The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[austintorn@aol.com]

Galactic Framework

From my perspective here
Out on the Orion spiral arm
Of the Milky Way Galaxy,
I can see a lot of it,
Altough necessarily edge on.
But I don’t see that it
Is doing much for us, as yet.

Couldn’t we have gotten along without it?

Well, no, not if it produced our sun.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Cosmic Rays

Some cosmic rays are so energetic
That they must have been born
In cosmic accelerators
Feuled by cataclyclysms
Of staggering proportions.

They should not even exist.

Yet, they do,
As discovered 17 years ago.

One had 3x10**20 eV!

Yet, they do not travel well,
Smashing into all kinds of stuff,
So they must come from relatively near by.

They are also exceedingly rare,
So we spread counters over 40 square miles
To detect the secondary scintillation particles.

Auger researchers have linked
The ultrahigh cosmic rays
To active galactic nuclei
Close to home
That are thought to be
Powered by black holes.

Anybody affected by these?

I guess not.

[austintorn@aol.com]

“Small Neutral Ones”

Their mass adds up to more than
We can see in the night sky,
Even through our telescopes,
More than all the atoms.

They mostly go in a straight line
Towards the edge of the universe,
Straight through any planets,
Stars, mountains, and atoms.

40 billion just went through your left nostril.

They are virtually unstoppable.

When one is detected,
It is called an event.

They oscillate,
Even changing to a different
Flavor and mass,
Making them even more undetectable

They live and die
But by the weak force—
Born by decay
And dying when
They become something else—
Being immune to the
Strong nuclear force
And the electromagnetic force.

Wolfgang Pauli made them up,
For bookkeeping purposes,
When a neutron decayed
Into a proton and an electron.

No one doubts their existence now.

They are all that can get through
Fifty feet of iron.

What are they?

[Fredrick]

“Small Neutral Ones”

Their mass adds up to more than
We can see in the night sky,
Even through our telescopes,
More than all the atoms.

They mostly go in a straight line
Towards the edge of the universe,
Straight through any planets,
Stars, mountains, and atoms.

40 billion just went through your left nostril.

They are virtually unstoppable.

When one is detected,
It is called an event.

They oscillate,
Even changing to a different
Flavor and mass,
Making them even more undetectable

They live and die
But by the weak force—
Born by decay
And dying when
They become something else—
Being immune to the
Strong nuclear force
And the electromagnetic force.

Wolfgang Pauli made them up,
For bookkeeping purposes,
When a neutron decayed
Into a proton and an electron.

No one doubts their existence now.

They are all that can get through
Fifty feet of iron.

What are they?

My first inclination is to say that I do not know, Austin. Yet, cosmic rays must be part and parcel of our universe, so there is a logical explanation possible. You say there is a link proposed/discovered between these rays and the weak force, so we need to look at the subatomic level to discover what could go wrong in that area.

Placed under pressure, people can admit to almost anything, so why should we not consider one of the three of proton, neutron, or electron at the subatomic level as providing us an explanation for cosmic rays after having been put under a certain pressure? Since the quark parts are of a balanced but non-neutral reality (and no quark was ever found all by itself), why not suggest quarks can be pushed out of their frameworks and go awry to an extent normally not seen? Or, since you mention "small neutral ones" and we should try to stay within the accepted framework that quarks cannot exist independently (which I actually believe is true), are we looking at an independent neutron here that got wacked out of its safe place next to a proton into semi-oblivion (but not the edge of the universe, since you say these are considered from 'local' sources only)?

You may know more, Austin, about the specific qualities of the Weak Nuclear Force, so you may need to help figuring this one out. What are the specifics that we know about the WNF? Did the loose quark or the neutron (or a single electron) get a wacking like a golf ball from a quark-neutron-electron entity (possibly even a complex set of them) powered by the Strong Nuclear Force? Naturally, no independent quark wacked out like a golf ball would get stuck in matter that had already been established — there is no spot to attach. And even when there is a spot to attach, the speed of the cosmic-ray entity could possibly prevent such attachment. Same can be said for a neutron that is going very fast. Do you know if the cosmic rays could find a resting place within stars, attracted by the gravitational force? Would you consider this a phenomenon that was totally common at the beginning of materialization?

[austintorn@aol.com]

The "small neutral ones" are neutrinos, which are different from cosmic rays, but both zap around, especially neutrinos all over, having to do with the weak force. Pauli had some energy left over and so he assigned it to the neutrino before they were discovered. Maybe neutrinos make up some of the dark matter stuff.

Neither cosmic rays seem to affect us very much, unless they contribute to DNA mutations.

Ready for the framework of the solar system, the place in which the really good stuff happens.

Also, see my thread for more great stuff.

[Fredrick]

The "small neutral ones" are neutrinos, which are different from cosmic rays, but both zap around, especially neutrinos all over, having to do with the weak force. Pauli had some energy left over and so he assigned it to the neutrino before they were discovered. Maybe neutrinos make up some of the dark matter stuff.

Neither cosmic rays seem to affect us very much, unless they contribute to DNA mutations.

Ready for the framework of the solar system, the place in which the really good stuff happens.

Also, see my thread for more great stuff.

It sounds like they were then already determined to be neutrinos, Austin, or possibly a pair of neutrinos or a neutrino-electron combination of some kind. If I placed all correctly, we have the quarks, the leptons, the electrons and the neutrinos that can be considered materializations of some kind. Did I leave out any other actual stuff? Since there is no unification among matter, it would make sense that that particular materialization that is not part of the framework of another materialization would not interact with that material (though speed may play its role here as well). A cosmic ray is then of a different realization than atoms are (even when, for instance, the cosmic ray is partially based on the same matter as an atom). And this would hold true for at least two out of the four frameworks of materialization. There would then be no enigma. So, what was the essence of your delivery about the cosmic rays again, Austin?


The actual fun stuff is between the Universal Framework and the Galactic Framework. This is where the ToE is explained best, where — with the Universal Framework equal to the base of the pyramid — diverse actions and realizations are placed in a fundamentally diverse concept. Meanwhile, with the Galactic Framework, each of the diverse realities find their own specific top of the pyramid. The unity as proposed within the pyramid's top is never realized at the Universal Framework (though as a concept it can be considered). Only at the smaller frameworks can the pyramid be considered to have a top (such as the center of a galaxy, which ultimately is empty, or the central positioning of the sun in the solar system that is the opposite of empty, or the central location for earth in our daily reality).

[austintorn@aol.com]

Let's have the fun stuff for essence be where you have it, Fredrick, but the fun stuff for existence happens on Earth due to the framework of the solar system.

Yipee! This is where it's at! But, bless you, too, all stars and galaxies.

(Neutrinos are 1/4 of the standard model, so they must be good for something? Or useless?)

[Fredrick]

Let's have the fun stuff for essence be where you have it, Fredrick, but the fun stuff for existence happens on Earth due to the framework of the solar system.

Yipee! This is where it's at! But, bless you, too, all stars and galaxies.

(Neutrinos are 1/4 of the standard model, so they must be good for something? Or useless?)

Yes, but our brain is capable of using all frameworks as it sees fit. That is why each framework is important, because we ourselves pick and choose from these frameworks. Please understand that I never left earth, and only here are scientists looking for a ToE.


I picked this up from Wiki:
"Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms. There are three types, or "flavors", of neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tauon neutrinos (or tau neutrino); each type also has a corresponding antiparticle, called antineutrinos. Electron neutrinos (or antineutrinos) are generated whenever neutrons change into protons (or protons into neutrons), the two forms of beta decay. Interactions involving neutrinos are mediated by the weak interaction.
Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun, and more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second.[1]"

Since we have three kinds of neutrinos (and not four), it can be proposed as three stages of one and the same (like ice, water, vapor), and we can then focus on just one, the electron neutrino. The difference between neutron and proton is the change of an up quark into a down quark and vice versa. And that difference can actually be very small, for instance the size of an electron (or smaller). However, the difference of that part changes the result 'completely'.

An example I can think of is that a group of 100,000 women stops being a group of women with the addition of a single man. The single man will change the dynamics of the group of women dramatically, even when a good number of women will not change whether the guy is there or not. With the guy, we have an up quark, without the guy we have a down quark. So, in this case, the guy becomes the neutrino when the low-life is kicked out by the Amazones. He sails in his boat down the river and is barely noticeable.

Still, Austin, it is good to remember that I am providing here an example from a far-different level, because men and women are from the level where protons and neutrons have their place already — these subatomic parts are already included. And that makes this example only useful to the extent that we can grasp the enormous difference with the addition of a single aspect no matter how minor in actuality. And I can prove that by telling the exact same story of a group of 100,000 men that changes dramatically with the addition of a single woman, even when some of the men will not change whether the gal is there or not. With the gal, we have an up quark, without the gal we have a down quark. And she can become the neutrino when the witch is expelled by the priests. She flies on her broom through the nightsky and is barely noticeable.

I guess what I am trying to convey is that the entities we find at the smallest level are of a collective nature. But if we then think we can find the individuals that make up the group, then we are overstepping ourselves into looking for something we want to find instead of finding what is in front of us. The explanation is that all is collective; we are ourselves collective entities, but our brain tells us we are a single entity. Our brain must tell us that because otherwise we would not be able to sustain a body. And if we cannot maintain a body, then there is no continuation of life, no evolution, and then there is no communication about the overall level such as what we are doing here on ToeQuest.

The essence is that all is collective, but that separation is fundamental, too. And that is true for us on earth, for earth, for our solar system, our galaxy, and the universe. The fun part (but also frustrating part at times) is that we have become specific entities (male, female) at that overall level, because we still need to express our entire self within materialization, and that of course includes the expression of what to do with the choice deep down within our own very nature. Like Hercules, we must let the final question unanswered and decide what to do with the burning sensation of the last question. Then, if we do so, we have the choice to burry the question under a rock, like Hercules did, or make it disappear all together (by killing it, something Hercules could not do, but then again he was a man).

[austintorn@aol.com]

With the gal, we have an up quark, without the gal we have a down quark. — Fredrick

Good one!

[Fredrick]

With the gal, we have an up quark, without the gal we have a down quark. — Fredrick

Good one!

I knew you were going to pick that sentence out to make a remark, Austin!

The interesting part is that I was unable to say the opposite: "With the gal we have a down quark, without the gal we have an up quark" because that is a sentence that is incorrect. It is the up quark that shows the mimicking of completeness, not the down quark. The down quark only 'plays along' because it is captured by the up quark's version of a completed reality. So, the up quark can only be the up quark when both aspects, both oppositional states are represented.

That is why the opposite story is actually the same story, but then told from the opposite perspective. The up quark for the large group of women is only accomplished when the single guy got added to the group; not the other way around.

In reality, the number of guys in the large group of women, or the women in the large group of men, need not be just a single one; have ten men added to a group of 100,000 women and we still get the same result of changing the down quark into an up quark. Then, when the Amazons expel the low-lives, these ten guys fly randomly into all directions, and not necessarily all in a single file towards something interesting on the firmament (though the Amazons may give the outgoing guys some direction as well). I mention this, because each up quark may actually be slightly different from the other up quark. Who is capable of distinguishing the up quark with 122 men in a group of 100,000 women and the up quark with 123 men in a group of 100,000 women? That is totally unimportant, other than that there is no perfect prescription for the mix.

Nevertheless, having 10,000 men and 10,000 women in one single state will not occur at the quark level. Only at our human level do we see that the outcome is somewhere near 50%-50% (and then also not exactly that), but the proton and neutron may show us their versions of balancing things out.

The proton has two up quarks and one down quark, and we may consider that in two different ways:

The two up quarks are both male with a smidgen of female, while the down quark is completely male, or the two up quarks are female with a smidgen of male, while the down quark is completely female.

There is another way to view this as well, but it requires an additional categorization of a neutral sex, say innocent children. So, we could also say that we have a male up quark with a smidgen of female, a female up quark with a smidgen of male, and the innocent children as the down quark. To then make a choice which delivery/story is more correct — the one with or the one without the children — is like missing the point.

I mentioned before on Pat's thread that materialization is like the lump in your hot cereals. It is the faulty interaction (in the hot cereal case) of cereals, heat, and milk. Even when the recipe is completely followed, we may still end up with some lumping in our hot cereals, because that is part of the reality we live in. So add one aspect to a general population of the different kind, and we end up with a general population that is organized in a very interesting way.

It is very similar to power structures in that a certain perfection is mimicked with an entire nation following a leader. The leader and those close to the leader will find themselves under quite the different circumstances than all other persons in their homes somewhere throughout the nation watching everything surrounding the leader, c.s. unfold (develop) on television. The nation as a whole is then the up quark.

I could continue using our daily-life examples, but they all contain one fallacy: they belong to this level, not the quark level. I only use them to show how the energized reality within a quark can go from an up quark to a down quark and how little it takes to fully change the focus of these collectives. Place a communist inside a nest of U.S. Republicans, and there can be quite some dynamite. Yet, please note that there can be quite some dynamite in the reversed story of having one U.S. Republican placed inside a nest of communists, too. In the end, we can see some very stark similarities between both frameworks, even to the point we think they are the same (from the outside). McCarthyism in the U.S would, for instance, be an example of what we normally consider only to occur in dictatorial nations, communist nations, and fascist nations. Yet the example also shows how in the United States the truth does tend to rise (albeit sometimes late), whereas in nations with a dictatorship the truth mainly comes out after the fall of the dictatorship, and where the misguided sense of truly-being-right can move a society further into the area of truly-being-wrong.

The up quark thinks it is fully-right. And when the up quark is in control, then the up quark helps decide the definition of what is fully right. Hence, the word reality — a word that is based on re-al or royal. It was the king, the royalty, who used to decide what is right and what is wrong, and once right and wrong were proclaimed the subjects had to deal with that reality.