An Idea

[Profpat]

Hi Bob;

I would like to discuss a bit further the importance of the I Ching.

You may have already viewed my post #211 on page 22 above, but allow me to expand on those comments.

It was Carl Jung who used the I Ching principles, to develope his idea of synchronicity vs. causality. Or if you will a probablistic universe vs. a deterministic universe.

It appears the large things in the universe display cause and effect, yet at the quantum level, this does not appear to be the case.

It was Einstein who said " I don't believe God plays dice with the universe ". Well at the quantum level it seems like he does.

My Idea deals with the proton/neutron which is at the quantum level. And I believe the I Ching with it's underlying concept of synchronicity is very applicable. It also deals very well with the metaphysical aspects of man as mentioned in post #211.

Now you have every right in your belief to be a bit dismissive of the I Ching and how it could relate to human dynamics, and I'm not trying to change those beliefs. I thought however I would expound a little more on the subject for the readers.

I Ching - the eight trigrams. Picture

Best to all,

Pat

P.S Any and all questions regarding my Idea or the I Ching are of course welcome.

[N0B0DY]

I remember you asking of Bob to elaborate on how gravity fits into the picture, Pat. If you've checked out his site, there is a link to it that gives a basic idea of how it might relate to your idea. Whenever I see void or wuji, it catches my eye because it can pertain to the absolute state that interests me. Yet it appears that there can be differing interpretations of both.

If we are considering the three concept, and consider the three fundamental forces - electric, strong and weak - gravity can be thought of as not an additional force but rather a pseudo-centrifugal, gravito-magnetic effect. There are implications that I gather from your site, Bob, if I'm not mistaken, that are suggestive of light being equated with space. The discontinuous massive structures depicted, if in the form of magnetic moments, would be consistent with gravity being proportionate to mass. I liken the "creative" nature of gravity to a backward motion of time, equaling mass, and the light space you propose would be consistent with the decay of massive particles allowing observations of forward time.

Essentially, light and gravity would be synonymous, but we only observe light - photons, if you will - and never gravitons because they are confined as observed mass, observed only as the effects carried as light. The three consciousness correlations can be: consciousness with forward time, light, stable structures; subconsciousness with both forward and backward time, light and gravity, virtual structures; and unconsciousness with the absolute center of particulate structures.

[Profpat]

Hi Nobody;

I too think there is a relationship between gravity and radiation. One being attractive ( gravity ) the other repulsive ( radiation ). They both follow the inverse law, though that is do to geometry. At the beginning of the big bang all things were repelled in the form of radiation, which I believe are the 1 dimensional vibrating strings. Some making quarks, which I believe combined making up our luminous matter.
Others made up quarks which did not combine accounting for our "dark matter". Still others are still open strings which would make up our "dark energy"

The problem I have with the reconciliation is the spatial inflation and expansion.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

A little additional information regarding I Ching and the 8 fold path.
Transforming Energy ~ Inner TrainingMind and body are not separate, they are two perspectives on our total being. One is yin, the other yang, and the training and development of one influences the other... The Yijing (I Ching) is an ancient Chinese text exploring the symbolic representation of yin and yang. It is a rich source of wisdom that describes how we can best live in harmony with the forces that shape life. It has been used for thousands of years as a guide in times of uncertainty.

[Bob Campbell]

I believe Professor the three, when inculcated, express as the fourth. The "wholeness" of the individual resonating as the one, where the unmanifest and the manfest come together, if you will. As in Self-Realization/Self-Awareness as That Creative Energy, at-one with it. Try to perceive it as a Gnostic and not as a Literalist?

Hi Pat

There is a clear distinction between spiritual experience in an organic or emotional sense and spiritual experience in a cosmic sense that transcends and subsumes the physical realm. Perhaps this is the distinction that Drifter is making here.

Regards,
Bob

[Bob Campbell]

Hi Nobody;

I too think there is a relationship between gravity and radiation. One being attractive ( gravity ) the other repulsive ( radiation ). They both follow the inverse law, though that is do to geometry. At the beginning of the big bang all things were repelled in the form of radiation, which I believe are the 1 dimensional vibrating strings. Some making quarks, which I believe combined making up our luminous matter.
Others made up quarks which did not combine accounting for our "dark matter". Still others are still open strings which would make up our "dark energy"

The problem I have with the reconciliation is the spatial inflation and expansion.

Best,

Pat

Hi Pat,

There are many problems with the Big Bang hypothesis that used to be recognized and contested, but unfortunately they seem to be swept under the rug nowadays. It is essentially a contradiction in terms. Space and time are concepts derived from creation then used to extrapolate backwards to a beginning in space and time of these very concepts. It is bootstrapping in the extreme that uses mathematics many orders of magnitude beyond what can ever be confirmed in empirical experience of any kind. Einstein repeatedly pointed out that general relativity is based on a smoothed out universe that cannot be applied to high densities. Singularities such as those associated with black holes have to be cut out. He was opposed in principle to a beginning in time to spacetime. So was Hoyle, Bondi and various others who were less vocal, including philosophers of the stature of Henri Bergson. Quantum mechanics and relativity theory are both used in the Big Bang hypothesis even though they are mutually exclusive. And a graviton is a scientific fantasy, like dark matter, strings etc., to plug obvious holes in theories. And if spacetime is expanding so is atomic matter, in which case no expansion can be detectable since spacetime relates directly to matter. Something is very wrong.

The sole direct evidence for a Big Bang is the red shift of distant galaxies. In a discontinuous universe an alternate explanation for this necessarily presents itself naturally along with explanations for a variety of other cosmological phenomena which otherwise remain a mystery. There is a recent article posted on science news “Big Bang or Big Goof…” where a radio astronomer essentially provides an alternate explanation for the background radiation, and there may be various other explanations for it also. In my posted TOE Theory article “Gravity and the Void…” you will find how an integrated quantum-relativity emerges naturally from a discontinuous universe. There is a related article “The Quantum Cosmic Mind” posted under Philosophy There are a number of related articles on my website that are fully consistent with the hard facts. The science of physics, including the nature of mathematical identities, derives from what I call System 3. There is nothing structurally conceivable that can possibly be more fundamental and consistent with phenomenal experience, if there is to be such a thing as Universal Wholeness. Anyone can see this by carefully examining the diagrams of System 3 on my website. It is not a belief system. It is not an intellectual contrivance of mine.

Gravity derives from the synchronous projection of atoms from their quantum energy equivalents in the timeless Void everywhere in the universe at once. Newton’s Law follows from conjugate identities. If you carefully study the integrated diagram of System 3 on the website you will see that it implicitly accounts for all possible symmetries of the primary hydrogen atom, for electronic charge, for the confined Universal Set consistent with quarks, and for degenerate antimatter and the so-called reversal of time. The transient short lived “particles” portray patterns consistent with degenerate variants of the higher Systems.

Coulombs Law derives from the intimate bonding by the Universal Set of electron, proton and photon within the primary atom, also according to conjugate identities. Electromagnetic fields and effects consistent with Maxwell’s equations derive from the spanning of this intimate linking up between electron and proton over many space frames when the electron is ejected beyond the ionization limit of the primary atom in a single space frame. Together all this provides an integrated and pragmatic new approach to physics and cosmology that can extend the horizons of both the physical and biological sciences.

I hope you don’t mind me pointing these things out here on your post, but I think you are seriously looking for some coherent answers. It admittedly takes a lot of deep reflection.

I do not deny that there are synchronous homologues to the way the cosmic order works that allow representations such as the I-Ching to act as mediation devices to facilitate the intuition in certain ways. I have studied Jung, for whom I have great respect, and tried quite hard years ago to relate the I-Ching directly to the cosmic order without much success, although there are certain parallels hinted at, that can facilitate intuitive insight. (I found the same result with the Buddhist Abidharma.) It is easy enough to get hung up here. The method of representation is just too simplistic to be a fully comprehensive representation of the cosmic order all by itself.

Best regards,
Bob

www.cosmic-mindreach.com

[Bob Campbell]

If we are considering the three concept, and consider the three fundamental forces - electric, strong and weak - gravity can be thought of as not an additional force but rather a pseudo-centrifugal, gravito-magnetic effect. There are implications that I gather from your site, Bob, if I'm not mistaken, that are suggestive of light being equated with space. The discontinuous massive structures depicted, if in the form of magnetic moments, would be consistent with gravity being proportionate to mass. I liken the "creative" nature of gravity to a backward motion of time, equaling mass, and the light space you propose would be consistent with the decay of massive particles allowing observations of forward time.

Essentially, light and gravity would be synonymous, but we only observe light - photons, if you will - and never gravitons because they are confined as observed mass, observed only as the effects carried as light. The three consciousness correlations can be: consciousness with forward time, light, stable structures; subconsciousness with both forward and backward time, light and gravity, virtual structures; and unconsciousness with the absolute center of particulate structures.

Hi Nobody,

I don't quite see how the primary atom can be regarded as magnetic moments. The universal intimate binding of electron and proton with mutually inverse structural relationships to the photon in the diagram of System 3 accounts for electronic charge within the inner space of the atom. Magnetic moments occur in conjunction with EM fields when electrons are ejected beyond the ionization limit of atoms and thus relate to relative motions over successive frames in the integrated fabric of external space-time, consistent with Maxwell’s equations. There is no radiation in the inner space of the atom, and thus no energy radiated away, because there is no relative particulate motion in a single space frame. There is otherwise no explanation for why the electron does not lose orbital momentum. There is a fundamental difference between the inner space of the atom and the orthogonal and linear outer space between atoms. The latter is defined by light that is emitted from within atoms by orbital electron jumps between space frames.

There is some basis to your thought that light and gravity are in a sense synonymous. Gravity derives from the unified integration of all atomic matter as quantum equivalents of balanced energy in the timeless Void. The energies of electron and proton are timelessly coalesced as One within the open photon interface. In this quantum frame the photon IS the coalescence of electron and proton. And all photonic energy is balanced and integrated as One in the Void. So matter is both One as energy in the Void, and many separate particles in Space frames AT THE SAME TIME, since the Void is timeless. Conjugate identities give this mathematical expression as Newton’s law of gravitation. The Lorentz transformations also become significant as indicated in the posted TOE Theory article “Gravity and the Void…”. This equivalence between the massive particle and energy becomes expressed as E=mc2 in high relative motions, also consistent with conjugate identities implicit in the structural dynamics of System 3.

Regards,
Bob

www.cosmic-mindreach.com

[N0B0DY]

Bob,

My atomic model is based somewhat similar to Pat's in that it is progressive from zero-dimensional point sources to what can be an infinite number of dimensions. The reference to magnetic moments refers to multipole moments of solely electrons and positrons, and their respective annihilation serving as the basis for the gravitational monopole moments within the nuclei.

Essentially, the electron would not remain in orbit - does not acutally orbit - but is continually recreated according to the kinetic conversion of its mass. So what we are observing is the annihilation events carried by photons into the outer field you mentioned. I wanted to know if the space between atoms can be in the form of a hilbert space, whereby the density is inversely-proportionate to the inner space of the atom.

[N0B0DY]

Pat,

Rereading your post, I noticed you mentioned the combining of the strings. Could you elaborate on how they connect, if they do, and whether or not they can form loops of themselves? Also, what would be the cause for them to join?

[Profpat]

Pat,

Rereading your post, I noticed you mentioned the combining of the strings. Could you elaborate on how they connect, if they do, and whether or not they can form loops of themselves? Also, what would be the cause for them to join?

Hi Nobody;

Thank you for the question.

I think as far as strings closing and forming loops, it's part of string theory itself, which I just accepted.
The following is from Wikipedia;

Closed and open strings
Strings can be either open or closed. A closed string is a string that has no end-points, and therefore is topologically equivalent to a circle. An open string, on the other hand, has two end-points and is topologically equivalent to a line interval. Not all string theories contain open strings, but every theory must contain closed strings, as interactions between open strings can always result in closed strings.

For the closed or "circle" strings to combine to form the proton, well that is part of my speculation. I believe it was Roger Penrose who stated that "Quantum theory requires wave functions to be superposed". I view closed strings vibrating, to be a wave function.
Now the tricky part of my Idea, that is the interweaving of the 3rd string, permanently keeping the 3 strings together to form the proton/neutron.

It's my thought that at the very beginning this was possible. Strings as they were closing, do the compact original area would surely superpose, and some times when the strings were closing that some strings may get interwoven, by chance, or probabilty theory if you will. Most of the time this would not occur, thus explaining why we have only~4% luminous matter. The rest being either dark matter or dark energy.

For those new viewers, my original Idea is located in post box #40 above.

Best to you,

Pat