An Idea

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Leskey, and yes I hear what you state loud and clear, but do we truly know the "purpose" of our central being, or do we just think we do...? I pose this question to delve deeper into the minds of opposites, which will also relate to the opposites Fredrick, Austin, SB_UK and Labelwench, and really all participants on this forum, have also mentioned. As children, we all theorized about the differences of finiteness, infinity, complexity and simplicity, yet once the mind has early settled certain points of our childhood evolutions, it's natural to continuously think these areas of thought settled for life, when in truth, they are not. Some thought these ideas of differences at pre-school levels, others at the elementary school levels, other's at the high school level, and still others re-assessed them in college or later life__But, most do not re-visit the earlier established and settled thoughts of childhood, due to the habit of mind, not to repeat itself__and herein lies 'The Universal Cosmic Riddle'. What I'm talking about is; 'What is the difference between logic and general patterns of thinking?' If we thought about this idea at really early stages of life, we may have used simple ratios to settle the different areas of thinking__but, if we were later challenged by peers or school and college, teachers and professors, we'd have dug deeper into it__but again, we may have been steered a course opposite our early childhood knowledge of the simple ratios of natural logic, into the more complex areas of linguistic logics, or the syllogistic logics of Aristotle and others. Still others may have been steered into the non-intuitive complexities of higher order mathematics and logics__without realizing, and losing track of the deeper learned lessons of simple childhood 'universal ratio logic'. I don't know how to make this as simple a distinction as it truly is, but this is the center of the antinomies/contradictions__which exist in all our systems of thought. Stated as simply as possible__Most carry a mind of complexities in contradiction with simplicities...

Let's just take the one example of guage theories' maths' complexities, verses, the extreme simplicities of global/universal ratios. Now, all our minds have the capacity to function at the simple ratios levels, but not all minds have the capacity to function at the high mathematical complexities' levels. We are all evolved somewhere between the simple universal and global ratios level of mathematical logic, and the more complex levels of guage theory maths. So now, let me ask this simple question; "Does it make more rational logical sense for an extremely Huge Universe, to come from a single h Planck point; or from a near infinite number of the same h Planck points...?" Which is more rational__The complex guage theory analyses syntheses of complexity to a single h Planck point, or our simple childhood realization of a ratio of many h Planck points producing this huge Universe...?

You may see from the above where I'm going with this. The ratio logic maths are in dire contradiction with the complexity maths. There are two math systems, occupying this planet, with opposing answers to the greatest questions of the ages__Simplicity verses complexity__The opposites of Universal Comprehension__This must be dealt with, at the highest level of Fredrick's Pyramid, or the highest level's of my Omega Wisdom Diamonds. The highest levels of Wisdom Logic is presently undefined and incomplete__I think it only possible of a completion in Genericity/Parameterizations; therefore imo, the highest position of 'Fredrick's Pyramid' or my 'Wisdom Omega Diamonds' must be a new form of simple'Wisdom Ratio Logic', as complexity is thus far incomplete, but genericity ratios, can allow us a deeper vision and understanding of the whole; and therein possibly find new self-purpose of and in the quest...

Bottom Line: Can we do the single h Planck point experiment?__No. Can we do the many h Planck points experiment?__It already exists__The Macro Universe...!

Wisdom is what we seek...

As Originally Posted by Aiya-Oba
Hi Gillespie, nice to read your post.
Equator of Self-contradiction is the Absolute logic. It is the Nuclear Logic Cross of cosmic unity and Self-creator of All in all.
There is nothing that is not an aspect of the All in all - Spacetime. This fact is the most elusive truth about the geometry of Cosmos. It is the Singularity, the Equator and common String of All in all. Hold on to it, for its the future not the past. - Aiya-Oba.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
You don't have to explain gravity, I just simply mentioned it, as it's just one of any model's incompletenesses...

Any scientific model requires a fundamental logical format/method, and since all of science and religion are in agreement that eternity be required in their models, this single term by its mathematical relationships to the other three terms__Time_Infinity_Space__just logically mathematically quantifiably requires it. I can't see any way around it, and not have parts of the total logic in contradiction with itself__That's all... Iff eternity means time, as I think everyone agrees, that means a time measurement, and iff a time measurement, then a distance measurement all the way to infinity , as the initial word eternity demands it, as we all know time is distance Earth travels, on rotational axis, and rotates around the sun, thus implying the necessity of the infinite space, iff eternal time exists__It's just a total enjoined necessity of the integral path of the required logic... Maybe in the end, there'll be no mathematical solution of the ToE or GUT, just a viable logical solution...? I've often thought this for some years, but usually if we can create a logical model, it can be mathematized. I think if the proper logical model is brought into view, we can much easier mathematize such a model__Just my opinion...

Sorry for the belated intrusion...but:

CO-ORDINATE: of, relating to, or being a system of indexing by two or more terms so that documents may be retrieved through the intersection of index terms; any of a set of numbers used in specifying the location of a point on a line, on a surface, or in space; any one of a set of variables used in specifying the state of a substance or the motion of a particle or momentum

Recall, return, record, correct, memory = Purpose? (Don't yell at me, Lloyd)

[Max™]

Going up from 3 space + 1 time to a higher dimension would allow a step to a set of all possible 3 + 1 spacetimes, as a 3 + 1 spacetime is akin to a hypercone, a 5 D hypersphere could be pictured as the completion of that set of possible histories.

You could then expand to the set of all possible spaces which may or may not contain physics as we know them, physics being that self-interacting quality which is required for observers to exist, and which tricks observers into thinking they're observing something which is "more real" than anything else.


Regarding the origin of mathematics, it does not need a beginning point, it is not a process, and if you did insist it had a beginning, then what is the dimension you would label which goes across it from that beginning into it's depths?

[SB_UK]

Perfect gender ~equality~
Reality may be built up from two equal and opposite waves 'knocking' heads.

Physicist gets a Phace-lift

- whilst Phase-shift gives us physics

[Profpat]

As far as a model of a proton, this would be it in 3D color.




We know that the proton is not actually represented in this model, Pat. The proton has two parts of identical essence, and one part of a different essence. So, something is amiss here. There is an in-between step that must be pronounced for this to be correct, but that step must then also be captured in the result, no?

Hi Fredrick;

Pray tell what is missing from this static model. It shows 3 quark confinement, asymptotic freedom, it suggest charges (gluons) between the primary and secondary complemenntary opposites. What two parts are you talking about and what is my model missing? What in between steps?

Best,

Pat

P.S There are no such things as up or down quarks or in fractional charges. All made up to explain the difference in the neutron which is different in form a sphere and therefore a 0 charge. You or others may need the silliness of Up and down quarks and fractional charges but they are not existent. Only 1 type of quark and a complete no fractional charges. My model is far more logical and shows the actual characteristics of the proton something no other model has yet to show. So if you have a better model of the proton which shows quark confinement and asymptotic feedom Plese show me.

[leskey]

Pat, you have said that God must be included in An Idea...but, rather than derail your thread, I'll respond to Lloyd in East Meets West.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Vacuum Fluctuations and the Origin of the Universe
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]

Hi Pat

There's potentially a lot in this. We are all familiar with the concept of parallel worlds and this could explain the way the total energy of the universe stays at exactly zero. If each positive-energy-world forms from the vacuum with a mirror image negative-energy-world then the total energy remains at zero but we have a real world to inhabit. My concept is that each of these worlds is actually a galaxy and the remnant of this formation process is the black hole at the centre. Both negative and positive energy galaxies inhabit the universe but we are unable to tell the difference as photons are their own negative particle.

We have, of late in this thread, spent much time debating dark matter and dark enegy but little has come to light; the current thinking being that the galaxies formed from minor variations in gravity as indicated by the detailed surveys undertaken of the CBR. I don't support this as there is a much more likely candidate which could provide an explanation. My concept of time requires the vacuum energy in order for decoherence to occur and our time, hence motion, are dependent upon this. Variations in the frequency or density of the vacuum energy would then result in concentrations of particles which would lead to the formation of solid matter and hence the celestial bodies. The concept can be used at a very small level right up to the scale of the galaxies.

The big question - are these variations the result of chance or are they part of a design process?

regards
Felix

[dipayankar]

I am wondering whether we as a race are too early in the evolutionary calendar to start formulating a ToE. Lets first start one mystery after another and then look into a ToE. I suggest we as a scientific community first accept of reject the idea of multiple dimensions. If we accept the idea, then we need to have the guts to prove it physically. Not just some mathematical formula and equations.

[labelwench]

I bring you Barenaked Ladies, lol......

Yet, before anyone calls in the Mod Squad, it might be pleasurable to view this link, and contemplate the marvelous complexity which underlies the simple lyrics of

Pollywog In A Bog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_Wx3...eature=channel

[austintorn@aol.com]

We are all familiar with the concept of parallel worlds and this could explain the way the total energy of the universe stays at exactly zero. If each positive-energy-world forms from the vacuum with a mirror image negative-energy-world then the total energy remains at zero but we have a real world to inhabit. — Felix

Yes, Felix (and Prof), might not be just be pairs of opposite particles emitted but maybe pairs of opposite universes forming, ours being one, and the other one time-reversed or shrinking away as ours expands.


We have, of late in this thread, spent much time debating dark matter and dark energy but little has come to light;— Felix

Good play on words.

[Profpat]

"We have, of late in this thread, spent much time debating dark matter and dark enegy but little has come to light;"

Except maybe the answer, that it is strings (dark energy) and quarks ( dark matter). This is why it won't come to light.