An Idea

[neutralino]

I clicked "quote" but most of your and my text is missing.

I'm still having trouble understanding how to intersperse my text with the others text. Thats paritally why I've gone to using color text early on. This ToE of fomat has some good stuff but it has fair amount of negative stuff, to enable effiencient and effective communication.

When you hit "quote" only the text in the post you are quoting is quoted into the text box. Text that is already in a quotation in the post you are quoting will not appear in the text box. Thus, if you wish to reply inside quote you will need to put the tags in yourself.

For example, if I wanted to respond to the following post

I have a few questions. 1. What time is it? 2. What day is it?

then I would hit the appropriate "quote" button, which would make the text go into the text box in quotations. Then if I wanted to intersperse answers and questions, I would type [ /quote] before where I was answering, type my answer and then type [quote]to re-open the quote box. Continue as required. It would look like this:

I have a few questions.

Ok

1. What time is it?

3am

2. What day is it?

Saturday.

Now, click "quote" on my post to see the code to write this. It's pretty straight-forward once you get the hang of it. I'll go back and edit your previous posts (I've done a couple) so they are easier to follow. I'll delete this message when rybo's read it so as not to disturb the flow of the thread (, Pat.)

Hope this helps, rybo. If you're still having problems, post in the feedback forum and I'll try and give a clearer explanation.

[neutralino]

It's been nice discussing this with you but I do wish Neutralino or somebody else who knows the ANSWER, not their own speculation would check in on this one.

Hi Pat et al.

Sorry I haven't replied earlier, but I've only just noticed your questions. That said, I'm not sure that my answer will be all that useful; I'll give it a go though.

The current particle physics model does not define the size of the photon. Now note that this does not mean that we do not know what the numerical value for the size of the photon; it means that we do not have a definition for what the "size" of the photon would relate to. Remember that we're using quantum physics here, and so things aren't as straightforward as in the classical analogue-- the photon isn't really a nice spherical object. I would, however, hazard a guess that a photon is not a point particle: infact it's a quantum field theory particle and so, I think, should have some sort of internal structure. However, the photon is so small that it suffices, for anything that we want to do, to regard the photon as a point particle.

A similar argument could be made for the electron. In everyday calculations we regard the electron as a point particle. This is because its volume is incredibly small when viewed from the macroscopic scale. However, when viewed from distances on the microscopic scale, electrons have a finite size. Now, I'm not saying that an electron and a photon are identical, but they are both taken to be point particles. Another analogy could be in classical physics when we are dealing with any objects, we assume they are point particles with all their mass concentrated at their centre of mass. This is another simplification that works for calculations we want to do.

I guess the short answer to your question would be "I don't know" but I hope my waffling has helped slightly!

Also, if in future there is a question you want me to look at, then feel free to PM me asking me to look at the relevant thread. I try and answer most things, especially when asked directly, but in this instance I simply overlooked the thread!

Regards,

[neutralino]

Ok, the last few pages of posts should have the quotes in the right place now. I hope I've not made any mistakes and quoted people saying the wrong things!

[Drifter]

Noumenon and phenomenon? This and That? This is within That? anyway?

First the world of spirit or the formless abstract world of subjective consciousness is not recognised in a scientific sense. It is recognised innately by those of mystic temperament, and by those who are able to study the subjective history of men and races [i.e. Joesph Campbell], but science recognises not this aspect of manifestation, nor do scientific men, as a whole, believe in the world of super-physical endeavor. All that in the earlier races held paramount place in the lives and thoughts of the people is now approached skeptically, and discussions are preceeded with a question mark. But progress has been made and much has arisen out of the war. The question, for instance, is rapidly changing from the formula "is there life ater death?" to the enquiry "Of what nature is the future life?" and this is a portent of much encouragement.

I don't need science's holy word to know what I have first hand expereinced, pertaining to the soul and/or astral body. Science simply hasn't progressed far enough along in that endeavor and when it does, decide to put in the effort, and finally verifies it for you last hold-outs and those whom you influence [with this obstinance] , it will have egg on its face and so will you.

DRI) You' are observing from the perspective of your lower nature as a biological entity only. You are much more than that, did ye but know it.

Or so you believe, and believe that "ye" know. It appears to me that your higher soul is likened to physicist whose Standard Model call for a Higgs boson field and particle that gives all mass to all matter, yet there is as of yet, no evidence of such a Higgs( God particle ) boson.


DRI0 Keep it simple, the soul has a dual nature.

I believe I have responded to that once before. That dualit is metaphysical and physcial as it is with all words, 'things' etc...


DRI) The soul has a dual nature. When it is assosciated with matter [ensouled and mortal] it is mired in its descent into its lower nature or aspect and knows life and death, when it is beholding of the spirit in its ascention it is one with the beloved and knows immortality no death, that what has never known birth can never know death. Lofty? Unbound? Free? Your guess is as good as mine.

Again your scenario reminds me of the above mentioned Higgs Ocean/Field. If you are familiar with it then you *may* see the similarity between the two scenarios.


""Drifter, I agree that "soul" has dual aspects/nature, in that, similar to "spirit" and all words and/or assigned 'things' there is always the eternal dualistic and complementary metaphysical( energeyless ) and physical( energetic )""

DI) Man is energised by the soul, it is the creative spark that animates the mind/body organism, at death it withdraws from matter.

Here again your scenario is very much likened to Higgs. No evidence of either.

""Drifter, I believe "higher nature" and "enlightenment" are states of consciousness, that we can for time, however brief that may be, time and time again in a lifetime of human.""


DRI) So is our lower nature a state of 'relative' consciousness, relative to what, relative to the 'things' in that field. [the concept of 'original sin' was the initial 'idea of seperation', from the whole, that we are not born with as infants but 'acquire', culturally and conditionally.]

Yes drifter, consciousness is based on the experiential ergo relativity, yet we biological/soul has access to metaphysicla mind. This again is the trinity/triune.

""It is metaphysical spirit, that searches out such states of consciousness, and labels that search and the resultant actions thereof, as 'spirituality'.""


DRI) The etheric[noumenon] side of the ephemeral[phenomenon] duality, seeks its source. aka "spirituality'. [Google "Etheric Double"]

Beyond my comprehensive abilities. Sorry.

""The most generalized and complex triune/trinuty is that of:
1) metaphysical beyond and its subcatagories
2) spirit and soul combination as a biological, and at its most complex, as human complex and its most complex --barring the whole "U"niverse complex-- interaction between the metaphysical and physical
3) physical matter as fermions and bosons and any accumulating aggregates thereof.""

DRI) Soul [ego/formless/mind] and body [form] body, mind, soul.
Gross, subtle, and causal.
Physical, emotional, mental, states realms, kingdoms, planes of being.

Soul = biological( emotions, chemicals, hormones, feelings, EMRadiation, consciousness and most complex occurrs with nervous system.

There is no mystery left to be understood iin this way Drifter. This is very simple/plain. Your higher soul idea are yet to be clearly indentified and/or observed.

Rybo

[Drifter]

Secondly, the masses of the peoples are suffering from suppression and from the effects of inhibition. Science has said, There is no God and no spirit within man. Religion has said, There must be a God, but where may He be found? The masses say We desire not a God constructed by the brains of theologians. Therefore the true inner comprehension finds no room for expansion, and the activity that should be finding its legitimate expression in the higher aspiration, turns itself to the deification of things, - things pertaining to the flesh, connected with the emotions, or having a relation to the mind. The war, again, has accomplished much by regulating things to their just position, and, by the removal of possessions, many have learnt the value of essentials, and the necessity of eliminating that which is superfluous.

[Drifter]

A third condition of affairs grows out of the above two. A right apprehension of the future does not exist. When the life of the spirit is negated, when the manifesting life concentrates itself on things concrete and apparent then the true goal of existence disappears, the true incentive to right living is lost, and the sarcastic words of the initiate, Paul, "Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die" characterize the attitude of the majority of men.

Men deaden the inner voice that bears witness to the life hereafter, and they drown the words that echo in the silence by the noise and whirl of business, pleasure and excitement.

The whole secret of success in treading the occult path depends upon attitude of mind; when the attitude is one of concrete materialism, of concentration upon form and desire for the things of the present moment, little progress can be made in apprehending the higher esoteric truth.

A fourth hindrance is found in the physical body which has been built up by the aid of meat and fermented foods and drinks, and nurtured in an environment in which fresh air and sunlight are not paramount factors.
For long centuries food that has been decomposing, and hence in a condition of fermentation, has been the basic food of the occidental races; and the results can be seen in bodies unfitted for any strain such as occultism imposes, and which form a barrier to the clear shining forth of the life within. When fresh fruit and vegetables, clear water, nuts and grains, cooked and uncooked, form the sole diet of the evolving sons of men, then will be built bodies fitted to be vehicles for highly evolved Egos. They patiently await the turning of the wheel, and the coming in of a cycle which will permit of their fulfilling their destiny. The time is not yet, and the work of elimination and adjustment must be slow and tedious

[rybot]

Drifter I will try and clarify in regards to this trinity/triune of stability.

"Spirit" can be either:

1) physical( energy/energetic ) ergo fermions, bosons and any aggregate accumulation thereof and;

2) metaphysical( intent ) ergo abstract conceptuality of mind ergo limited free will abilities of choice.

When "spirit" is both then we have a biological/soul, to varying degrees of complexity, with *woman* being the most complex biological, known to humans.

Man comes in at close second.

The most simple biological/soul is probably a bacteria.

Some may even say that a virus is the most simple biological, however, a virus has either RNA or DNA, never both ergo it appears to be a "twilight organism" ( R.B. Fuller ), being between a animate biological/soul and inanimate mineral.

I hope this helps make *clear* that spirit and soul are not some mystical 'thing' that have no easily rational and logical definition that a 10 year old cannot begin to grasp scientifically.

"Science is the putting in order the facts of our experiences"( somebody via Fuller )

All knowledge is based in experience, whether direct experience or as comunicated by someone elses experience.

This is not to say that our experiences can be mispercieved, i.e. what we believe to be the facts are not neccesarily the facts, in all cases.

Rybo

Noumenon and phenomenon? This and That? This is within That? anyway?

First the world of spirit or the formless abstract world of subjective consciousness is not recognised in a scientific sense. It is recognised innately by those of mystic temperament, and by those who are able to study the subjective history of men and races [i.e. Joesph Campbell], but science recognises not this aspect of manifestation, nor do scientific men, as a whole, believe in the world of super-physical endeavor. All that in the earlier races held paramount place in the lives and thoughts of the people is now approached skeptically, and discussions are preceeded with a question mark. But progress has been made and much has arisen out of the war. The question, for instance, is rapidly changing from the formula "is there life ater death?" to the enquiry "Of what nature is the future life?" and this is a portent of much encouragement.

I don't need science's holy word to know what I have first hand expereinced, pertaining to the soul and/or astral body. Science simply hasn't progressed far enough along in that endeavor and when it does, decide to put in the effort, and finally verifies it for you last hold-outs and those whom you influence [with this obstinance] , it will have egg on its face and so will you.

[Drifter]

"Spirit " can be ensouled. As man can be ensouled. One is physical and one is metaphysical.
In seperation one has an affinity for physical/ephemeral/and mortality. [and an aversion to the other]
One has an affinity for for the metaphysical/etherical/immortality. [and an aversion to the other]

I believe even the single celled omeba is constructed of molecules and elements, which have a conscious [ness] aversion or affinity to others of the same plane, and a morphing, if you will into a new substance. Similar to but different from the former on the evolutionary ladder. Two but not two.

Experiences can also be mis-believed because the observing/listening to the explanation/storyformula/diagram has no direct knowledge of what is being related too.

as i said before i have experienced it first hand, you dismiss this "fact of truth" if you wish, but it will not influence me and and what I know from the experience.

some have eyes to see and ears to hear and,
some don't.

Drifter I will try and clarify in regards to this trinity/triune of stability.

"Spirit" can be either:

1) physical( energy/energetic ) ergo fermions, bosons and any aggregate accumulation thereof and;

2) metaphysical( intent ) ergo abstract conceptuality of mind ergo limited free will abilities of choice.

When "spirit" is both then we have a biological/soul, to varying degrees of complexity, with *woman* being the most complex biological, known to humans.

Man comes in at close second.

The most simple biological/soul is probably a bacteria.

Some may even say that a virus is the most simple biological, however, a virus has either RNA or DNA, never both ergo it appears to be a "twilight organism" ( R.B. Fuller ), being between a animate biological/soul and inanimate mineral.

I hope this helps make *clear* that spirit and soul are not some mystical 'thing' that have no easily rational and logical definition that a 10 year old cannot begin to grasp scientifically.

"Science is the putting in order the facts of our experiences"( somebody via Fuller )

All knowledge is based in experience, whether direct experience or as comunicated by someone elses experience.

This is not to say that our experiences can be mispercieved, i.e. what we believe to be the facts are not neccesarily the facts, in all cases.

Rybo

[Profpat]

Pat, I think you misunderstand my comments. Geodesic domes are, for the most part, very much spherical.

Your three partially overlapping circles whether in 2D( quarks ) or 3D( proton ), do not define a spherical or at least not anything close to being likened to spherical.

The "closed neutron" is much closer to being likened to a spherical.You are right, Rybo, the quarks I view as flat 2D. My proton does look more like a turtle on it's back than a dome, however if you obtain 3 pipecleaners and superpose and interweave them you'll see how the proton partially closed is a geodesic dome. The totally closed neutron model the geodesic sphere.



http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s08/figs/f3511.htmlThank you for this site. It was perfect. Not only showing a geodesic sphere but also in lisear square format how the 8 points make up a Star of David. I like ancient symbols like the Tao etc.

This is a Platonic polyhedron, only it is the spherical version. These are equalateral curved triangles.

These three XYZ oriented are the same as the regular octahedron.




Your welcome and hope that you are still willing to disscuss, answer questions in regards to the "idea" and consider my ToE ideas and a couple of other web sites that have models similar to yours but still differrent.

Here is one such site, and I hope you will look at it. It is sort of hybrid cross between your "idea"and my ideas.Could you give me the site location? I'd love to view it.

Rybo

Again much thanks and I would love to view your patterns.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Thanks Neutralino for your valued input. Just one last question, if you know the answer. Can the photon be viewed as a Dimensionless particle.

I would PM you, but would like all to share in this discussion twixt Dipayankar and myself.

Best to you,

Pat