An Idea

[Profpat]

Well I guess following your logic MJA God would be unreal and untrue. Also dark matter and dark energy would be unreal and untrue. Have you ever seen Truth or Love MJA? Two more concepts to bite the dust under your philosophy. How about equal MJA show me where I can see that. E=MCsquared MJA is an approximation. What do equal MJA?

Best,

Pat

[MJA]

My truth is my passion is my love is my universe is my nature is my justice is my freedom is my unity is my oneness and is looks simply like this:

=
------------------------------

[Profpat]

Time for you to hit the shoutbox with your platitudes MJA.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

But why would the basic building block be only one dimension? Why not 0 dimension or 3 dimensions?

Hi Dipayankar;

Well I think it would be pretty difficult to build a 3 dimensional reality from a 0 dimensional point particle. That would be the old something from nothing paradox.

From a 1 dimensional object, my An Idea shows how this could become a 2 dimensional quark and finally a 3 dimensional geodesic sphere.

As my above post to Felix suggest, maybe instead of just one string, a string is actually 3 strings combined, which incorporates the essence of 3 dimensional space within it.

This would be something from something. Where did strings come from? Well if you believe in a cyclic universe they could be eternal. An Eternal yet created Universe. Going through cycles of creation and destruction, but not destroying the essence of something, namely the strings.

Best to you and your great questions. Keep them coming as they keep me thinking.

Pat

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

[QUOTE=Profpat;51310]

Stings could be, "Vortex's of Aware Action".[
They very well could be vortexes ( vortices? ) but I'm not to sure about aware. Leibniz, however thought every point in space had consciousness. But what did he know, he was only a genius.
Best,
Pat

Hi Profat,

Vortexes and vortices both are the plurals of vortex in classical definition.

In another vortex study on fluid dynamics, vortexes was referring to the different sections within a main vortex that are segregated vortices on different sheet layers of viscous mass that composite as the main vortex in a oneness.

In my UVS write-ups, I used vortices for referring to many of such independent standing vortexes of a single vortical form, so as to be specific in a limited way to avoid any confusion that could arise by not using the same terminology defined with vortexes that has specific properties stated in that study.

Hope this would clarify and thanks for this very specific question.

Best regards,

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Vincent;

Thanks for the clarification on proper spelling on plural vortex. Let me see if I got it right. If I talk about more then one single vortex, I would say vortices? If I talk about a vortex that has multiple vortices in side it, I would call it a vortexes? That would leave vortex's as improper spelling? When I use spell check it offers vortices's, as a correction for vortices.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Vincent;

Thanks for the clarification on proper spelling on plural vortex. Let me see if I got it right. If I talk about more then one single vortex, I would say vortices? If I talk about a vortex that has multiple vortices in side it, I would call it a vortexes? That would leave vortex's as improper spelling? When I use spell check it offers vortices's, as a correction for vortices.

Take a look at the multiple vortexes cascaded inside a polar aurora, separated by its pause layers. In UVS perspective, this is driven by a single polar vortex formed on overlapping layers of different density atmospheres, in another study this single vortical form is referred as vortexes on multiple sheet layers of different viscous mass. For this UVS refers it as a single polar vortex within a vortical form through several atmospheric layers.

In the meandering polar vortex of satellite image, there was a smaller satellite vortex (a small green circle) formed at 6 o'clock position within the whole vortical interaction, both also have cascading vortexes within their single vortical forms. For this UVS refers them as two vortices; a polar vortex with its satellite vortex.

In classical definition, both plural spelling of vortex can be used to describe more than a single vortex. As for spelling for vortex's, vortexes', vortice's or vortices' all seem to be alright checking with online dictionary. I don't think that suggestion for Internet spelling check for vortices's is correct.

Best regards,

[Profpat]

Hi Vincent;

Thank you for your input, spectacular and informative photos, and your spelling lesson.

Best to you,

Pat

[dipayankar]

It seems that the vortex is the preferred shape of nature. But how will this shape help us in our quest for the ToE?

Take a look at the multiple vortexes cascaded inside a polar aurora, separated by its pause layers. In UVS perspective, this is driven by a single polar vortex formed on overlapping layers of different density atmospheres, in another study this single vortical form is referred as vortexes on multiple sheet layers of different viscous mass. For this UVS refers it as a single polar vortex within a vortical form through several atmospheric layers.

In the meandering polar vortex of satellite image, there was a smaller satellite vortex (a small green circle) formed at 6 o'clock position within the whole vortical interaction, both also have cascading vortexes within their single vortical forms. For this UVS refers them as two vortices; a polar vortex with its satellite vortex.

In classical definition, both plural spelling of vortex can be used to describe more than a single vortex. As for spelling for vortex's, vortexes', vortice's or vortices' all seem to be alright checking with online dictionary. I don't think that suggestion for Internet spelling check for vortices's is correct.

Best regards,

[Profpat]

It seems that the vortex is the preferred shape of nature. But how will this shape help us in our quest for the ToE?

Hi Dipayankar;

While the vortex structure is in nature, I'm not sure that it's the preferred structure. There is also the cubical structure for crystaline substances; the spherical structure for stars, planets and other heavenly bodies; the circular structure for many galaxies; and so on. I don't know if nature has a preferrence for structure, rather it appears that form follows substance.

Best to all,

Pat