An Idea

[Max™]

Hi Max

Could you explain, then, why the weak force, unlike the others, is time based?

regards
Felix

The weak force is the untying of the knots, and the interactions that result from this.

The strong force is the resistance the knots have to being pulled apart roughly. (hook two of your fingers together and pull them directly apart, they resist... if you let them loosen and straighten out, they come apart smoothly)

It hit me that if I were correct about EM being describable as a twisting sort of effect on spacetime, then that fits the weak force exhibiting parity violation. The knots are folded a certain way which is stable, other folds aren't so stable. The universe went with least action.

If you took a bundle of strings and compressed them together, they would fold and knot together in certain ways dictated by what took the least effort to assume those forms based on their own tension and dimensions.

When you let go, and they expand, certain knots will come undone rapidly, the excited state of the new expansion will produce new knots, and as a whole it will tend towards a smooth, undone state. Certain knots and kinks will take longer to work out than the others.

I suspect Dark Matter will have an even longer half life than Protons do.

[Max™]

Hi Max;

" A Quasar is simply a supermassive black hole which is actively feeding..."

I think it is actively regurgitating. when it becomes so massive something has to give. If not a quassar than perhaps a white hole at some other end of the universe.

I don't think that is a valid description.

Take the rubber sheet analogy.

If you pinch and twist a piece of the sheet in on itself beyond a certain critical mass, it literally will tear itself out of the rest of the sheet.

In two dimensions, this leaves a hole, with the torn piece contained within.

In three dimensions, this would be a sphere.

In four dimensions, an event horizon.

The inside of a black hole is no longer causally connected to our universe, it is a new universe unto itself. Waiting it's turn on the stage.


If spacetime is the flesh of a great fruiting body, black holes are the seeds from which new fruit will unfurl some day. I think.

[Profpat]

Profpat,

I noticed that there are now over 2000 post to this thread. If these can be transformed into printed pages then your idea would become a book of your theory.

With many authors Antonio, including you.

Best,

Pat

[Max™]

It's more of an exploration of concepts and ideas, different perspectives, and the act of communicating each others perspectives requires us to consider our own ideas from new directions.

I, for example, just thought to myself "well duh, a grid of harp strings would get knotted up with it's neighbors, not just itself... and notes along one, would set up sympathetic vibrations in it's neighbors".

We are learning by attempting to teach, that's how I learn best, anyway.

[Profpat]

It's more of an exploration of concepts and ideas, different perspectives, and the act of communicating each others perspectives requires us to consider our own ideas from new directions.

I, for example, just thought to myself "well duh, a grid of harp strings would get knotted up with it's neighbors, not just itself... and notes along one, would set up sympathetic vibrations in it's neighbors".

We are learning by attempting to teach, that's how I learn best, anyway.

Thats how I learn best, by teaching ( especially to myself ).

Thanks Max,

Pat

[Profpat]

I am glad you are finding more information on unity, Pat. Hegel's words are elegant and well put. I too like unity; I desire unity wherever possible. Yet while Hegel's words can be true that essence has its unity, he cannot declare that essence is unity because that requires evidence. No one ever brought forth evidence that there is unity.

The delivery I gave on the cylinder even shows the connection between the up quark and the down quark as the internally established disconnection of the two parts. That would mean there once was a connection, that would mean there once was unity.

However, the unity that once was was not expressed in the material universe. The cylinder is the abstract potential energy from which the up quark and the down quark derived. The cylinder itself did never exist as such in our materialized world.

The cylinder belongs to the potential energy that got itself set up in a bulwark. Whether or not the potential energy is a manifestation of unity or not is something we cannot answer, since it belongs to a level of reality that is (was) not materialized. At that level, both your position and mine are equally correct in that we cannot know for certain. Yet at our level of the materialized universe we can know for certain that unity does not exist.

Limitation is with everything and everywhere; oppositional directions are taken in by matter and matter has been moving outwardly for a distance longer than 13 billion years. A vase broken on a marble floor is not going to get back together again all by itself. Also, just because we can capture something with a word, does not mean it is singular; that is just a handy aspect of the brain to capture more information in larger and larger concepts. But above all:

+ x - = -

The cylinders in the potential energy state broke down, not because they weren't units themselves, but because the selfish spheres let go of the remainder-parts. The spheres are the entities containing unity (onto themselves), but the remainder-parts are not the outer part of that unity as Hegel says of essence. The remainder-parts are part and parcel of the essence, just like the sphere. Both are on the inside, and both are expressed on the outside.

The parts do not belong to a single cylinder, one of the remainder-parts (for certain) belongs to a different cylinder; and it is possible that both remainder-parts are from different cylinders each. So neutron and proton can be made up of 9 different parts; all parts may belong to different cylinders.

It is structure where we differ, Pat, not the essence. You consider unity an overall reality, I consider unity an option taken in within reality, but not identical to reality. I provide information that supports duality as the fundamental standard of our universe in which unity has its place. There is no problem to believe in an overall state of unity, yet this is a religious position. The scientific position is based on our materialized universe in which my evidence shows that unity is part of the whole, not identical to the whole.

I think I pretty much agree with what you saying here Fredrick.

Is " selfish " spheres = to some intelligent life form?

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Thank you, Pat, I had the feeling we were in agreement on this, but I understand that words can sometimes get the best of us. Thank you!

I'll leave the "intelligent" part of the equation up in the air, but in general I would say that where one is selfish, the other may as a reaction smart up sooner or later.

Friction of the electron motion denotes the Electron as having substance as wave does not effect wave, wave effects substance.

Friction can further be thought of as the relationship of varied quanta dimensions of substance in event in the small or the large.

This becomes in the dimensional view of frame drag in the motion taking place as the greater body of substance goes through motion being dragged by the smaller substance, thus creating a pulse effect or linear form of frame drag. IMHO.

If we look at this into constant spin geometry with out friction of concept using lets say mag bearings and in a vacuum of space the event where one greater substance of potential effect is in event on a smaller quanta of substance in velocity increase of the smaller clumped material in motion by the greater ... would the greater material not tend to go into motion as the velocity reached the infinite frictional limit in the smaller? The creation of pulse would tend to predict an answer yea.

...thus said both clumping in event would spin at varied velocities greater and greater the increase thereof infinite potential .. till? I will postulate molecular dis-alignment and separation of matter ... an "expand." ... still in spin and pulse ... forces of containment torn apart to there nature of being ... a ponder.

Then we can look at the beginning having this thought in mind to what was the content of being ... and the answer in the large would be everything, in varied quanta of dimensional review or platform of view relative only to the discipline. ... again, IMHO.

I think we are in agreement, Graham, but maybe I am bumping into what Felix kind of pointed out that pictures can tell a thousand words. Or said differently: words can be confusing. Still, pictures are confusing too, because one problem with the pictures I created is that I could only fit so much information in each picture. The neutron sphere with the twelve positions that the proton can take in, for instance, I could only put the twelve remainder-sets in there, not the two up-quarks accompanying each of them — otherwise we couldn't have even seen anything intelligible in the image.






In this image you can see the same picture of before but shrunk in place, and with a single set of the proton remainder-set in one of its specific positions enlarged together with its two up-quarks (spheres) to the right. The two up-quarks were not visualized in the previous picture to avoid clutter. Here is the fun part: the two -1/6th charge remainder-parts are in control of the two much larger spheres.

Each remainder-part has a -1/6th charge, but each can either borrow the same amount from the other remainder-part — or change the overall charge of the sphere at its side at will. So, the two spheres end up in conflict with each other, having to deal with deal with each other as basically the same, but one being of a different charge than the other all of a sudden; sparks then fly from one to the other (and vice versa). By 'cleverly' using their ability of being malleable, the remainder-parts make the spheres be amenable all the way up to where they can go. It is like two dogs fighting for a bone, and the third one walking away with it. Of course, the third is one of the two remainder-parts, while the bone is the other remainder-part.

As said before, the spark keeps the neutron in place.

[G_burnett]

Thank you, Pat, I had the feeling we were in agreement on this, but I understand that words can sometimes get the best of us. Thank you!

I'll leave the "intelligent" part of the equation up in the air, but in general I would say that where one is selfish, the other may as a reaction smart up sooner or later.



I think we are in agreement, Graham, but maybe I am bumping into what Felix kind of pointed out that pictures can tell a thousand words. Or said differently: words can be confusing. Still, pictures are confusing too, because one problem with the pictures I created is that I could only fit so much information in each picture. The neutron sphere with the twelve positions that the proton can take in, for instance, I could only put the twelve remainder-sets in there, not the two up-quarks accompanying each of them — otherwise we couldn't have even seen anything intelligible in the image.






In this image you can see the same picture of before but shrunk in place, and with a single set of the proton remainder-set in one of its specific positions enlarged together with its two up-quarks (spheres) to the right. The two up-quarks were not visualized in the previous picture to avoid clutter. Here is the fun part: the two -1/6th charge remainder-parts are in control of the two much larger spheres.

Each remainder-part has a -1/6th charge, but each can either borrow the same amount from the other remainder-part — or change the overall charge of the sphere at its side at will. So, the two spheres end up in conflict with each other, having to deal with deal with each other as basically the same, but one being of a different charge than the other all of a sudden; sparks then fly from one to the other (and vice versa). By 'cleverly' using their ability of being malleable, the remainder-parts make the spheres be amenable all the way up to where they can go. It is like two dogs fighting for a bone, and the third one walking away with it. Of course, the third is one of the two remainder-parts, while the bone is the other remainder-part.

As said before, the spark keeps the neutron in place.

Hi Ty for your reply

....the only thing I know about quarks is that unlike a MF decrease as the charged substance gets further away quark forces of attraction just thin out to a narrower line. .. this would tend to give the impression that the quarks never lose there original place in the universe ... as quarks that is. ... ? hmmm ...

....this could be the connection to the Mr Einstein's spookiness effect come to think of it ... just a ponder IMHO g.

[dipayankar]

Hi Max, that was a very interesting description of the four forces. However what it still does not explain is that why is gravity different from other forces? All the other forces are explainable in terms of each other.

[Profpat]

Hi Max, that was a very interesting description of the four forces. However what it still does not explain is that why is gravity different from other forces? All the other forces are explainable in terms of each other.

So is gravity a force, or an effect, or some other space/time phenomenon?