An Idea

[AntonioLao]

I am not learned enough to go further

What some can described best in pictures, some can describe better in words of a particular language, and some can describe even better using the language of math. Math is just like learning shorthands: one tiny scribble could mean the entire universe.

[Fredrick]

" There is no ultimate unity in our universe, Antonio."

Hi Fredrick; I believe the universe IS ultimate unity, there is only ONE universe, and it is very much unified as ONE.

I didn't quite follow your number explanation, why is the neutron ~ 1839 x heavier than the electron?

Nice graphics.

I'm still confused about your proton.The standard model has the proton with a positive charge of +1 and needs the electron -1 to balance to 0.

Pat, we have gone over this many times now: the family is indeed a single entity, but when you look at the parts of the family, it is easy to see that the single entity is built up from members; when there are no members (plural), then there is no family.

I don't know about your family, but the word unity may be a rare thing in families. Possibly, if you take the family living in one home as the only possible definition of family, then yes some of the times there will be unity. But if you take a larger look at all your family members, then I am certain you will find where the word unity no longer applies. The largest family — mankind — most certainly does not show unity and, according to historians, it never has. Just because the word mankind is a single word, does not mean it covers a single entity. It would be nice, though, to have unity.

In Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#Electric_charge I read:
"A quark has a fractional electric charge value, either −1/3 or +2/3 (measured in elementary charges). Specifically, up, charm and top quarks (collectively referred to as up-type quarks) have a charge of +2/3 each, while down, strange and bottom quarks (down-type quarks) have −1/3; the charge of an antiquark is the negative of the charge of the corresponding quark. The electric charge of a hadron is the sum of the charges of the constituent quarks; the total is always an integer." and:

"The electric charge of quarks is important in the construction of nuclei. The hadron constituents of the atom, the neutron and proton, have charges of 0 and +1 respectively; the neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark, and the proton of two up quarks and one down quark. The total electric charge of a nucleus, that is, the number of protons in it, is known as the atomic number, and it is the main difference between atoms of different chemical elements."

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron I read:
"In 1913, Danish physicist Niels Bohr postulated that electrons resided in quantized energy states, with the energy determined by the angular momentum of the electron's orbits about the nucleus." and "The ratio between the mass of a proton and that of an electron is about 1836."



I am foremost a structuralist, Pat. I understand structure. I would be grateful if you can further clarify the specific position of the electron not already covered by the explanation.



Here is the number 1836 broken down again: if you accept that 1/6th is one remainder-part of the cylinder, then 12 different versions of power are applicable, because this remainder-part comes in two. The usual up-down-left-right-front-back positioning is taken in twice, and 6 times 2 delivers us 12. Please note that a position is a power statement (and to further clarify my funny example of musical chairs: a seat is the symbol of power).

If we divide 1836 by 12 then we have 153, which as the square root comes back again in the following (and feel free to see a seat in this image):

If we then take 1/6 and divide it by 2/3, we end up with 3/12 as the folding mechanism of these individualized behaviors' within the framework of collective power (the behaviors do not exist as separate entities).

The next image is straight from my book again and shows how a lever effect exists if we minimize (or if you wish the other way around maximize) things that have two parts to it. Each square in the image has the same amount of power, but the square starting at mid-point of both sides is not half-sized, it is only a quarter the size of the original. The effect is therefore larger than what one can expect when dealing with an entity that has two connected parts that each behaves independently to the extent possible.

When one part takes half a step, then the outcome is one-quarter in size of the starting point and delivers a clear concentration of power (note: the power itself did not change, only the concentration). Instead of this abstract delivery, place 1/6 and 2/3 in the picture. The number 153 is the corresponding number between both parts that can be found 12 times. Again: the parts are not going to adjust themselves to any kind of unity, even when they are stuck with the same old other parts; they listen to their own voice of god (which comes in two versions).

[dipayankar]

Hi Antonio, I have been going through your posts. You seem to come out more as a mathematician. However can you dream in maths? Can you let your mind loose in maths? You come across an idea which can be then proved by the existing maths. But I feel maths has its own limitations and we should not discard some radical ideas because maths does not support it. Probably our maths is not yet evolved to that level where the discarded idea can be tested truely.

What some can described best in pictures, some can describe better in words of a particular language, and some can describe even better using the language of math. Math is just like learning shorthands: one tiny scribble could mean the entire universe.

[AntonioLao]

Math as a study of natural patterns including abstract patterns is simply a language for communicating these different patterns.

[Profpat]

Given this from Virginia Tech:

These objects were called the "qausi-stellar radio sources", or "quasars" for short. Later, it was found these sources could not be stars in our galaxy, but must be very far away --- as far as any of the distant galaxies seen. We now think these objects are the very bright centers of some distant galaxies, where some sort of energetic action is occurring, most probably due to the presence of a supermassive black hole at the center of that galaxy (supermassive = made up from a mass of about a billion solar masses).

Getting back to our discussion on limitations, it would appear that when a planet reaches it's limit in mass it becomes a star, when a star reaches it limit in mass it becomes a black hole, when a black hole reaches it's limit it creates a quasar, thus starting the process all over again.

This is why I like the cyclic theory of the universe.



Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Fredrick;

You are of course entitled to disagree, but I find the universe to be the perfect example of unity. In it's totality, it is perfectly balanced. Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, only transformed. It is both static, and dynamic as time and motion flow.

As far as my personal families, they are always dysfunctional, which gives it it's own principle of unity.

Unity doesn't have to imply everything is the same. The symbol of the TAO is the best example of the unification of complementary opposites, which creates the dynamics of movement.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

You are of course entitled to disagree, but I find the universe to be the perfect example of unity. In it's totality, it is perfectly balanced. Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, only transformed. It is both static, and dynamic as time and motion flow.

As far as my personal families, they are always dysfunctional, which gives it it's own principle of unity.

Unity doesn't have to imply everything is the same. The symbol of the TAO is the best example of the unification of complementary opposites, which creates the dynamics of movement.

We have been here maybe too many times, Pat. I believe we disagree on words mainly, with you using words where I cannot use them. Naturally, words are important, because they imply certain conditions and deliveries. This makes it hard to communicate properly, but it is the nature of words as well to show a diversification of uses.

According to you, the universe is in a state of unity (but I don't see any evidence for that); according to me, the universe is in a state of plural deliveries at all levels (and I see an abundance of evidence for that, including the knock-out math evidence I provide). I will respect you in your belief; I stick with the evidence.

[Fredrick]

So, Pat, tell me: do you see the power of the 1836?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hi Fredrick,

I understand now beer how math gives insight into nature and vice-versa, although I am far from the days of geometry and trig—but they were my favorites in math, along with advanced algebra.

I take the sphere as being of the inward force/direction of the spiral (towards where it could not totally go, since there is a limit as to how small something can be) and the remainders of the cylinders thereafter torn away as being of a sideways force/direction (from the whirling direction of the spiral).

So, is this so? as I believe you stated it? And it is that the limit of getting small is really the key to the potential separating and becoming real-ized?

Also, is separation (not unity) being of 'nothing' being here and there, so to speak, plus the strong force vs. the weak force being opposite in the way of having nothing in common with each other? Thus no unity possible?

I like how the thirds and sixths are so well displayed by the cylinders, spheres, and remainders.

Potential really fired on all cylinders!

[G_burnett]

Given this from Virginia Tech:

These objects were called the "qausi-stellar radio sources", or "quasars" for short. Later, it was found these sources could not be stars in our galaxy, but must be very far away --- as far as any of the distant galaxies seen. We now think these objects are the very bright centers of some distant galaxies, where some sort of energetic action is occurring, most probably due to the presence of a supermassive black hole at the center of that galaxy (supermassive = made up from a mass of about a billion solar masses).

Getting back to our discussion on limitations, it would appear that when a planet reaches it's limit in mass it becomes a star, when a star reaches it limit in mass it becomes a black hole, when a black hole reaches it's limit it creates a quasar, thus starting the process all over again.

This is why I like the cyclic theory of the universe.



Best,

Pat

Quote, “…the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another or transferred from one body to another, but the total amount of energy remains constant (the same). (Unquote) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

“The law of conservation of energy states that energy can be transferred from one body to another and as such then a constant magnetic field being created as a source, where it has the potential force to act upon another body with the magnetic field not changed in the form it was created in, it's continual nature of potential maintained, it will effectively be an “infinite” constant effect of potential.” (Unquote) Graham Peter M. Burnett.

g.