Tetrahedraverse

[jgbrawley]

(continuing from previous message)

Now, for the record and in the interest of minimal confusion I suggest:
Physics, and TOE-hunters in general, for the most part take physics' volumes of information and, by putting that information together in various ways, attempt to find a deeper, more fundamental truth underlying all the various bits and pieces of data.
I didn't do that. (In point of fact I wasn't looking for a TOE.)
I instead began with a metaphysical argument derived by my best efforts at an absolute supersimplification (Origin Sequence tells...) for fundamental somethingness, not paying any attention to whether or not the thing matched Physics in some way. It was only later (not much later, for the proton, but later for the electron and antiproton and magnetic field, etc.) that I began to realize that piont-patterns in this thing I had invented or uncovered were strangely, in a behavioural and conceptual sense, very like particles and forces and fields in real Physics.
I say all this to indicate that it is a difficult thing for me, to comply with specific requests involving specific mathematical compendia which contain attempts to fit everything into some comprehensive numerical pattern (Lie groups; the 'standard model'; etc.), becuase I _didn't travel those roads_ in coming to Tverse, I did the opposite:
While Physics and theorizing tends to involve a "top down" approach (from the lists of the known, toward the unknown), mine was a "bottom up" approach (establish the UNknown, then see if it makes connections to the known).

I flirt now with the 10000-character limit, so quickies, if not addressed above:

Careful measurements showed that 'more' energy was going in to this reaction than was coming out. You measure the mass of original Nucleus (e=mc^2) and then wait for it to decay. It decays. You measure the new remaining Nucleus (e=mc^2) and you measure the Electron (e=mc^2) being emitted ... and some of the energy is missing. Circa 1920.

I have been playing with this. Watch me: prising open (a bit) the proton by jamming a piont of the electron into its side causes it to get *bigger*, which should reduce --not increase-- its mass. This is contrary to the fact that the neutron has _more_ mass than the proton. However, the octa-electron is a space-shrinker also and, by being added to the proton, _increases_ the amount of shrinkage in the dual object, which compensates for the increase in size (decrease in mass) of the proton part, plus a little. Now, this means that the neutron-plus-electron pair can have a 'mass deficit' since the two together --the slightly-bigger was-a-proton and the normal electron-- may total up to less than the amount of space shrinkage of the two taken independently and summed. These quantifications are being studied.

*Explanation:* When a *free* Neutron (not bound in a Nucleus) decays into a Proton, there is enough energy left over to make the Electron and the Anti-Neutrino and kick them out into the Universe with a fly-shit of energy.

Explanation, Tverse variety: when a free neutron is 'corrected' by the spherical compressive force, it shrinks back to proton size (increasing its mass), snaps/catapults the octa-electron out, and shivers the volumetric nonlocality near and far.

A *free* Proton cannot decay and the reason is fairly simple. The Neutron is heavier than the Proton (e=mc^2) and so the *free* proton cannot afford to pay the price of the reaction ... it does not have the minimum amount of energy required to exceed the threshold. Therefore in a Universe at 2.7 degrees Kelvin, the Proton is forced to remain stable. There is nothing it can decay into. Its quantum of energy can give rise to no patterned release and make the ensuing products more stable. There is no less massive state that the proton, by decaying, can achieve.

That's one explanation, from the 'standard model'.
I offer another.
The proton cannot decay because in order to do so it would have to be *opened up*, against the incoming compressive force (which is E-normous).
(One notes that, in order to get a proton to "decay", all you need to do is get it next to an antiproton, at which time they will _both_ "decay".
Tverse models this with a 12 around 2 next to a 12 around none causing a trade of a piont, resulting in two 12 around 1s (empty space).)

But a *bound* Proton (inside the Nucleus) can decay, and does so all the time.

I agree but not as you imagine. My 'new' deuteron is a situation in which both spherical particles constantly exchange places (without moving), shuttling the neutron's orthogonal electron back and forth between them, turning them both, alternately, into proton or neutron. (I have problems with positrons, having not yet tried hard to find their piont-pattern (or even if they have one).)

But if the Nucleus is already in its least massive state then the Proton does not decay. Stability gives rise to our Universe .... hence radioactivity and non-radioactivity.

My view is different, but seems to equate to the same phenomena described topologically/geometrically.

As to all those expensive experiments using humongous energies, there's a Catch-22 involved: physicists are essentially *creating* the masses that they are 'observing'. Forcing a lot of pionts into a small area shrinks the space in that area, which means, of course, larger "mass" since mass is shrunken space.... Most of those particles cannot be said to exist, without the energies and directionalities involved in those terribly forceful particle-particle impacts.

>

Is there any simple explanation you can give as to how your theory accounts for these reactions within your 'nucleus'?
>
> *Reaction: *n -> (p+) + (e-) + (v-bar e)
> *Alternative:* Neutron decays into Proton, Electron, Anti-Neutrino.
>
> *Reaction: * (p+)-> (n) + (e+) + (v e)
> *Alternative:* Proton decays into Neutron, Positron, Neutrino

My only explanation(s) are those above, this new deuteron from which I intend to concatenate nuclei (I want an alpha particle quite badly...(*g*)), and the fact that I have no choice but to use those explanations because I am (a) stuck with Tverse as it is and (b) not smart enough to figure out yet more of the things it can provide.
I hope the above helps (and now I go try to count characters.... (*grin*))
*Dam. I'm 3000 chars over. What to cut? What to cut? OK, breaking in two.... Dam.*

--JB

[jgbrawley]

That was a long post and I could have been more clear about the last part of your question. Please allow:
(Ref.: your quoted, with the formulas, just above)
First one: my hypothesis is that these decays (n -> p + e- + vbar(e)) are the same whether in or out of a nucleus, that in-nucleus they probably are linear shuttling of an electron pattern back and forth between the two (deuteron configuration), and that if the electron manages to escape, this only changes the atomic number of the nucleus (upward), and the newly needed electron is present (whether it's *that* one that gets retained or not).
Second one: It's my understanding that this is not right. Protons don't "decay" in the sense of breaking up (like the neutron in the above example). The reaction you describe is called "electron capture" in nuclear physics if memory serves (and it doesn't make use of a positron). (Authority: CRC handbook)
Lastly, for me, Protons don't "decay" at all ever, but can be _added to_ (by the above mechanism not understood by physics; by the above mechanism hypothesized by me).

Eh?

--JB

[jgbrawley]

Gap(s), Packing sphericity, and Tightness:

Gap is all-important, for Tetrahedraverse (Gaps is, essentially, physics) and to a lesser degree (but unmentionably) in Fullerism/Synergetics (where Gaps is an embarassment).

Gap is that distance, greater than nominal "contact", between any two Tverse pionts/points. (Or, in equi-ball packings, between the surfaces of any two balls whose centers are equivalent to these points.)

Gap can be internal, external, or both, in polyhedral ball or piont packs of various sizes and vertex numbers. (In large enough ballpackings, and ignoring the surface two layers, all Gap is internal.)
For example, in a pack of five, three in a triangle around the kissing point of a pair of two, Gap can be 1 (internal), 3 (external), or various combinations of the 1 internal and 1 or 2 or 3 of the external.
(Images needed....)

Which of these obtains (in this example) is partly dependent on the sphericity of the packing.
No sphericity means it can be two tetrahedra base to base, hence 0 (zero) external Gap and 1 internal, while good sphericity 'squashes' the two outermost balls more closely together and there can be four Gaps, 1 internal and 3 external. 3 external Gaps and zero internal Gap is the case when oblateness obtains and the two end pionts or balls are touching in the middle of the packing.

This above is _only five balls_, so you might imagine this exposition will get very complex very quickly.

(Sidebar, for the visualization challenged: a planar pack of four balls in a square (like on a table) has two internal Gaps crossing at ninety degrees. (In Fuller's world, these do not exist.) Squashing the square, toward a rhombus, lengthens one Gap and shortens the other, until they both disappear as the square becomes two triangles base to base.)

Tightest packing, of balls, by the numbers, ignoring sphericity, and the why of the Gap(s):

1) The case of one ball is degenerate.

2) Tightest packing for Two balls is "touching" or "in contact" or "kissing" or "1.0 between pionts". No Gap. (Gap would be present if they were _not_ touching.)

3) Tightest packing for Three balls is a regular triangle, all touching. No Gap. Looser packings are still triangles, Gap is possible between any two pairs.

4) Tightest packing for Four balls is a regular tetrahedron, again, all touching. Zero Gap. (The same caveat re: looser applies, six possible locations for Gap, if the tetrahedron is irregular.)

5) At five balls, things begin to get complicated (see example above), and Fullerism is left behind because at the five ball stage the path to the IVM and its nucleated VEs is destroyed.

6) Tightest packing for Six balls is either a "boat" (hence three joined tetrahedra and no Gap; cf. MathWorld, 'boat') or an octahedron in which there can be three internal Gaps and no external Gap, or various semicomplicated arrangments of internal with external Gap.

7) Seven balls packed tightest can be either five in a pentagon around the kissing point of two (hence either 1 internal and 0 external Gaps, or 0 internal and 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 external Gaps), or some sphericalized horror with many possible Gap locations both internal and external.

Eight balls can be rather many arrangements, most with at least some internal Gap. For example, a cubed arrangement (rare, in a random jammed packing), would have 0 external Gap and 4 internal Gaps, all crossing at their centers.

9) Nine balls.... Gad, what a mess. Both internal and external Gaps necessarily exist, because the surface cannot be regular-triangulated. At this point two ways of packing and two ways of speaking of the packing become possible: if the thing is a packing with little to no internal Gap, any of the above sub-packings may be present, and if the packing is as a shell, it begins to make sense to speak of the arrangement as an "around none".

10) Ten balls can be two rings of four in squares, with an outboard ball in each, in which case we may say it is a "ten around none", or it can be, as with the nine and some others, a random-jammed-equivalent packing with the aboves possible in it. Trying to describe internal and external Gap in these larger polyhedral patternings becomes difficult --there are too many ways to arrange the balls. (If sphericity is imposed, this one has both internal and external Gap because the two individual balls in the two squares push inward towards the 'empty', internal-Gapped interior, spreading the squares apart slightly.

11) Likewise the Eleven ball packing can be many, from dense and all Gapped interiorly and externally, to what looks like a regular icosahedron with one vertex ball missing, not Gapped externally except for the pentagonal "hole" in the side, but Gapped internally, much as in the next one,

12) Likewise. May be random-jammed and complex patterns, and dense, or may be a perfect regular icosahedron with 0 Gap in the surface and a regularized arrangement of center-crossing interior Gap, thus a "12 around none". (Some argument may be mounted as to whether this is six Gaps --the Tverse 'proton'-- or many more, as more than six pairs of opposing balls may be argued.)

13) And here I stop, since this is the maximum allowable number of balls that may touch one within the center, and all subsequent tightest packings will be multiple interpenetrated concatenations of this 13-ball packing. It is _inherently_ externally Gapped and this Gap cannot be removed. (Fullerism does not recognize these Gaps, as they are sequestered in the six squares of the VE form of this packing.)

Making models of the first five or six (2, 3, and 4 are obvious) of these is doable, in all possible forms they can take, but to make models of all the possible arrangements of all of the larger ones is too daunting for me; there could be hundreds if not more.


Packings arrange Gaps. Gaps allow movement of pionts. Movement of pionts allows transfer of configuration and thus transfer/rearrangement of Energy, which is sourced in the general Packing Force (which is spherical for Tverse and nonexistent in Synergetics).

Work in progress. Models contemplated, since not everyone has the capacity for mental visualization trained into Fuller students and Tetrahedraverse afficionadoes (of which, apparently, there is just One: me).

--JBw



Peace
jb
web: http://tetrahedraverse.com

[jgbrawley]

Minor video additions, on the Tverse deuteron and on the relation between the electron, the muon, and the tau 'particles'.

YouTube links:
Deuteron:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_4ejm8w_K8

Electron, Muon, Tau:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joe50DCj86M

Thanks for your attention....
(Nobody's picking up on this "toe" so it'll probably die when I do --which won't be a long time since I'm 64 now.... (*grin*)

--jgbrawley
(JBw)

[PoPpAScience]

Hi John.

Watched your latest video's and read the thread through. Will watch your earlier video's later, supposed to be sleeping right now.

I enjoyed how you conversed with Austin and Greg. I'm not as technical as those two and thus less appealing. I see the Universe differently then you three, but mostly philosophically. I personally see no need for a Nothing, and seeing that science has never found Nothing, then I would say I have some back up I think the need for a Nothing by many, comes from some faith based ideals. All we know is something's, so I personally have to start at Thing. Math wise, all something's add up to the "1" Thing. The "1" Thing is formless, and thus, just "IS". I call this Thing, "Real", and you can see it in my signature
below.

When I look at Your Tetrahedra I put a Vortex or multiple Vortexes(quarks) within your pionts to have better visualization of action for me. I only had a quick look at your last video's, so opinions and statements are quick.

Will respond more later if you like. Thanks for your posts and theory.

Later, Allen.

[jgbrawley]

Hi John.
Watched your latest video's and read the thread through. Will watch your
earlier video's later, supposed to be sleeping right now.

Hi Allen; thanks for wiewing and commenting.

I see the Universe differently then you three, but mostly
philosophically. I personally see no need for a Nothing, and seeing that
science has never found Nothing, then I would say I have some back up I
think the need for a Nothing by many, comes from some faith based ideals.
All we know is something's, so I personally have to start at Thing. Math
wise, all something's add up to the "1" Thing. The "1" Thing is formless,
and thus, just "IS". I call this Thing, "Real", and you can see it in my
signature below.

Bear in mind that my use of "Nothing" (No Thing; absolute sense) only
applies at the very start of my 'origin sequence'. After that there is no
"Nothing" in that sense, and the universe is all 'somethings'. (Pionts are
'somethings', albeit undetectable; Gaps are 'somethings', albeit are not
pionts; space is a 'thing'.)

When I look at Your Tetrahedra I put a Vortex or multiple
Vortexes(quarks) within your pionts to have better visualization of action
for me. I only had a quick look at your last video's, so opinions and
statements are quick.

Doubtless if you 'got' what my pionts (points) are, you can see why they're
not able to have any "inside" to them. They're points: "that which has no
part" (I always liked that definition). All that Tverse forms, it forms by
geometric (and topological) tight-packing of pionts (plus the occasional
missing one, which is my proton and shrinks space....).

I'd say check out my "origin sequence" video, and those on "pionts" (points)
and on "gaps".
That should clear up whence comes the dynamism, providing better
visualization of action within my 'Tetrahedraverse.'

Will respond more later if you like. Thanks for your posts and
theory.
Later, Allen.

Thanks for the comments, Allen.
John Brawley, 21 Oct. 2011