[Profpat]

Good questions JAK, you must think I’m a physicist and/or chemist, rather than an accounting professor. First let me start with a passage from Uncyclopedia regarding the electron:

The Standard Model, for instance, states that due to quantum mechanics, the electron doesn't really occupy any space at all and is really only a figment of the imagination, represented by abstract equations such as the wavefunction equations (for those who must pour over said equations) which describe the simple probability that the electron exists at a certain place at a certain time with a certain momentum, although this is more than likely to be a cover-up...

Also my An Idea, was conceived with Hydrogen and Helium in mind which constitutes ~98% of our luminous universe.

Given that let me now discuss, my thoughts, regarding the projection from a proton:

First: THE PARTICLE is both a proton and a neutron. The proton is domed shaped, and open, and projects the electron externally ( an actual negative field in space is created ). When closed to form a sphere, it is a neutron, any projection would be internal and the particle is now balanced ( 4 positive and 4 negative areas internally)

Second: The neutron, not being stable, will decay back to a domed shaped proton, which will again project the electron.

I think this addresses your first three bullet points, the best I can.

In regards to your 4th question I haven’t even thought about chemical bonding of the compounds, and probably won’t.

I’m presently trying to account for the orbitals of the electron shells by explaining it through proton/neutron stacking in the nucleus, at least through the K:2 and L:8 shells. Perhaps through M:18, if I’m able to handle that many light and dark grapes with toothpicks.

Best to you JAK,

Pat

[Profpat]

NB to above post:


For example, in an atom with a single electron, such as hydrogen or ionized helium, the wave function of the electron provides a complete description of how the electron behaves. It can be decomposed into a series of atomic orbitals which form a basis for the possible wave functions. For atoms with more than one electron (or any system with multiple particles), the underlying space is the possible configurations of all the electrons and the wave function describes the probabilities of those configurations.


Whether the wave function is real, and what it represents, are major questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many famous physicists have puzzled over this problem, such as Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Some approaches regard it as merely representing information in the mind of the observer. Others argue that it must be objective.

( From Wikipedia )

[Profpat]

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

If the universe is created but eternal than strings would be 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.

Okay, I guess I do want to touch on this delivery you gave us, and I want to do that in this thread instead of using private messages. As you know I have utmost respect for each and every belief and religion, but I am also a picky guy, possibly even to the point of nitpicking. I mean well, and so I respectfully ask the following:

How can you combine two different concepts, Pat, when they are not of the same order? You are using a belief concept and you marry it to a scientific concept. Or said in reverse: you start out with the scientific facts, and you cover up the hole at the beginning with a belief. To me that is like creating the following overall concept of A, B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. If it is really needed then I can do my best and find a certain amount of logic in there. But a rather big logical flaw is also staring back at me from this combination that must either be addressed or admitted.

Not to promote my own delivery, but the pentaist theory is all written using just one set of rules. To some, it may be wild and out-there, but I formulate everything using scientifically accepted terms (if not, please let me know). Where the knowledge of the beginning of the universe is spotty at best, I use the versatile word of potential, for the potential to create our universe is not disputed. Whatever I describe about the potential universe is directly related to what we can tell from the resulting universe. My conclusion in this scientific framework is that our universe started out from a potential state which cohesion was broken (at least) once. The evidence that all mathematical concepts contain the number zero shows that singularity either does not exist or takes in a secondary spot (which is a different way of showing a possible first but later broken cohesion).

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick:

I do like your theory. It's well thought out, logical, and indeed may be right. I recommend to our fellow members that they should visit your thread, and discuss it's merits there.

I'm sorry you don't approve of my delivery or breaking rules by mixing science with religion.

BUT:

I like strings, which become the rings, that makes up things;
Like shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings.

Best to you Fredrick,

Pat

P.S. The only rules I don't break are the ones I can't break; otherwise I like breaking rules.

[Profpat]

Look what I found Fredrick. It was the second PM I received. The first one was a general introduction from Robert.

In I believe was my second or third post and I brought up God and I wasn't sure if it was permitted at this site.

The PM I received made me feel most welcome and indeed I believe I found a home here at Toequest.

The thread was yours and the PM was:

Hi Profpat,

Welcome to this TOEQuest forum. I am curious to read what you theory is. And of course religion is welcome in this thread. Isn't the word theory based on the word 'theo,' meaning god?

best regards,

Fredrick

Thank you Fredrick, then and now.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

We should begin our account of infinity with the "fifth-century Eleatic" Zeno. The early Greeks had come across the problem of infinity at an early stage in their development of mathematics and science. In their study of matter they realised the fundamental question: can one continue to divide matter into smaller and smaller pieces or will one reach a tiny piece which cannot be divided further. Pythagoras had argued that "all is number" and his universe was made up of finite natural numbers. Then there were Atomists who believed that matter was composed of an infinite number of indivisibles. Parmenides and the Eleatic School, which included Zeno, argued against the atomists. However Zeno's paradoxes show that both the belief that matter is continuously divisible and the belief in an atomic theory both led to apparent contradictions.

By accepting Quantum Mechanics, cannot we conclude that we have Quanta, and the the smallest quanta ( or building block ) would be a Planck Length, one dimensional entity called a string. Can there be anything smaller in our reality? Shouldn't we start with the smallest conceivable entity and build upon it?

I'm not sure if strings were created or eternal, real or illusion, but I do believe it should be the beginning point of studying our relative reality.

[Profpat]

An excellent 2 minute video called string ducky from discover magazine is located at:
( http://discovermagazine.com/twominut...-686943766&bct )

It's very basic, but enjoyable.

You have to click on to string ducky at the side bar. Otherwise you'll have Brian Greene talking about it.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

I like strings, which become the rings, that makes up things;
Like shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings.

P.S. The only rules I don't break are the ones I can't break; otherwise I like breaking rules.

I can rhyme on a dime, trying not to whine, Pat,

In your post you are giving me more than what I asked for; so, thank you.

Again, I have no objections to religious deliveries nor do I have objections to scientific deliveries; I do not even mind fancyful fantasy deliveries, yet one rule that cannot be broken is consistency of concept. Mixing concepts makes any attempt to get to a whole concept a failure-included attempt. It is like trying to light a cigarette after first putting it in a bucket of water.

If you want to talk religion; fine with me. There are many divine deliveries all giving us good conceptual information. They present us thoughts and structures that can be very handy in specific or in general in life/our universe.

Yet if you are serious about not breaking what cannot be broken then you already know that you did not "break" anything, you just came up with two separate parts that may co-exist at the same time, but that do not belong to the same basic structure (which interestingly is exactly the set-up I proposed off-hand for the relationship of the proton and the electron). If we want to end up with a delivery of ten oranges, but we only have nine, then an apple may create ten pieces of fruit, but they are still not ten oranges. (and the proton may be forceful enough to get that apple of an electron to complete its own internal mission.)

One cannot say 1, 2, 3, D, 5, 6, G and then pretend one can do that. It undermines the wisdom contained with the words and parts of concepts themselves. Can we ignore it and just look at the placement of things? Sure, no problem, but not helpful when looking for the overall picture.

My compliments to you, Pat, for having shown much wisdom in all your deliveries. I have benefited from the information and insights you gave me. I hope you can create two separate overall concepts: one religious concept, one scientific concept, and see how they may inform each other, but also see where they are like apples and oranges.

The most important conclusion I think comes forth out of a straight approach is that religion can do something that science cannot do; science is limited because our universe contains an intrinsic limitation of not being able to go inwardly indefinitively. In religion, one can always go one step further inwardly if so desired.

If one mixes and matches concepts, then what is obvious becomes muddied and overlooked. It makes us one-eye blind.

[Profpat]

1,2,3,D,5,6,G.8.......What is next in this series? It makes a predicible pattern for me Fredrick. ( Isn't that the essence of a good theory, to have a model which helps us make predictions?)

According to MJA Apples = Oranges.

OK let's just start out with strings and not worry about whether they were created or eternal. Would that be OK? Our premise will be Given strings. That way we won't have to concern ourselves with a Creator, Prime Mover, Potentialor etc.

Works for me how about you?

Best,

Pat