[Fredrick]

Allow me to follow up my words of "last argument" with a few things that I'd like to embellish on a bit more in this second post, Pat.

The mechanics of the funnels to attach themselves is based on the potential state being the normal state, and the materialized state being an angular/imperfect state. You will have to follow this theory based on this theory, in that matter is basically the expression of many two-halves that got together, and any particle we perceive is therefore two-halves re-attached. In theory (for now), half particles do not exist in our reality.

The charge is a different aspect to be mentioned. The potential Zen particle is charge-neutral. Yet the two halves did not let go of each other due to a lovey-dovey situation. The Zen particle experienced tension coming from the outside (actually from the collective of the entire potential universe, from the specific contorted set up it was in), and that tension translated into an internalization of the tension leading to a momentary letting go of the two halves.

So the two halves are not charge-neutral entities. Instead of them being charge-neutral, each half not only has an opposing charge at their basis (where they let go of the other half), but each half also has a charge difference in itself. The funnels are malleable, but they are not malleable to the point where they can twist and turn themselves into charge-neutral entities all by themselves.

Again, you will have to follow this as theory, since this is all occurring in the small amount of time from potential universe to materialized universe. No matter this being an imperfect state, the two halves not coming together is even more undesired than getting back together with an imperfect other half. Since the halves were created by the squazillions, one half did not necessarily have to get back with the half it came from; another half may have done the trick that much better.

The charge of the created two-halves depends on what is placed towards the center, and what is placed towards the outside. Yes, 2D+ of inside versus outside is the most important spatial/dimensional distinction. The (possibly imperfect display of) charge on the outside is vital. All matter is formed this way, but not in a uniform way. So that is what the pentaist theory states: imperfection is part of our universe; matter shows its imperfections to us in a small variety of ways.

IF A and B are the two parts required to make a hole particle then the basics of the pyramid are:

AA, AB, BA, BB.

In this pyramid called 'Zen particle' the name tag is in top. The Zen particle does not exist in our universe, but the particles that do exist were created from Zen particle-parts.

About dimensions:
When you say there are one-dimensional waves or when you mention that Planck Lengths are the smallest entities, I have a problem. I can only go there when focusing so much on something specific that the reality of the whole no longer holds my attention (much like one can move away from reality when reading an excellent book). Only 3D exists. In our reality nothing but 3D exist, though something of 2D can get created within our 3D world. There is nothing of 1D that exists in our universe, neither as real nor as art/fake. Planck may be the smallest length, but at what width and depth does it come? There is no such thing as something with just a length.

I agree with you that there are no 1/2 dimensions, but dimensions are first of all a spatial delivery. For matter, what is inside and what is outside is far more important.

[Profpat]

According to string theory, if we could examine these particles with even greater precision—a precision many orders of magnitude beyond our present technological capacity—we would find that each is not pointlike but instead consists of a tiny, one-dimensional loop. Like an infinitely thin rubber band, each particle contains a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament that physicists have named a string.

Hi Fredrick;

The above is from Brian Greene, notice how he talks about a real one dimensional entity. I don't know why you only accept 3 dimensional entities? A sound wave is a one dimensional wave, a photon is a two dimensional wave. The Planck Length isn't an entity in it's own right, rather it's a distance measurement.

I pretty much need strings as the foundation for my An Idea. While I could start out with quarks, the first question would be what are quarks. With string theory the answer is a string.

You do have an interesting well thought out theory, but as I mentioned before I'm staying with string theory unless proven otherwise.

I guess at this point, we must agree that we disagree regarding the FS. I respect you and your theory, but you haven't changed my mind regarding strings.

So, thank you so much for your input, and please keep posting here, as your input is priceless.

Very best to you Fredrick,

Pat

P.S. I do agree with you, that what is inside and outside that one dimensional invisible loop is probably more important than the loop itself. The loop however is necessary to set the boundries, of inside and outside.

[Profpat]

[Profpat]

Post above is a:

Multiply-complexed one-dimensional structure, multiply-twisted helix, multiply-looped ring structure.

[Fredrick]

Pat,

Thank you for your reply. However, saying that something is one-dimensional is not the same as having something that is one-dimensional. But if I understand your words well, then we'll probably not agree on much more than this. I claim you are confusing spatial measurements/directions with material measurements.

There is no such thing as one-dimensional, not a sound wave, not a loop. (We are in agreement on the Planck measurement that it is just a measurement and need not be expressed as a dimension.)

Dimensions do not function like family, where one member is already a real part of the overall delivery. It also doesn't function like a tripod, where already one of its legs is real. These are material examples. Dimensions are spatial. And both frameworks are independent of each other; they do not function the same way.

The single direction is a real direction, but the single direction cannot exist unless it is part and parcel of an environment. That environment can be known as 3D (three dimensional or three directional). Anything material that exists is already 3D, otherwise it is not part of our universe. The fake entities of art (and also the less-than-art created visualizations) can be seen as 2D for they give the impression of 3D. The artful delivery is 2D, yet with frame it is obvious they too exist in our 3D world.

Possibly you should see this as a language thing: dimensions are spatial words, and they come as a set. Matter exists within that framework, and they come as entities; they are not identical to the spatial framework. It may be like saying that A, B, and C are like 1, 2, and 3. Yet, while a single 1 may exist by itself, a single A does not because using A means using something belonging to the entire concept of an alphabet. Or I can talk apples and oranges: one apple and one orange does not equal two oranges. The apple belongs to a different group and can only be combined in a sum with an orange if we change the lingo to two pieces of fruit. But possibly I am confusing you now.

In short: the spatial framework exists by itself and informs the material world; if you wish we can call this 3D. The material world does not conform itself to the spatial framework; it exists within it. We may disagree, but according to my logic there can be no dispute: matter cannot be broken down according to spatial measurements/directions. You may refuse to accept that, we are human after all, but that would then be your choice.

Thank you for your kind words, Pat. I respect your way of communicating very much.

[Fredrick]

Pat, what is the delivery of string in light of the Big Bang?

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Pat, what is the delivery of string in light of the Big Bang?

Good question Fredrick;

If the universe is created but eternal than strings would nbe a good candidate for that eternal particle. Especially if it's cyclic forever expanding and contracting, as the Hindu Model states.

Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "Big Crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.

If it's a purely created fresh from the start universe, then I go back to my theism, and guess they are the heavens ( small h plural ) " In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void " After that God created light.

Best to you Fredrick,

Pat

[Mohan.C]

Amazing "idea" profpat. It's been a long time since its posted but I downloaded the pdf just now. But you say you believe electron as a projection of proton, I also believe in something like that. I was thinking of electron as a absence of proton. I hadn't talked about it anywhere because it sounded insane to me. I would have gone through the entire pdf. But its 1:30 a.m here at home and I am not sure I'll be able to understand it.

[Profpat]

Well if you have any questions Mohan C just post it and I'll do my best to answer it.

Best,

Pat

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C

... you say you believe electron as a projection of proton, I also believe in something like that. ...

Profpat, if an electron is a projection of a proton, it raises a number of questions:

• Perhaps I missed it, but under what conditions is the electron projected?
• How do you explain its loss or adoption in ionization?
• If an electron is lost, can the "divorced" proton "grow" or project a new one?
• How do you incorporate various bonds (ionic, covalent, etc.) in your hypothesis?

Thanks!

JAK