[cosvis]

Hi Pat and Tina,

I am not too familiar with the quark theory but I just wonder if the gluons are not gravitational strings. I do not think they are the elusive graviton particles because I believe they do not exist. So the gluons would not be visible particles but they could still exist and have a gravitational effect on the quarks.

My Toe theory of the physical universe, as you know Pat, is based on the theory that the photon is a stable, preserved virtual mass particle, moving constantly at the speed of light, and consisting of two equal but opposite preserved forces and energies, gravitational and kinetic. The photon also known as a quantum particle is more basic or fundamental than the quark particle because I think it is the most basic stuff of the universe. I think the quark particle consists of quantum particles and this could be in a blackhole formation. What do you think? I am sure that the quantum particle must have something to do with quarks?

Yours Cosvis.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by cosvis Hi Pat and Tina, I am not too familiar with the quark theory but I just wonder if the gluons are not gravitational strings. I do not think they are the elusive graviton particles because I believe they do not exist. So the gluons would not be visible particles but they could still exist and have a gravitational effect on the quarks. My Toe theory of the physical universe, as you know Pat, is based on the theory that the photon is a stable, preserved virtual mass particle, moving constantly at the speed of light, and consisting of two equal but opposite preserved forces and energies, gravitational and kinetic. The photon also known as a quantum particle is more basic or fundamental than the quark particle because I think it is the most basic stuff of the universe. I think the quark particle consists of quantum particles and this could be in a blackhole formation. What do you think? I am sure that the quantum particle must have something to do with quarks? Yours Cosvis.

Covis I know much less about it than you - I'm learning as we go but I think at this stage The stable photon is worth considering but intuitively this stability is somehow turned on and off in my view.

[Profpat]

Hi Tina and Cosvis;

My Idea eliminated gluons Cosvis, not needed.
They were used to explain why the 3 quarks stay attached in the proton, and also to explain the color force.

You are right Cosvis the photon was the original quanta particle. The only problem is that it's a 2 dimensional transverse wave, and therefore not adequate to build a 3 dimensional universe. You need a 3 dimensional particle to do that. Ergo My Idea.

The photon is the "Ghost Particle" ie when you look at the photon you are looking at the image of mass, the protn/neutron. The photon is the mass converted to energy, but the image of mass is still present.
I am not sure if the photon has mass or not, but we touched on that part before.

Tina;

My proton/electron and neutron had nothing better to do so they said " How about we hang together " and so they got another proton/electron and another neutron, to form Helium.

Now I think it is because the positive and negative areas of my 8 domains that allow for this bond.
I think that is the strong nuclear force, which they say keeps the nucleus together.

Best to both of you, and thanks for your interest.

Pat

[everymansmedium]

Originally Posted by Profpat My idea about the structure of atoms is stated in the attachment. Please take a look and let me know about your thoughts.

Hello Pat.
It seems you are further into nowhere than I am. I live in a home in the midlands of SC. I must travel about 2 miles just to find a paved road. It is peaceful, and gives me time to think also.
I have not done very much work at the level of QFT . I hope to be able to let the people that can handle that without getting a headache, to do that.
Your blend of thinking is interesting. I already found these thoughts for you.
Yes the grouping of 8 is very much an indicator of harmony and balance.
Also things tend to follow the rules of the yin – yang, The controlling elements are always of 2 sides.
To follow this the primary force must then be bipolar.

If you consider the primary force to be bipolar with gravity as one pole resulting with (space,matter,energy)
and continue as the other pole resulting with
(time,being,creation). You may create one more octet as follows:
This is the bipole:
000 continue
001 time
010 being
011 energy
100 creation
101 matter
110 space
111 gravity

Also note the force continue is the force that is as the basis of life as well.
Continue = drive to survive. Another octet
The image is life: This octet show the image of the divine force in life.

000 Continue
001 the father / the parent
010 the son / the child
011 the community of man
100 the holy spirit
101 the multi celled life
110 the cell
111 Life

This is why my thought was named
"Unit Unity Community"

If you consider our existence medium with a bipolar primary force.

Bipole(gravity(space,matter,energy)3,continue(time ,being,creation)1)

There is no symmetry here. With the consideration of the work done in M-theory. It is now possible to imagine an 11 dimension multiverse that will make the symmetry of a bipolar primary force obvious.

membrane1-side((gravity(space,matter,energy)3),membrane1-edge(continue(time,being,creation)1),
membrane2-side(continue(time,being,creation)3),membrane2-edge(gravity(space,matter,energy)1))

The membrane is as a Mobius strip. A three dimensional interface that intersects our medium at every conceivable point in 3d space and the alternate medium at every conceivable instance in 3d time.
If you take a long narrow peace of paper in the middle on one side you write Eden, turn the paper over and directly on the opposite side you write Elsewhen. Now you take the paper and put one ½ twist and tape the ends together this way. Make an arrow in one direction on the strip. Follow all the way around till you are back at the arrow. This is the direction of the force field. We have a 50 / 50 chance of being in the right direction. This is the direction that time travels. This is the direction toward the macro/red shift. The opposite direction is toward the micro/ uncertainty principal. Both are the result of the twist that is the reversal of the poles. Thus defining our space as finite between the micro and the macro.
John.

[everymansmedium]

Hi Pat:
Relative to converting your document:
It could be converted only into a graphics format as it is a graphic of a handwritten doc. it could be converted into .gif and viewed as a slideshow. Even OCR could not do those pages. Mine could not anyway. I have a copy in my computer. The only way I might do a format change is to display a page then do a print screen. Then bring up MS photo editor and paste the PS into it. Then you can save it as whatever MS photo editor will allow. I use gif to do animation. jpg for individual display on the inet. There is some other possabilities relative to the porting to other MS products also.
John.

[Profpat]

Hi John;

Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on my Idea, as well as the time to see if my PDF could be transported.

My X-wife thinks I should go to a web designer and get it all computerized and posted on a web. She is probably right.

Those 8 domains can be used for any number of different dynamics as you so aptly demonstrated.
To add to yours;

001 the father/ the parent/ego
010 the son/the child/id
100 the spirit/the adult/superego

I'm not sure if the particle would be bipolar or quadpolar. I know the Earth has 2 poles north and south, but I think the sun is multipolar, and since my model has 4 positive areas and 4 negative areas, I not sure the dynamics is strictly dualistic.

My model is symmetrical. Its called bilateral symmetry, or left/right symmetry.
Most animals in nature exhibit this type of symmetry including you and I. My left looks like my right.
My top however does not resemble my bottom at all.

I can imagine the 11 dimensions in my model.
In the proton it's those 7 dimensions within the Venn diagram which enfolds, making up the 3 spatial dimensions, plus the 1 dimension of time and you have your 11 dimensions.( My 12th dimension is the null or empty set )

You mentioned its now possible to imagine an 11 dimension multiverse, with M theory. Could you direct me to that image?

You stated that the membranes are a 3D mobius strip, is this your theory, or again could you direct me to where this information is at. I view it as a 2 dimensional particle.

I believe the universe may be shaped like a mobius strip. No proof, just conjecture.

I played with the mobius strip a lot, and it is amazing how that works. I joked with Nobody that my brain is like a mobius strip tied in a knot with a lot of black holes, so information can get lost.

Best to John,

Pat

[cosvis]

Ti Pat,

I do not hold that a photon is a particle that has rest mass; it consists of a number of quantum particles depending on its frequency. The quanta particles in the quantun dimension, exhibits both gravitational and kinetic energy properties. The gravitaional property can be regarded as virtual mass. Thus, a quark particle to me consists of quanta particles and these can be in a formation of a black-hole. I think, there can be as many different quarks and other sub atomic particles depending on the different number of quanta particles. I also feel that all the quarks and other sub-atomic particles work together in a wonderful harmony. I am glad you are trying to discover this harmony in nature with your theory.

Yours Cosvis.

[everymansmedium]

Hi Pat:
How I came about my theory is a bit strange. My original theory has been around for over 20 years that can be verified as I had it registered by the Library of Congress in 1987. It actually began in 1970 in a way that I will disclose at a later time. In 1987 I was finally quite sure that what I was doing was right. The reason for this is I had time to examine the possibilities of the implications of my findings. There was much too many coincidences that were manifesting before my eyes. At times it was like watching a house of cards build itself before your eyes. I registered the document and discussed it with people. It scared the hell out of some people. My family does not want to talk about it. Some of the types that were involved in physical principals, were mostly non committal because of the lack of symmetry in the predicate and there was no other way to depict the idea of Continue. I published it indicating that I expected an 11 dimension multiverse. Everyone thought this to be quite a joke in 1987. I was working as assistant to the test director for a major aerospace project. We were doing the 21 bit flight encoders for the x-y positioners in the Star Wars program. I did the final trim on all 8 flight units. We lost 2 of these and one of the large format cameras in the shuttle crash. Leaving only 6 in existence. So any way I could not get too involved in my theory without putting my position in question. The security on this job was max. I let it go until later.
You can read a copy of the original document at
http://unit-unity-community.com/UUC.txt
In around 2000 I read the book “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Green. I also saw the show on PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
I was living just south of Boston at the time so I had access to many of the book stores were I always went to get my info. The MIT coop at the student center. I got what ever I could on the subject. I honestly am not up to that level with the math. But it was not necessary as all I needed to do is to watch the work that was being done and wait until someone generated the right picture. There is many that now have the picture of a multiverse that compares to the predicate that I created more than 20 years ago. You will know who’s site this is connected to. This about M-Theory.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
I have a copy of one that is close that was done about 4 years ago. It is a open source theory document. I will post it for you to look at. I would not be surprised is this person that did this might even come to toe-quest to communicate with us. It is quite likely he has many updated versions.
This is an older theory. It likely it will not display correctly but if you look through the document you should be able to find a web address that may have updated versions.
http://unit-unity-community.com/cdstuf/equations.txt

My work will continue in the way that it started simply waiting for the correct fit. The part of this that concerns me is the fix to what I am showing. The manner in which I depict the interface in the final predicate is almost infinitely flexible. So apparently that is not the part I should worry about until the final, When all comes together. The better that I do on the work I am doing now will result with a grand leap of knowledge that I have been preparing for about 37 years now.
I have experimented and found at least a dozen different way to depict the interface in the predicate and still the computer will accept it as long as I can describe the domains. The domains are a form of predicate calculus that allows me to describe this predicate to my Prolog software system. It is an AI software system.
I started writing in Prolog originally to see if I could use it to improve on my theory. As you can see I have been on quite a ride with this. I also learned to use it for this:
Read the training history. This is the real thing. It will be there when we are ready for it.
http://roseandclem.com/
John

[Profpat]

Hi John and Cosvis;

Thanks for the links John.

Cosvis, I'm a little confused isn't the photon in your theory the Quanta Particle? How can it consist of a number of quantum particles.

Best to both of you,

Pat

[cosvis]

Hi Pat,

Your are right, Pat, one photon is one quantum particle; I just confused a photon with a beam or ray of light which consists of many photons and thus many quanta particles depending on the number of frequency.

In my theory, Pat, if the quantum particle has a gravitational effect and is a virtual black-hole than if many quanta particles are close enough they could form a real black-hole. Thus a two dimensional string particle can form a three dimensional particle. I think that Stephen Hawking had a solution with the idea of Hawking radiation or quantum fluctuation where positive and negative sub-atom particles are formed at the event horizon of a black hole. Stephen Hawking wrote a very interesting Book: Black Holes And Baby Universes And Other Essays.

Pat, I do not know about the gluon particle, it might be similar to the graviton particle, but I think there must be some gravitational link between the quarks particles because every object in the universe is connected by gravity as I understand Newton's idea. The quarks may be in a gravitational field but I think that this gravitational field is generated by the quanta particles.

As I said, Pat, I am not too familiar with the quark theory and the different eleven dimensions you speculate about; I just like to give you some of my ideas about my physical Toe universe theory.

Yours Cosvis.