a particular mass with the same Schwarzschild radius and Compton length?” The answer is yes. If we equate the two formulas and solve for m, we find that at a mass of (hc/G)1/2 (about 10-5 g) the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton length are equal. This mass is called the Plank mass. The length at which the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton length are equal is called the Plank length. At the Plank length, both relativistic and quantum affects are equally dominant.

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

I was thinking of in-out, where 'out' goes forever, but 'in' meets some boundary like the planck length, or nowhere, or who knows what. Does this mean that our notion of size has an absolute scale?

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

Also, is the planck length "special", like the speed of light, in that all observers would agree on it? This is the basis of DSR (Double Special Relativity) that I read about somewhere.

Also, what's inside the planck length?

While you're at it, why do squirrels run toward cars?

Thank you, Pat, for providing so much information to Austin's question. You've made it understandable for me, too. It looks like all answers are given already, and all we need to do is sift through the answers to find which ones are 2D+ and which ones are just 1D (or to say this differently, figuring out when all concepts are valid all the time, and when only one concept is valid, but stopped being real).

Concepts are never the reality themselves, even when they describe reality almost to a T. What Plank did was figure out the last possible option at which both concepts are still valid. If we follow one, but not the other, the other ceases to be valid, but also making the first one invalid, because reality requires both to be valid. Of course, if these two concepts were my legs, I can hop and skip quite a bit on just one leg, but I get tired quickly, especially compared to ordinary walking.

The same goes for two eyes: I can indeed see depth with one eye. I just have to bob my head (like pigeons do) and, if trained well, I have then gathered all the information to 'see' depth. With two eyes, though, this happens spontaneously. The question therefore is: if I cannot bob my head, and I have one eye closed, can I still see depth? The answer (and Austin you will know this is similar to the investigation mirror) is that only if I have learned to see depth first, and have trained my eye to focus nearby and far away, only then can I still see depth with a single immovable eye. If I did not have that experience, but was just an eye-ball laying on a table in a room without any movement by people or squirrels, and all of a sudden becoming conscious, then I'd not be capable of seeing depth because there would be no reference for me to see depth. I hope you see that such an eye is also just a fantasy story used here to deliver a point.

If we follow QM all the way to only having QM be valid, then we have no depth left. In other words, there is no reality left when only QM is still valid. In my opinion, same story goes for Relativity.

One last example: there is a book about a rabbit hole we can fall in, quite enticing us to use our brain and go there ourselves, too. It is easy to follow the white rabbit, yet we are doing so only by sitting in our chairs reading a book. By closing the book you can show that its just an entertaining concept that at some point is (or may be) valuable and at another point is just a book. To use that book to teach our children something about how fantasy works, that'd be reality.

Originally Posted by Profpat

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

The pentaist theory states that time is older than materialization. But in our universe time from before the universe came into being ceased to be important. In our universe time is subjected to space.

In as far as In&Out goes, Austin, 'In' has a limitation build-in, but as a measurement it is not very helpful. To measure something, one needs two parts of limitations, one is not enough. And 'Out' does not provide. Two 'Ins' of course are sufficient to provide a measurement, but that measurement is then based on both 'Ins' and not on the whole.

Only squirrels with driver licences run to cars.

[Fredrick]

Let me try warming up this thread again by asking you the same question one more time, Pat. Forgive me, if you felt you answered it already.

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Question: do you agree/disagree, Pat, that the decimal system is visible in the eight part delivery?

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

Thanks for your question. since my G.U. ( geographically undesirable ) girlfriend Linda went back to Phoenix last week I haven't felt to inspired. The scent and feel of a woman, trumps ideas and concepts. However I'm glad to hear from you again.

As far as your question no I don't. I do find nature and the quanta theory to be more dealing with whole numbers and simple fractions i.e. 1/3 or 2/3 or 1/2, fortunately.

Nature also seems more disposed to 8 than 10. The octant, the octave, the electrons, the number of gluons, etc.

The Spanish gold coin could be split into eighths ( Pieces of eight.) The stock market until very recently was traded in units no less than 1/8.

Just some thoughts on the subject Fredrick.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. Off the subject but you may find this youtube video interesting. I posted it before:
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=FqfunyCeU5g)

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

As far as your question, no I don't. I do find nature and the quanta theory to be more dealing with whole numbers and simple fractions i.e. 1/3 or 2/3 or 1/2, fortunately.

Nature also seems more disposed to 8 than 10. The octant, the octave, the electrons, the number of gluons, etc.

Thank you, Pat, for being back amongst the platonics. Though you are providing excellent examples of systems based on eight, my question was: do you agree/disagree, Pat, that the decimal system is visible in the eight part delivery?

That means can you see the decimal system when there are only eight original parts?

The explanation I would give is that the decimal system has nine numbers with contents only, though it has ten positions: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Based on your 8-way picture, in which each separate aspect can be considered a position, then there should only be nine numbers in total (0 plus 1 -> 8 ) , yet the overall position is also a different position than the positions for each and every eight positions; hence a tenth number (that being 9) which is then automatically included. In the T-ching of Fisks, the synergistic delivery is that delivery that is more than the parts, but without any additional parts added. We have 0, the eight parts, and 9 as the whole.

You are probably aware that if you add up numbers in a Cabbalistic way (for instance, 11 = 1 + 1 = 2) then each number changes the outcome, except for 0 and 9.

10 = 1
11 = 2
12 = 3
13 = 4
14 = 5
15 = 6
16 = 7
17 = 8
18 = 9
19 = 1

100 = 1
110 = 2
111 = 3
112 = 4
113 = 5
114 = 6
115 = 7
116 = 8
117 = 9
118 = 1
119 = 2

And adding 0s or 9s doesn't change the outcome:
1009 = 1
1109 = 2
11199 = 3
1120000000000000999 = 4
113000000000000099 = 5
11400000000099 = 6
11500000009 = 7
1169999 = 8
117999999 = 9
11899999999999999999999999999999999999999 = 1
11999999999999999999999999999999 = 2

As a side note: the only way to get an outcome of 0, one has to start and remain with a delivery that has a zero and adding nothing but zeros. This can be seen as when starting with something, one always gets an outcome that is something; yet when starting with nothing, an outcome will always be nothing (until something is added).
0 = 0
000000 = 0

Same for 9s:
9 = 9
999999 = 9
Except, one can also get to 9 with other numbers:
234 = 9

Do you agree, Pat, that 0 and 9 can be seen as special numbers in the decimal system whose special nature only comes out when viewing the numbers from a specific perspective?

[Profpat]

I'm sorry Fredrick, but I'm a bit confused by your prior post.

Let's look at the octant diagram again. What is immediately visible to me is that the cube is broken down in 8 sections. this to me suggest fractions, namely 1/8 for each cube, making up the whole. You are correct the 8 small cubes make up 1 large cube. We'll call that 9. The large cube is resting in a space we'll call 0.

Again what is visible is the 8 small cubes or fractions.

So I don't know how to answer your question, because I'm confused as to what exactly you are asking.

Sorry for my slowness.

Best to you,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

...this to me suggest fractions, namely 1/8 for each cube, making up the whole. You are correct the 8 small cubes make up 1 large cube. We'll call that 9. The large cube is resting in a space we'll call 0.

Again what is visible is the 8 small cubes or fractions.

So I don't know how to answer your question, because I'm confused as to what exactly you are asking.

Sorry for my slowness.

No sorry necessary, Pat, because there is no hurry. I also hope you see that I am in agreement with all you are saying. What I am trying to show is a view, not an absolute truth.

Let me start with the binary system, and suggesting we both agree that there is only one active member (1) and a non-active member (0), though in reality they are used over and over again. The combinations of 1s and 0s provide the language of this system. Now, to describe the parts, or fractions as you mention them, we would use specific 1s and 0s. Yet to describe the whole we would also use specific 1s and 0s. The whole and also each fraction would be described using a different set of 1s and 0s.

Just like I can use two different words, part and whole, I can come up with any system that can describe these two 'separate' phenomena. In the binary system, there is no part that is designated just for the parts and there is no part that is designated just for the whole. It is all done with just 1s and 0s.

The same is true for the decimal system. Yet, the interesting part is that each number can get somewhat of a specific designation. The number 1, for instance, in the decimal system can get used to describe 'the winner.' Or it can be used for 'the unity of the nation.' The number 2 could be used for 'runner-up.' Or is could be used to describe the American form of democracy with just two parties capable of getting important seats.

With having many numbers, each number can get a side-designation. And we have all learned and incorporated them in our lives (though the specific meanings can differ somewhat from person to person/culture to culture).

The decimal system contains specific designations that when seen from the overall perspective contains something double; the parts and the whole are both mentioned separately.

I used the Cabbala to show you that these numbers exist within a treatment of that system, and in that treatment we can see that 0 and 9 are specific numbers, not behaving like the other 8 numbers. In this treatment, it is almost as if these numbers are not there (because they do not affect the outcome).

Even though there are only 8 parts (and we could stop at that right now, but in this case we don't), there are ten designations to describe the set of 8 parts: separation, the 8 parts, the collective. All I am asking you is if you can see it; you don't have to ditch the eight parts system.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

...
You are probably aware that if you add up numbers in a Cabbalistic way (for instance, 11 = 1 + 1 = 2) then each number changes the outcome, except for 0 and 9.

10 = 1
11 = 2
12 = 3
13 = 4
14 = 5
15 = 6
16 = 7
17 = 8
18 = 9
19 = 1

100 = 1
110 = 2
111 = 3
112 = 4
113 = 5
114 = 6
115 = 7
116 = 8
117 = 9
118 = 1
119 = 2
...

Do you agree, Pat, that 0 and 9 can be seen as special numbers in the decimal system whose special nature only comes out when viewing the numbers from a specific perspective?

Fredrick, I'm not sure the decimal system has a special significance. It seems that what you have uncovered is more related to the numbers base you use. For instance, using base 8, this would happen:

10 = 1
11 = 2
12 = 3
13 = 4
14 = 5
15 = 6
16 = 7
17 = 1


100 = 1
110 = 2
111 = 3
112 = 4
113 = 5
114 = 6
115 = 7
116 = 1

Suddenly, the significant numbers are 0 and 7 rather than 0 and 9. Similarly, using any base, the two significant numbers become 0 and the highest one prior to 10. In base 4, it would be 0 and 3. In base 16, it would be 0 and E (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E 10).

Meanwhile, base 2 (binary) has significant numbers and only significant numbers - 0 and 1. Now, in the light of your perception about significant numbers, it makes the binary system seem even stronger and more potent as a foundational numbering system to me.

Further, 2 raised to the power of 3, which coincidentally is the number of spatial dimensions used in the diagram, we suddenly attain the number 8 again.

Thoughts?

[Profpat]

If Pythagoras is correct than the whole universe is numbers, and I think he’s correct. I also believe in his musical spheres. Additionally, all things can be represented with just 2 numbers, which is our binary system of 0 and1.

To address your last paragraph Fredrick:

”Even though there are only 8 parts (and we could stop at that right now, but in this case we don't), there are ten designations to describe the set of 8 parts: separation, the 8 parts, the collective. All I am asking you is if you can see it; you don't have to ditch the eight parts system.” ( I assume you mean separation, as that which is outside the parts and the whole )

I think I’m beginning to see it Fredrick, but even if I couldn’t I wouldn’t ditch the 8 parts. Whether it is in the form, of the octant cube, or your octant globes, or in the octant sphere.

Now in my An Idea I use the binary numbering system to account for the 8 parts. That is from 000 to 111, or from 0 to 7. I have numbers 1-7 as areas in the Venn Diagram with the 0 being separate and outside of it. Once that 0 is captured, like an electron being captured by the proton, you have a new entity. To me, now we have an octant, in the form of a sphere. You would still have the space outside of the sphere, which would still be represented by the number 000, even though you have 000 as part of the sphere. Remember the neutron is a non stable particle and will within minutes decay into a proton and electron. The whole sphere itself I guess would be the number 8, or 1000, in binary numbers.

Now that I confused myself here is an accountants joke:

3 accountants were interviewing for the same job. When the 1st one was called into the presidents’ office for an interview, he was asked “ What is 1 and 1”. Without hesitating he said 2. The 2nd accountant went in and noticed the interview with the 1st accountant was very quick, and so when asked the same question, “ What is 1 and 1 “, he stated “ The obvious answer is 2, but it could also 11 or eleven, or 1/1 and it would be 1, or 11 in binary numbers and it would be the number 3, or 1 to the 1 power and it would be 1” “ Thank you” said the president, and he called in the 3rd and last interviewee. Same question, “ What is 1 and 1” . The 3rd accountant thought for a second, and replied “ Anything you want it to be Boss. “