Toe

[G_burnett]

hi Vincent

thank you for your reply.

My thought on the formula use is redundant to vectoring geometrical shape of event. As soon as we have more then one point of emit of the ray (a) (b) or (x y)the rules do not work in calculation and the proof of any theorem would tend to show in all possible solutions to all possible observations. You understand this I am sure but probably from a different platform of start.

You may see the two points or three points (or more) of origin of the ray but if we draw a circle around the points example being a planet with a core center and a MF center, the planet can become from one point of view the point zero as a non exact origin but able to be used to geometrical represent the interaction at a later moment out of the point zero with the planet remember the grouping of mass where any individual particle center will be in infinite size smaller still have the two point centers until we have either resonance or non resonance effect of wave form (FS ?) "ON THE PARTICLE" (for dave reading this) (lol.)

A non resonant effect would be the depiction of two pole emit with same wave length but at different frequency, a one two beat percieved. The one wave crest never coming in contact with the other. The musical pulse of the whole, the heart beat timed to register of the stars. It is the same to me in view. Will the form be empathic or not and when.

Going into Euclidean space we can see that by the shape of the emit of wave such as the varied shape of the proton or mass in alignment there be a spin factor applicable to shape the wave into a spinning wave .. a pigtail spin as it motion is decreased or increased or its linear with frame drag caused by outside forces decreasing or increasing the effect it may have to register by remember a "snapshot in time" relative to the view.

The boundaries of emit capability are the fluid nature of the form but not so the fluid nature of the form that will receive the emit in reflect or absorb event to even a dance of uniformity ... my rule one ponder.

If the three points of two triangles placed on top of each other and all points are equal distance apart from each other we have the formation of six cusps which can lead to the pictorial of a hex as we extend the three sides of the triangles to the outer range of the points on the circle all the points lie on.

see prior hex picture posted.

the first triangle developed from MF and the second one from GF.

the gravity field one should have its center off center from the MF but it does not because in the low density of the atmosphere reverse spin of the planetary winds are combined effect to vortex cone a screw shape to develop in emit the movement of the center to match the MF center. The gravity field force is minor at the distances away from the core. the major force is the MF there and the wind.

"conjunction exists" (i like that word,)

The MF center in the cone vortex is moved in position the same way by solar emit event and core emit where in unison that cone effect on the particles not the wave is move to have equal center with the other ... just at that level of the clouds, as the effects will vary further out as they do further in.

the proof of these interactions are the reverse effect on the other pole where the emit is a push in effect of the molecular form being effected not a push out and as a draw in effect a vortex there is the development of the south pole "eye of the storm."

Back to E. There was one picture at a train station I saw where his wife and young child in her arms a kids half off or on the train was meeting with his new beau in Germany after they had split up and notable to me as a certain amiability still there as friends shown to mannerisms and facial expression strained but there.

I do not remember the link but will go search for it later and post for you if I can find it.

As I have spoken about Uranus where the formula was used to show a lacking of emit of energy to the relative mass in motion the limits of the formula dealing with two point zero emit interactions are clear. It is a whole new mind set that has to develop in the potential not just the math or geometry view, the randomness factor of events are not black and white. IMHO ...

there is color to the universe!
~ peace my friend, Graham

[G_burnett]

Hi Graham,



And do you agree that E has great empathy, he is for world peace, for humanity and all living beings at large including the ants you wouldn't step on?

Do you still think he is a valiant? From your points of view on rule of law for anthropology.

The questions and ponders concerning ToE quest in the realm of vortex.

E developed empathy in his path, as most I have found in simular manner by great travails in life, up and down sort of thing.

We start off in inocence, learn betrayal, forgive to get it out of our lives and choose not to step that way again. .. or foolishly we remarry with out aplication of rule lol .. ~ kind regards g.

after thought ... the theory of everything I believe will come from geometry platform.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Graham,

It does seems the theory of everything can come from geometry platform.

Just cleaned up that section on complex vortical modeling. Here are the updates:

A modeling for tri-bipolar bodies orbiting around a common barycenter with elliptic orbits could be able to account for the asymmetrical structures geometrically that are vortically formed in viscous matter through a tri-pole precession effect, such as tri-core polar vortex, tri-core clear air vortex, covalently bonded triatomic molecules in tetrahedron symmetry (examples are ozone, H2O, etc), other tetrahedral structural forms and vortically interlocked double-tetrahedron structural forms (examples are hexagonal-shaped polar vortex and hexagonal-shaped snow crystal structure).

Tri-bipolar bodies orbiting around a common barycenter with elliptic orbits as illustrated with Sun, Earth and moon could have shaped the Arctic polar vortex as a tri-core unisonal vortex (outlined in the polar vortex image below on right side in grey circles) through torque-free precession of a tri-bipolar system. Conjecturally, the harmonic of this tri-core Arctic polar vortex has regressed in an outer vortex ring with a slightly shifted angular phase, the regressing process mirrored an opposite pair of tri-core vortex, and these two tri-core vortex pair (highlighted in blue and red triangles) in opposite angular phase interlocks as a hexagonal-like vortex.

A tri-core vortex is approximately a tetrahedron structure geometrically.

Tetrahedron structure

For the outer vortex rings of this tri-core polar vortex, its tri-core effect dilates gradually and therefore is vortically diffused in an outward circular manner and the edges thus fades away.

An enlarged image on the polar region of Saturn as shown below has revealed that this is factually a tri-core polar vortex; this categorically has explained the vortical dynamics that render the external hexagonal-like vortex structure. The dilated tri-core polar vortex has regressed in an outer vortex ring and therefore mirrored an opposite pair of tri-core vortex that interlocks as a hexagonal-like vortex; the hexagonal-like vortical structure is formed by two interlocking harmonics of tri-core vortex in opposite angular phase through a tri-pole precession. The vortical dynamics is similar to the tri-core Arctic polar vortex illustrated above.




I agree that other theorem can be congruent for a same observations and could account for more details. What being suggested is a comprehensive way to analyze vortical vectoring through geometrical modeling as an alternative approach, and it does seems workable and has unexpected resolving capability.

Its just my offbeat drumming, lol.

With peace for a ToE.

E developed empathy in his path, as most I have found in simular manner by great travails in life, up and down sort of thing.

We start off in inocence, learn betrayal, forgive to get it out of our lives and choose not to step that way again. .. or foolishly we remarry with out aplication of rule lol .. ~ kind regards g.

after thought ... the theory of everything I believe will come from geometry platform.

[G_burnett]

Ty for your posting Vincent

The problem in geometry is representation of spin effect where to date I have found the mind must imagine a bit more then should be necessary.
As the forms are spinning on the polar. For example the first imagine the spin from a 2d pictorial then the vortex exponentially from point zero which could be a set of factors and functions ((F=ma2)a(b))+(t2-s2]) as to where the slice is. Remember the long presentation from Austrailia spinning the two rays from two point zeros ... ? review the old posts on the site somewhere and take a look again at it long as it is and you will see what he got the Noble for cause if you did not get it the first time you will now.

In the case of Saturn where the air is too much less dense to support the effect further into space but not to confuse with the effect being there still eg the Aurora Borealis way past what we would call our atmosphere ..

put the effect under and maybe even over an event like plasma in stead of the shape factor they are using in formation of mag field containment and same effect noticeable .. what direction are two tetras spinning? I think there are more shapes then tetra to look at for most any given pictorial ... Will there be containment with spin? inverse square law .... see the thought? yea i know but mind sets are mind sets lol

have to snooze for a while and the old song saying

i owe i owe its off to work i go tomorrow my friend, kind regards Graham.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Graham,

This raked up a past experience I have long forgotten.

I have ever once spent two solid years doing quantitative predictions together with a physicist for a social phenomenon working on a computer modeling, writing an artificial intelligence program using a nested waves technique in kind-of-a ToE-like project, in a single model with complex maths formulations incorporated into the algorithms. I had lost count on the number of times the revised system had given me hype confidence that it was finally working, only to experience times and again that the overall consolidated concepts in a single model had miserably collapsed when put to reality tests rigorously. The delusions that have had spawned illusions are something I now vividly understood at hindsight with much pain on how I had fooled myself perpetually, in the illusions of knowing and the illusion of having control; I was the biggest fool I have ever known on this planet.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

For the ToE.

Ty for your posting Vincent

The problem in geometry is representation of spin effect where to date I have found the mind must imagine a bit more then should be necessary.
As the forms are spinning on the polar. For example the first imagine the spin from a 2d pictorial then the vortex exponentially from point zero which could be a set of factors and functions ((F=ma2)a(b))+(t2-s2]) as to where the slice is. Remember the long presentation from Austrailia spinning the two rays from two point zeros ... ? review the old posts on the site somewhere and take a look again at it long as it is and you will see what he got the Noble for cause if you did not get it the first time you will now.

In the case of Saturn where the air is too much less dense to support the effect further into space but not to confuse with the effect being there still eg the Aurora Borealis way past what we would call our atmosphere ..

put the effect under and maybe even over an event like plasma in stead of the shape factor they are using in formation of mag field containment and same effect noticeable .. what direction are two tetras spinning? I think there are more shapes then tetra to look at for most any given pictorial ... Will there be containment with spin? inverse square law .... see the thought? yea i know but mind sets are mind sets lol

have to snooze for a while and the old song saying

i owe i owe its off to work i go tomorrow my friend, kind regards Graham.

[G_burnett]

G_burnett;
Usually when anyone ponders such thoughts they come to similar conclusion. Some decide that an eternal deity type entity existed to produce or design the universe as we observe it; others decide that existence itself is eternal. Neither are provable but the latter seems more coherent to me too. Mass and energy are usually viewed as terms of measurement (dimensions), not as entities; even though many insist there is an entity called “energy”. At that level of pondering I would say that the only physical entity is the stuff of the universe or fundamental matter.

If you haven’t done so, you may wish to review these scenarios: Toronic and genesis-hypothesis
Don’t worry, if you’re being stupid, you have a lot of company; myself included!

I like these senerios Dave.

They leave a lot to ponder.

In the great clumping thought where the condense becomes so internal perhaps the event was more a turning inside out?

kind regards g.

[dleviwing]

My views contend that there exists a fundamental substance that accounts for all physical existence. Evidence from accelerator experiments is leading in this direction and has achieved the fluidic state of this substance. Inside out or outside in would look the same.

[G_burnett]

My views contend that there exists a fundamental substance that accounts for all physical existence. Evidence from accelerator experiments is leading in this direction and has achieved the fluidic state of this substance. Inside out or outside in would look the same.

thank you for your reply .. I agree that it would look the same to available means because it is the same substance. What be the difference is the torus control of containment... neutrinos ... no more, one around the tube in multitudes and one singularity around the outer and inner plane, alignment in FS and effected by FS but not effecting fundamental substance except to open and close areas of space for further expand or area of given .. enviro.... the more down that road Dave and i see an ocean composite to pure water possible ... and in the big just being a drop in some other bucket .. interesting ... and if the qualifications come back with out the commas, fluidity of all ... no sand in water on that level of dimensional quanta? has to be still ... very interesting.
I will chat with sage for a while on this. ~g

[G_burnett]

Having had my coffee Sage tells me there is a ponder possible to describe the state of substance being in either the one or the two shapes of manifold depiction negative or positive.

One having the control of exist by current vertical on the shape in spin pictorial for example and the other horizontal current again in spin addition to the pictorial as event effect.

If the event becomes a turning inside out of the shape torus then we have dark matter/dark substance or anti matter/anti substance the ponder.

This allows for the spin to be reversed without difficulty now done in noted other experiments with out changing the vertical or horizontal direction overall of the electron.

The fundamental substance of quark composition in transient motion to parameters of containment considered and not changing the control parameters.

When the control parameters are changed by inside out in a proton the postulation of theorem here the instantaneous quark release takes place in the containment change.

From the electron to the proton to atomic structure clumping the inside out event and further up the line to the universe I find this ponder evidently. Eg the cats eye nebula showing the middle state of inside out event.

and on consideration of the creation of the proton, sometimes two protons in the inside out reverse, parameters being altered or evident form the manifold shape in that control again of containment with spin being a major factor to the perception of energy combine eg drift and non equal energy and frequency of wave of substance join.

I hope I do not sound silly going down this route, or predicting a postulation that this may be the new geometric rule and math to consider in the TOE.

Your replys to this will be apreciated.

Kind regards Graham.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hi "Joe the Plumber" of manifolds and woman folds of outside in and inside out…

"TOE The Plumber" sure left a mess of stuff for us to figure out. What pipe dream was He smoking?