NOTHING in present science has prepared us for this **ANSWER****!**

Issued: July 10th 2018.

ANSWER in htm: - *http://rbduncan.com/answer.htm*

Also ANSWER in Word: - *http://rbduncan.com/answer.doc*

And ANSWER in Adobe pdf: - *http://rbduncan.com/answer.pdf*

Get charged up with

Paper - - 7

*Quantum*__Relativity__

Some ideas from

Mathematical physicist

Tony Bermanseder's

WSM,. String, TOE, mathematical posts.

Message 16973 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16973

"Enrique Morales Riveira"

<emorale1@p...> wrote:

> Continuing with the discussion of the crucial role that

hierarchical barycenters plays in universal gravitation, I proceed

now to explain the cause of Mercury's perihelion's rotation:

>

>

Dear Enrique, Harald, Etherman and All!

Harald, I have heared that the MMX was struck off yahoo, because of

some impropriety issue of publishing something without authority.

Etherman, you are right in saying that the proton does not decay,

diamonds are forever.

The valif aspect of the GUT-unitary transformations is their

limiting unification energyof the Magnetic Monopole.

The latter is also the Gamma Ray Burster Maximum as

2.7x10^47 'monopolic watts' per kilogram, measured as luminosity

output in Joules.

The corresponding monopolemass is 2.7x10^16 GeV, very close to the

approximation used by GUT-models.

But there is no supersymmetry (as proposed) to the proton, it cannot

decay either into a positron-neutral pi-meson or an antineutrino-

pluskaon-meson; the reasons to propose proton decay in the first

place.

This is because the quark geometry disallows disassociation of the

proton into quark/antiquark (meson) lepton pairings as indicated.

The proton's quark geometry has been experimentally measured to be

best approximated by a kind of onion-layered structure by thge

Krisch experiments in the 1980's.

What the proton does, it decays and reassociates in a fundamental

parameter of elementary physics, namely the time it talkes for

light 'c' to cross the protonic diameter, which is the classical

electronic radius defgining its Compton wavelength/Compton

Scattering.

So there are subatomic resonances, called the Delta-Group for the

nucleon, consisting of 4 members: Delta++ (spin 3/2, charge +4/3),

Delta+ (spin 3/2, charge +1), Delta0 (spin 3/2, charge0 as neutron

delta) and Delta- (spin 3/2, charge -1) as a SU-Unitary Symmetry

group.

The proton disassociates into a Delta++ and a Down-Quark (spin -1/2,

charge -1/3) in this strong-nuclear-interaction-decay and

automatically recombines as the stable proton under the intermediacy

of the gluon template (of 8 colour permutations).

The down-quark is made up of a Mesonic Inner Ring (chatge -1),

hugging the 'complementary' kernelquark (+2/3 charge, spinning in

unison with the mesonic ring).

The proton's energy derives however fromthe trransmission of the

aforesaid magnetic monopole spectrum from the proposed (but greatly

simplified)Higgs Bosonic restmass induction process.

Enrique, I've read your post below and would like to ask you some

questions before goindg into details.

How do you assume the statement, that the sun would spin only once

in its circumnavigation of the galactic centre?

If spin is an intrinsic property of cosmological bodies, then what

determines intrinsic angular momenta of those bodies?

The cosmic architecture constant in my model is very close to the

rotation period of the sun around its galactic focuspoint in the

Sarkar Constant of 236.5 million years.

Have you any connections to this?

The barycentral attraction between the masses would be Newtonian and

the orbital drag seems to me the application of local curvature of

space in the tidal effect, that is the Weyl-part of the Riemann

curvature tensor R=Weyl-tidal + Ricci.g-metric.

Now the Weyl-curvature preserves volume in distortion, but the Ricci-

curvature reduces volume in contraction, increasing density.

And Einstein used exactly this local distortion of the combined

Riemann tensor to predict the perihelion advance of Mercury as local

application of General Relativity.

What you are implying is, that there might be a rotational

counterpart to the curvature/mass relations which could account for

the same space distortion.

Sincerely Tony B.

>

> The Sun's center of mass rotates around the Solar System's

barycenter every 26 terrestrial days approximately. The Solar

System's barycenter is found inside the Sun's mass, a few kilometers

from the Sun's center of mass. Therefore, given such a distance

between the two centers of mass, on the one hand, and given the

Sun's huge mass, on the other, the gravitational force that causes

the Sun's center of mass to rotate around the Solar System's

barycenter is, certainly, a force of colossal magnitude. If the Sun

were not to have the planets and comets which translate in orbit

around the Solar System's barycenter, the Sun, instead of spinning

every 26 Earth days on its axis of rotation, would spin on itself

once with each circumvolution around the Milky Way's barycenter;

that is, that a spin on its axis of rotation would last 225 million

years to be completed.

>

>

>

> The quick rotation of the Sun's center of mass around the Solar

System's barycenter every 26 terrestrial days has a very big,

gravitational influence on the planet Mercury's solar orbit,

inasmuch as said planet not only is situated at a short distance

from the Sun but also has a quite eccentric or elongated, elliptical

orbit. Therefore, when the planet Mercury approaches its perihelion

with regard to the Solar System's barycenter, two accompanying

gravitational forces work on said planet.

>

>

>

> The first is the gravitational, attractive force produced by the

Solar System's barycenter on the planet, which is the one that

causes it to orbit around the Sun, describing a rather eccentric,

elliptical orbit.

>

>

>

> The second gravitational force affecting Mercury's orbit is a drag

or pulling force produced by the rotational translation of the Sun's

center of mass in space, especially when Mercury approaches its

perihelion, or shortest orbital distance relative to the Sun.

>

>

>

> The orbital drag force produced by the Sun's center of mass's

motion and the gravitational attractive force the Solar System's

barycenter exerts over the planet Mercury have a very small average,

radial, angular difference between their respective radial axes, due

not only to the average distance between the Sun and Mercury's being

0.387 of an astronomical unit, but also to the average very short

distance between the Sun's center of mass and the Solar System's

barycenter.

>

>

>

> So, when the planet Mercury undergoes its perihelion, said

additional, orbital drag force reaches its maximum magnitude, as

well as its maximum angular difference with regard to the

gravitational force exerted by the Solar System's barycenter over

the planet Mercury. On the contrary, when Mercury goes through its

aphelion, or greatest orbital distance in relation to the Sun, said

orbital drag force's magnitude is noticeably weakened and the axial

angle between the two aforementioned gravitational forces becomes

practically nil.

>

>

>

> The very small, average, angular difference between those two

gravitational forces is what causes Mercury's perihelion to rotate

at a 0.1" angle in the direction of the planet's orbital motion with

each revolution it carries out around the Solar System's barycenter.

In other words, Mercury's perihelion's miniscule rotation in the

direction of its orbital motion is due to an almost imperceptible

increase in the planet's orbital angular momentum during the

planet's passage through its perihelion. That increase in Mercury's

orbital angular momentum is counter-balanced at all times by the

rotation of the Sun's center of mass.

>

>

>

> Best regards to all NPA's members who may have red this message,

>

>

>

> ENRIQUE MORALES-RIVEIRA

Message 16974 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16974

Allen Francom wrote:

>

>Gravity re-collapsing the gas from one or

>more Novae seems to be negentropic.

>

>

Actually no. Gravitational energy is negative, so when a mass collapses,

the gravitational energy becomes *more* negative. It is still a case of

energy flowing downhill, and the gravitational energy converts to energy

of motion. Genuine "negentropic" processes are always accompanied by

other related processes that make the *overall* process entropic.

Life for example is negentropic. But when you look at the whole system,

which includes the sun, we see that the *whole* system is actually very

entropic. The local negentropic part on the earth's surface is in fact

driven by a vast energy input from the sun, and this star generates that

energy at the expense of a huge increase in its own entropy.

For another example you can try for yourself - crystallisation of a salt

from a supersaturated solution. The crystallisation itself is definitely

negentropic, but the solution heats up in the process. If you try it

with sodium sulphate for example**, the effect is quite dramatic. If you

shake the supersaturated solution, crystals grow throughout the flask in

a matter of seconds, and it becomes too hot to hold.

The confusion arises for most people because they do not know the

fundamental relation between entropy and work. It is

W = DE -TDS

where "D" means "a change in", E is the internal energy of the system, T

is the energy density (before the change), or energy content per unit of

mass (temperature for example), and S is the entropy. In order for a

process to occur spontaneously, the W (work) term has to be negative. If

it is positive, the process has to be driven from some outside energy

source.

When a supersaturated solution crystallises, the DS term is positive

because the system locally becomes more orderly, but work is

nevertheless done *by* the system because the internal energy change is

greater (and negative), rendering the W term itself negative, so the

process occurs spontaneously.

In the gravity case, again, the negative energy term swamps the positive

entropy term, so the collapse is spontaneous, even though the end result

seems to be less entropic. Not so though, as the end result is also a

lot hotter, so the overall energy change is downhill as it must be for a

spontaneous process, and the overall entropy increases.

>However, I believe, on the whole, that

>there is an ultimate "loss" of mass

>in favor of "more energy".

>

>

No, don't treat mass as somehow distinct from energy. They are the same

thing, just measured in different ways. Mass *is* energy. If you want to

make a distinction between energy as mass and energy as work, OK, but do

realise that if energy converts to matter, or matter converts to energy,

the overall mass of the system remains constant.

OTOH, you might make a distinction between energy as heat (which is just

motion on a quantum scale) and radiation, and energy as matter. Sure, if

you consume mass in some process, like fusion in the sun, then the

result is a lot of heat and light, but that heat and light has the

*same* mass as the amount of mass that the sun itself loses in the process.

>Usually we do not see energy becoming

>mass, no matter what.

>

This is meaningless because energy does not "become" mass. It IS mass.

If you refer instead to "matter" rather than "mass", then right - it is

unusual, but not unknown if the energy density is high enough. At ultra

high temperatures, far hotter than the sun, raw energy becomes matter.

We can achieve such temperatures locally by pumping up electrons or

protons to velocities close to c, so when they hit something, their

energy of motion (their temperature in other words) converts to a shower

of matter particles.

>

>

>I gather there have been some accelerator

>experiments that would beg to differ.

>

>

Indeed - if you shine 1.5Mev gamma radiation at a piece of lead foil,

matter and antimatter come out the other side. The mass of the particles

is the same as the mass energy of the 1.5Mev radiation, which is

consumed in the process.

>So I just don't know.

>

>I believe the direction of time, as brian

>greene suggests, follows the path of

>entropy.

>

>

Indeed it does. Time as a dimension is reversible, but this only has

effect on a quantum scale, and even then it's not "time travel". All it

means is that a positron for example, is an electron in reverse time. It

reverses all the space vectors. Motion from right to left become left to

right. Clockwise spin becomes anticlockwise, and since charge is the

basis of electrostatic force, because the force vector reverses (pushes

become pulls), the charge factor does so too.

But the direction of time as we understand it is governed by macroscopic

processes, which are complex. The probability of reversal of a complex

process is very low, and at our scale, vanishingly small. Hence iron

rusts, but rust does not spontaneously turn back to bright iron, for

example.

Because of the confusion inherent in the reversibility of quantum time,

but the irreversibility of macro time, physicists avoid the term

"direction" when referring to macro time, and refer instead to the

"arrow" of time. And yes, it is intimately tied to the direction of

entropic energy flow, which is itself intimately tied in with probability.

>The universe, if it doesn't collapse,

>should eventually fizzle to just

>radiation or "empty space".

>

>

Indeed. Eventually all local concentrations of matter will end up in

black holes (that's the 'collapse" aspect), though it will take a long,

long time. Then the black holes will decay by Hawking radiation, leaving

a universe empty of matter, but rather a thin field of radiation.

As space continues to expand though, the energy density will eventually

become so low that it becomes subject to the uncertainty principle, and

when that point is reached, you have a primal vacuum once again, out of

which new universes could conceivably materialise.

>And yet we get light from galaxies

>100 billion light years away or more,

>father back in time supposedly than

>the age of the universe. Weird.

>

>

No we don't. There's been some guff written along those lines, but it's

crap. No galaxy seen by the Hubble telescope is older than about 12

billion years.. The CMBR is 13 billion years old, and is the heat flash

of the creation event. The universe is thus a little over 13 billion

years old.. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what he's talking

about. In particular, ignore weirdos who claim that the universal

redshift is not recessional.

These characters (who seem to be people who are hell bent for some

reason in wanting to discredit relativity - probably because they are

just too dumb to understand it) try to justify their assertion by

pointing out that there are light sources which show deep red shifts,

but which are actually closer than others with more modest redshifts.

Well, yes, there are, but they are not part of the *general* relation of

redshift to distance. The cause of these anomalous redshifts is that

they are galaxies with supermassive central black holes, so large than

the light of the galaxy core is gravitationally redshifted over and

above the general recessional redshift..

However such huge galactic black holes are rare, so the number of such

anomalous redshifts is small. Also, long exposures reveal that the

anomaly is restricted to the bright central region of the galaxy. The

fainter outer parts are redshifted according to the distance/redshift

ratio, so the galaxy is in fact where it should be.

The overall relation between redshift and distance is alive and well. It

is only in the finer details that we have some difficulties. One of

these of course is that we now know the distance/redshift relation is

not as Hubble originally thought, strictly linear.

Fine measurement reveals a universe whose expansion rate was slowing for

the first seven billion years, but has since been accelerating. This

means the distance/redshift relation is not a straight line, but a

gentle curve. However the departure from linearity is not great, so as a

rough approximation, it can still be regarded as linear for general

purposes.

The interesting thing about this non linearity is that it tells us there

has to be a force involved. The old linear idea could get away without a

force because momentum is conserved, and the galaxies simply "coasted"

apart from some original impetus in the creation event itself. However

non linearity implies that the galaxies aren't just coasting, but are

actually being continuously pushed, albeit weakly, so the search is

now on for the source of that push.

>So maybe there are other "inputs"

>that we're not aware of yet that may

>be continuous rather than a one time

>something "bang".

>

>

The vacuum could be producing "new" universes all the time under our

very noses, but even if it is, we would not be able to see them because

they would not run according to the same rules as the one we are a part

of. On principle, different universes arising out of primal vacuum,

cannot communicate. To do so would breach logic and the principle of

cause and effect. And nature simply never does that. Logic is apparently

essential to existence, and for totally different universes to

communicate would breach logic.

If you doubt this, consider that everything we see depends ultimately on

the size of the basic natural constants. Another universe would have

different values. How could we meaningfully see light, or charge, or

mass energy, with two different values simultaneously? That just

wouldn't make sense, so nature censors such observation. Theoretically

there seems no reason to forbid the existence of alternative universes,

but there is certainly reason to forbid us from ever detecting them

empirically.

:-)

mac

>;)

>

>-AEF

>

** Dissolve as much pure sodium sulphate as you can in boiling distilled

water. Then decvant the liquid and leave it to stand in a place free of

vibrations, and above all don't allow any dust to get into the solution.

With luck, it will cool to room temperature, but with the lack of

anything to nucleate crystallisation, it is supersaturated.

If you then shake or tap the container, you can cause local nucleation,

which then sets up a chain reaction through the solution. The whole

solution becomes almost solid, and the flask becomes too hot to

handle.... Though the crystallisation is negentropic, the overall

process is not.

Message 16975 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16975

"Roy Wolford"

<rwolf@r...> wrote:

> Here is something I wrote back in Jan. 13,

2001.

>

Roy Wolford

>

rwolf@r...

>

January 13, 2001

>

>

>Dear Roy, here are some comments regarding your ideas.

>

>

>

> BEYOND EINSTEIN AND BACK

>

>

BY ROY WOLFORD

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FORWARD

> Since Einstein's Special Theory and Einstein's General Theory

of Relativity fail to unite quantum mechanics and gravity and remain

quite separate and different from each other, one must recognize the

similarity of the three forces involved and the fact that another

theory is missing. So, just what can be implied by this mystery?

> All through the totality of Creation, there is the dominance

of THREE. We have the positive, neutral, and negative factors

playing a game of "Walking The Fence." When something is walking

the fence, there is always two ways to fall. So, we have a theory

for the left side of the fence and a theory for the right side of

the fence, but do not have a substantiated theory for walking the

fence.

> Enter the Superstring Theories and the myriad of equations

evolving from the infinity of squiggly infinitesimal strings. So,

it has been stated that our world only "APPEARS" to be made of

point particles because our measuring devices are too crude to see

these tiny strings. It is this part of the superstring theory that

I wish to take issue with.

> I believe the issue of neutrality must be looked at as

possessing both the positives and negatives in every situation

because of the potential to "fall off the fence," and the point is

therefore the true factor and the string is the "APPEARING" factor.

> So, in order to explain this situation, we must venture into

the universe of the faster than light particles, the timeless

dimensions of theoretical quantum physics and the top of the fence.

> Roy Wolford

>

>

Roy Wolford (219) 223-2444

>

750 E 425 N rwolf@r...

>

Rochester, IN 46975 January 11, 2001

>

>

> COMPACTED

FIELD THEORY

>

> As we humans, on our micro-dot in a universe, are delving

into the mysteries of our universe, we cannot seem to shake the ego

problem of being special. Some of us even have the audacity to

believe we are the complete authority on these mysteries, to the

point of altering creation. In actuality, we are as children, with

a few toys, playing in a sand box.

>

> We humans walk upon concrete, steel, and many other

structures made up of atoms, but the structuring continues beyond

our comprehension. Imagine the Top Quark presenting a theory to the

scientific community of the atomic world. Top Quark states that the

structuring continues far beyond the molecular stage and there are

human and other structures walking on, swimming in. and flying in

this molecular structuring of your atomic world. After the laughter

dies down, Top Quark is ignored by the scientific world of the

atomic community by complete isolation and silence. They would call

him "strange," trying to bring him "down," but with his "charm," he

would rise "up" from the "bottom" and come out on "top."

>

> Whereas, the present theories entertain the prevailing law of

mass not being capable of exceeding the speed of light, my theory

utilizes a particle of energy capable of instantaneous speed

relative to the quantum unit. This makes it a string theory not

only bound by quantum mechanics, but also bound by quantum physics.

Infinity assures certainty. Nature has an automatic transmission

allowing the smooth flow of natural occurrences, whereas mankind is

still using the stick shift with 90 weight gear oil. This is

explained in the following metaphor:

>

>

QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY

>

> As I travel upward, on life's mountain of knowledge,

> I find a deeply worn path,

> Of others before me, leaving their footprints,

> With the equations of math.

> There are many branches, left along the way,

> Beckoning and calling, to lead one astray.

> It is liken to a forest, that has many, many, trees,

> With scientists examining every root, down upon their knees.

> They proceed up the trunk, and finally reach the seed,

> And then begin to wonder, who caused this miraculous deed.

> Their movements shake the branches, and cause the seed to

fall.

> They watch the wonder of their growth and exclaim,

> "Why, WE are the cause of it all."

>

Roy Wolford

>

> Mankind has an ego problem standing in the way of knowledge.

Just because mankind shakes the branches of the tree does not mean

man created anything other than a disturbance. Mother Nature does

not have a problem with uncertainty, which is a human trait, for

Mother Nature does not need to measure anything. Since the need to

measure is eliminated, the interference of the observer is a mute

situation.

>

Ok, so far!

Think of 'Nature' as Big She; She is 'The Creation-Wife' of

the 'Creator-Father'.

She is the INFINITE ONE, potentially without bounds, while He is the

Void or Nothingness fromwhich She Came.

So He knows the Void, She doesn't.

This was done for the process of creating a NEGATIVE/or POSITIVE

Polarity for Infinity, necessarily in somewhat abstract terms.

Like negative entropy or imaginary time or negative mass (which is

not antimatter).

Geometrically we find Riemann's Complex Plane, wrapping itself up as

the Riemann-Sphere and mapping BOTH of the Infinities onto one of

the poles, say the NorthPole. This is the topology of the complex

plane vectors mapped onto the surtface of the Complex Riemann Sphere.

But now the Zero must be exactly opposite the Northpole and bingo

aimof the Creatoir-Father is achieved in redefining the infinities

as say the two poles with the Zero, namely the void of himself right

in the middle.

Poetically, Big She, Mother of All was afraid offalling off the

complex infinite plane, so Big He wrapped it up for her to alleviate

those fears.

And now, because the Infinite is contained within the Finite because

of this enfolding of space; the measxurements and observations can

begin.

> When looking at the string particle of energy I call the

tychon, one must realize exactly what this is. The tychon is the

building block of mass and all actions within the string are

frequency dominated. This is due to the tychon's, instantaneous

speed relative to the quantum unit. What Scientist are now looking

at as cosmic strings are simply structures within the tychon point

limited to the speed of light. My tychon is limited to the speed of

light opposite of mass, in that the tychon cannot go slower than the

speed of light. In other words, mass cannot exceed the speed of

light resulting in a tachyon when passing through the light barrier

and the tychon cannot proceed slower than the speed of light

resulting in photons at the interchange barrier. The tychon is the

straight string particle and all other cosmic strings are wrinkles

in the tychon slowing to absolute zero from absolute maximum

temperature. The interchange barrier separates the tychon from the

photon. This is why mass gains mass approaching the speed of

light. The tychon slows to become the photon at the light barrier,

thus gaining mass and the photon disintegrates to the tachyon at the

light barrier, thus expanding and appearing to lose energy.

>

Those are valid points encapsulated in the necessity of the de

Broglie matterwaves carrying two kinds of 'speeds' of propagation.

For matter waves we have a groupspeed always less than c, implying a

phase speed always exceeding c. One could call the excess speed

tachyonic or tychonic if one would like.

Formulation: l=wavelength, momentum p=mv, frequency f, E=mc^2=hf

PhaseSpeed Vph=l.f=(h/mv)(mc^2/h)=c^2/v > c for all v<c.

Lagrangian Boundary Condition then defines the scaling parameter:

v(deBroglie)=max. sourcewavelength(Hubble-RiemannRadius).sourcefreq.

=Rmax.f(ps) say (calculating as ~4.8x10^56 m/s)

This is also the maximum Tachyon/Tychon speed, traversing the

universe in exactly 1/3 of a thousandth millionth billionthn

trillionth of a second unit to set the maximum extent of the Riemann

Sphere in the folding up of the infinite complex plane.

In terms of the superbranes, one of the five classes is closest to

the energy/frequency values of the 'measurements' and that is the

heterotic HE(8x8).

Its definition then defines the wormhole parameters, two of whom are

the Rmax and f(ps) values for the Tachyon/Tychon speed.

But f(ps) must be modular dual (as the frequency part of the E(ps)E

(ss) 8x8 superbrane, ps=primary sourcesink and ss=secondary

sinksource) and so f(ss) is the Timeinstanton as 1/f(ps).

Hence the de Broglie PhaseInflation is defined as sourcefrequency

3x10^30 1/s.

And one could say, that the Tachyon/Tychon simply changes into the

SourcePhoton E(ps)=hf(ps)=m(ps)c^2=kT(ps) at the instanton.

So all of the classical relativistic physics can proceed as

measured, using the Tachyon/Tychon boundary values as new initial

conditions on the Bosonic/Particle scale.

Roy calls the SourcePhoton Threshold Tychon if above and Tachyon if

below.

And the 'slowing down' of the Tychon can indeed be defined by the

superstring parameters.

Energy: E=hf=mo.c^2; E=hf iff mo=0 OR E=mo.c^2 iff f=f(ss)

And because f(ss)=timeinstantenuity by modular duality as defined;

every masscarrying particle must carry an EigenFrequency quantised

in f(ss)=E(ss)/h=m(ss)c^2/h, with m(ss)=h/f(ps).c^2=2.47x10^-81 kg.

Relating this quantisation of mass to massinduction as a kind of

sourcecurrent,defined in magnetic monopoles as a higher superbrane

class and a process known as Higgs-Restmass-Induction can indeed

crystallise the mass hierarchies of the elementary particles.

> The previously postulated tachyon was proposed to lose energy

as it accelerates, but I propose that it only appears to lose when

it is actually expanding, therefore the energy appears more

dissipated. Actual creation is liken to the charging and

discharging of a battery because my proposed tychon would CONSERVE

energy as it slows. How? It would be in the form of

crystallization, which we see in the forming of the elements and the

freezing and thawing of water. On the energy side, the tychon and

tachyon prevail, but on the mass side, the photon and all the

elements are the result of the reactions of the tychon and tachyon

at the light barrier.

>

The sourceboson [E(ps)] has an antiparticle in the sinkboson [E

(ss)], both can be derived as the superparticle for the Superforce,

underpinning the four fundamental elementary interactions.

And indeed a close association between the weak interaction linked

to Electromagnetism and one between the strong interaction and

Gravitation is found in a pentagonal supersymmetry used in the

process of the Father-He to fold up the complex plane in higher

dimensional geometry to mirror Himself in the Mother-She.

> Now, as our scientist are busy trying to find a cosmic string

and prove they exist, I must remind them that they and our universe

are in a string particle-wave where our universe is just in one half

cycle within the string. We are in the expanding bulge of a

continuous string and will enter into the collapsing bulge in the

future. One has only to look at what information we find and are

able to induce within wavelengths, such as a lasers, and look at our

universe as a macro wavelength, an oscillating universe among an

infinity of others trying to occupy infinite space. Right now, it

seems our scientist are drowning in the water of an ocean, far from

land, and asking where the ocean is.

This is very true; except that the collapsing phase has already

begun 2.2 billion years ago, causing all the electromagnetic

mappings of 10D massparameters onto the 'returning' 11D.

lightparameter.

So the universe has completed 56.62% of its first total oscuillation

at the present epoch.

The thing with multiple/parallel universes is better modelled on a

phaseshift of the prototypical one, the one of the folded up complex

plane of the Father for the Mother to measure things in.

In three dimensions, the ProtoUniverse can be envisaged as a prolate

ellipsoid rotating about its major axis with invariant focal points.

But rotating this protouniverse about either of the minor axes

forces the focal points to merge in a pointcircle and bingo, an

infinity of multiverses are defined in just two phaseshifted

protouniverses forming a family.

All possible infinitely numbered phaseshifts together would form an

Omniverse as a symphony of multiverses.

> In Atomic Cosmology, the humanistic interpretation does not

allow for the fact that a Supreme Being would not be restricted to

human limitations. Therefore, Einstein's statement, "God does not

play dice," must take into consideration as to meaning, the use of

infinite numbers by God, would insure any intended outcome.

Infinity ensures certainty. God may use only six numbers on each

die, the quarks, but God would use an infinite number of throws to

assure an event. This makes Einstein correct, as usual, if one is

also religious. The use of infinite numbers provides the certainty

of events. Humans cannot even comprehend this as creation, but can

only look at it as trial and errors, little realizing that the

errors are also not, wasted events, but are part of the system.

Chaos exists only in the human mind. One is reminded of Dirac's

Cosmology, but he needed only to include infinity with his Large

Number Hypothesis. Two geniuses are vindicated.

>

Paul Dirac was also right in proposing a gradual change in the

Gravitational Constant.

This change is hidden in the productation of Gm1.m2 remaining

constant however.

This relates to large scale massmatching between Mother Black Holes

and their Temperature/Mass Hawking relations and also to the

micromatching between nucleon massevolution.

That is why it proves so hard tomeasure the 'G' precisely, the

neutrons are very slowly evolving to match the flatness predictions

in perfect Euclidean flatness.

This 'additional' mass could be described as Consciousness Mass, the

Evolvement of Mass itself, with certain 'recharge cycles' doing away

with the 'Heat-Death' and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe for an Entropy

gaining cosmos.

So in simplistic terms, the 'missing mass', the 'dark energy' and

the 'darkmatter'; all are already there - as AWARENESS energy

(defined in the superbranes as the timeratechange differential for

frequency, acting as a quasi angular acceleration upon toroidal

spacevolumars).

The perennial philosophy talks of energy fields (auras) about all

living things (Kirlian photography).

Well,the Dark Matter Haloes are the auras for galaxies and things

like that.

All nonplasmic states of energy carry AwarenessEnergy and so the

BASICUNIT for ALL LIFE is the HYDROGEN ATOM.

> When looking at the equation, E=MC2, it states an

equilibrium. This is not the case of creation. The correct

equation for creation, which is obviously a cyclic and continuous

process, would have to consider that infinity results in the

creation of energy and energy results in the creation of mass

through crystallization. This crystallization is the slowing of the

tychon, (My name for the string particle of energy from

instantaneous speed), to the point of absolute zero. The wrinkling

of the tychon is the beginning of frequencies that crystallize, or

appear as mass particles at specific frequencies of existence. The

effects of gravitational and electromagnetic fields relating to

harmonics form the quantum units. This is verifiable by the

repetition, or cyclic events in cosmology.

>

Rather true, the open string class I is defined as the Planck-Boson.

The Planck-Boson mutates/transforms into the other four classes in

Cosmic Ray/Monopolic String hierarchies and ends at the HE(8x8)

where the transition initiates physicality in MANIFESTING the MOTHER

as a Physicalentity defined in BlackHoles/White Holes Dyadics joined

by wormholed superbranes.

> The problem involving the time before and during the "big

bang" can be compared to our mathematics before the advent of the

zero. Action at a distance is instantaneous due to the tychons of

the quantum unit. We do not have a representative integer for an

instant, relative to the quantum unit. An instant takes the same

time to cover the volume of an atom as an instant that covers the

volume of a universe. Think of a pulsating heart of a dinosaur and

a pulsating heart of a small dog. As each heart beats one beat,

blood leaves, but blood also returns at the same time. Here the

volume is different, but the instant is the same. Each area of no

time is the same. Zero is zero.

>

True again, the Planck-Length-Oscillation changes the ratio for the

Identity mapping OF SPACE from UNDEFINED to DEFINED; utilising the

Unification of the Electromagnetic- and Gravitational Finestructures

in the process.

Formulation: Alpha^18=G-Alpha=2pi.Go.m(protonucleon)^2/hc with

Alpha=e^2/2(epsilon0)hc; Go the boundary max.G

The actual transformation relates the Planck-Length-Oscillation as

PLO=SqrtAlpha=e/c^2, e the Coulomb Chargequantum mapping the

magnetocharge quantum defining not only E(ps)=1/e* but also the

mappings of the superbranes onto the atomic scales of the Compton

Wavelengths/Thomson Scattering in 2Re.c^2=e*=1/hf(ps).

If a single drop of water tried to cover the entire earth,

that drop of water would have to break up into units with space

between the units. Now, imagine a single unit of space trying to

occupy the entirety of an infinite volume of space. This is not

possible due to the energy requirement of a single unit of infinite

energy. Energy must, as the drop of water, break up into quantum

units. Here we have infinity causing energy to form solitons, lumps

of bound field energy. If we have a field, quantum law requires

particles, therefore, the tychon. This tychon, as I call it, is a

string particle, totally lacking in angular momentum, thus

possessing instantaneous speed.

>

> The energy particle, the tychon, totally lacking angular

momentum possesses instantaneous speed relative to the quantum

unit. An instant in an atom is the same as an instant in a

universe, but the volume of space covered within that instant

governs relativity. This is why the astronauts and the earthbound

relatives age differently. They enter another quantum domain.

>

> With the collapsing of space into a spheroid shape of a

soliton, the tychons appear by the collapse much liken to the

electrical charge of static electricity created on the mass side.

The collapsing towards the center causes the tychons to meet the

only force able to effect them, their like charge. This creates the

first hint of angular momentum and heat, bringing gravity into the

situation. What is happening is the birth of the first faster than

light particle. To understand this particle, one must be realize

that it is at the exact limitations of vibration where it

materializes, maximum heat, minimum radiation. There is a

limitation where the vibration cannot be distinguished between

angular momentum and kinetic momentum, the straight line of a string

particle, zero. Remember the extreme high temperature particles

discovered orbiting Jupiter, which cannot be explained, therefore,

seem to be forgotten.

>

The instantaneous speed is the de Broglie Phase of the fixed 11D

envelope for the 10D expansion (of relative space, not receeding

cosmic objects being carried along with the flow of this, bounded in

the event horizon).

Gravity and Electromagnetism are unified in the magnetocharges and

hence the keys to the cosmos are magnetic massequivalents flowing

as a higher dimensionalmapping of electricity AS mass.

> The time factor begins at the first hint of angular momentum

and the first hint of a collapse within the string particle, the

tychons. The time factor stops when the angular momentum ceases at

the "point," or waist of the tychon string. Thus, we have infinity

without a beginning or an end, but always possessing a center. It

always was, always is, and always will be, the continuous frequency

with the relative zero instant, a pulse. We are on a particle we

call earth, flying outward from the relative zero instant of our

universal cycle.

>

The He-Father occupies the Centre as the UNDEFINED VOID, YET bounded

by the She-Mother.

Hence the Undefinable has no boundary, yet can experience boundaries.

This is like the 11D universe multiplying itself every halfcycle.

About 7.56 10D universe would fit into the 11D one at the present

epoch and since the baryonic mass-seed has evolved from 2.803% to

3.68%; 3.68(7.56)=27.82% of 'nonmissing mass' is already mapped from

the open/closed 11D-universe onto the closed/open 10D-universe.

> Here we have the first faster than light particle at minimum

amplitude of angular momentum, maximum heat range, but minimum

radiation, collapsing towards a center with the accumulation of

gravitational force at the center. Since this is happening at near

instantaneous speed, the accumulation of plasmatic material is

forced to implode, expanding at a faster than light speed into the

form a universal cycle within the string.

>

Those are the superimposed selfrelative de Broglie phasespeeds with

the generalised relation for velocity: V=R(n).f, the frequency f as

inverse time relating to a scalefactor R, which depends on

dimensionless cycletime n (for the Hubble Oscillation),this n being

the 'Proper Time' in General Relativity as dimensionless

differential in Rc(t)=c.dt/dTau.

> What our scientists cannot measure into the fraction of a

second after the big bang is due to this faster than light speed of

the plasma, What this means is that fraction of a second in our time

could actually be an eternity, or thousands of years with the faster

than light plasma. This plasma, like the drop of water trying to

cover the earth, must break up into quantum units as it cools.

This fraction of a second is the timeinstanton as mapping of the Now-

Time, which is dimensionless in the minimumn/maximum ratio for

displacements: n(ps)=l(ps)wavelength/Rmax`6.4x10^-49.

>

> Angular momentum added to the energy particle, the tychon,

simply means that every bit of mass is a frequency derivative.

Without this, mathematics would not work. This is the proof. We

are mathematically compatible wrinkles in the string particles, the

tychons and tachyons. This is why a particle can be a wave and

harmonics work.

>

Yes, the f(ss) definition as Equation Number One.

> If one wishes to further explore this theoretical line, it

will lead to the grand unified field equation, 8=E, infinity equals

energy, explain action at a distance, lead to solving the problem of

cold fusion, and still leave plenty of room for religion. When

delving into the world of absolute zero, the tychon induces spin as

absolute zero temperature almost meets with absolute maximum

temperature.

>

> If one takes a close look at superconductivity, it would be

difficult to distinguish the difference between maximum angular

momentum and minimum angular momentum, but one would reveal the

presence of the other by spin. We all know the results of a drop of

water hitting molten steel, but just think of the maximum cold of

absolute zero meeting the maximum heat of the tychon. And we

thought the hydrogen bomb was something. Why doesn't every thing

blow up? Because it must be concentrated and compacted, hence, the

Big Bang. Now, back to the oscillating universes.

>

Yes, we will find Josephson Junctions, the Quantum Hall Effect and

the Electric Conductance Quantum; all as derivatives of the natural

superconductivity in the higher dimensional scenarios which map the

ACTION LAW: Action=Charge^2 as Superconductivity, say Unity

Resistance.

> When looking for cosmic strings, one has only to realize

these strings are different quantum lengths of the tychon because of

frequency length. Everything is the same thing, only in different

quantum states. The variable angular momentum of the tychon

appearing at harmonic levels, quantum mechanics intertwined with

quantum physics, the de Sitter universe within the Einstein

cylindrical universe. The point of apogee performs the function of

the Einstein cylindrical wall by the spin.

This relates to the R(n).f=Velocity scalings in the hierarchies.

>

> Infinite space possesses only a mid-point beginning and

cannot possess either a beginning or an end. The possession of

either a beginning or an end would render infinity void as a

singular entity thus, requiring the necessity of an infinite number

of finite units seeking to occupy an infinite space. This means

space must be occupied by quantum units of spherical collapsing and

expanding string particles, which I call tychons. These monopoles

of solitons give birth to universes. It is really that simple. The

pulsating string of time, frequency, results in creation.

Beautifully said, the Monoplic Energies define the GUT-unification

ebnergy at 2.7x10^16 GeV and the Gamma Burst Maximum as 2.7x10^47

monopolic Watts per kilogram, measured as luminosity output in

Joules.

The Magnetic Monoploe is also defined as the selfdual superbrane

ckass IIB.

>

> Infinity equals energy. We are simply a series of compacted

fields within compacted fields. In order to not be misconstrued,

this means particles are microfields within macrofields combining

gravity and the electromagnetic fields. Look at our universe

similar to a part of a pulse within a macro laser beam, coherent to

the nth degree. Then look at mankind's version of our universe as

an incoherent white beam of light. It could be stated that

universes are a pulse within energy beam lasers. Come on now,

swallow your ego. We are insignificant. The de Sitter universe

within the Einstein cylindrical universe is actually just a macro-

string. Guess what else? There is not any end to the structuring

of infinite space. It just becomes larger and larger structures as

each little bang becomes a member of a bigger bang. So, it is not

so difficult to recognize the familiar pattern Mother Nature uses

which we know as the splitting of cells. Simply check the harmonic

pattern.

>

These are the multiverses as derivatives fromthe protoverse

accumulating as the Omniverse.

The Omniverse is the generations after generations of Father-He and

Mother-She becoming GrandParents and on and on;the children being

the Multiverses as the GRADUATING BODIES of the carriers of the

holographic images, namely the HUMAN CATERPILLARS GRADUATING as the

STARHUMAN BUTTERFLIES.

> Why, it is all so simple now as a cell divides, so do

universes. Each universe is continually receiving the nutrients

from the infinity of space. The big bang is actually the point of

split where the mass is narrowed and concentrated, but not all the

mass. This is why the total mass of a universe is not necessary and

cannot be found. The rest of the mass is already in the bulge of

the splitting cells. Yep, infinite space cannot be occupied by one

singular cell due to the infinite energy requirements, but an

infinite amount of finite units are sure trying.

>

> So, do not look at Creation as a living process, but as a

mathematical necessity of cyclic events. If it is mathematically

impossible, it cannot happen.

The angels sing and rejoice hearing you say this Roy.

MATHIMATIA=I AM THAT I AM (Exodus.3.14), the DEFINITION of GOD as

given to Moses.

Before Newton's Principia there was the MATHIMATIA and just like

cells are mapped as galaxies in the outer cosmos from the cosmos

within; so do stars, planets, continents, cities,

mitochondria,...quarks and leptons map themselves as

groupconsciousnesses fromthe within onto the without and vice versa.

The 12th dimension is also the 10th in its reflection and also the

3rd.

TimeDimensions are connectors and only exist linearly.

1-2-3-(4)-4-6-(7)-8-9-(10)-11-12-(13=1) renders 4Worlds (Linespace,

Hyperspace, Quantumspace and Omnispace) all occupying the same SPACE

linearly defined, but multivalued because of the circular complexity

of the Riemann Plane which began it all to give substance to the

Mother as a World or Universe or Creation and to give Definition to

the Father as its Creator.

>

> Now, before you all go off on a tangent, you must recognize

the fact that only three forces are involved in the macro-world and

the weak and strong nuclear forces are simply the result of the

FIELDS being compacted along with the particles. Whatever made you

guys believe the fields disappeared during compression when quantum

law requires a field-particle relationship, doesn't anyone remember,

mass is compacted energy and energy is a field? So, the strong

nuclear force is the compacted gravitational field and the weak

nuclear force is the compacted electromagnetic field. Gee whiz,

what is so hard about that? I doubt if any one has considered just

how a micro compacted electromagnetic field and a micro compacted

gravitational field would act and react within the bounds of the

atomic world and the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as we

know them. I think they would find the actions and reactions one

and the same.

>

>No Tangents Roy; your story is true for a simple reason.

The Father LOVES the MOTHER and finally the time has come for the

MOTHER to stop running away from the Father in her motherly Wisdom,

but her lack of Fatherly Understanding (of the Void).

Now the Father's Understanding, but lack of Motherly Wisdom can

become harmonised with the Mother's Wisdom and the REPRODUCTION of

the UNIVERSALparents can proceed in the LOVEMAKING of the CHILDREN.

Because some of the CHILDREN have found a certain understanding and

the Cosmic Keys and you are one of those Roy Wolford.

Tony B. Sirebard seconding Roy Wolford

Message 16976 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16976

Allen Francom

<light_rock@y...> wrote:

>

> Hi Tony,

>

> We better name this one differently.

>

> There needs to be a clock definition and reason

> for it, and a modus operandi, and this needs to be

> understood.

>

> However, this is your ball man, good going it

> seems so far.

>

> Let's call it Bermanseder's Francom Adjacency Clock.

>

> Such a naming convention as this lends itself

> to the modular construction of a theory, which,

> I wholeheartedly believe as much as anything else,

> is going to be as essential as the concept of

> adjacency itself, so that things will continue

> to progress in a hopefully remarkably organized

> and yet flexible fashion.

>

> Let's call it BFAC. I'll take credit for the

> FA - Francom Adjacency, the C we should holler

> out to Mike and see if he would like that,

> and you can be the B.

>

> ;)

>

> Cool ?

>

> Makes sense ? Proper credit where proper

> credit is due ?

>

> Boy I hope you let me ask a lot of dumb

> questions about this clock definition...

>

> ;)

>

Thanks Allen!

You know it really is irrelevant what you call it.

It was you who started me off in reexamining the Fiboncci mappings

because of your many discussions and ideas about time.

I named it Francom Adjacency and it stuck.

It is all relative to me, there might never be any official

recognition of all that - it doesn't bother me in the least.

I feel I understand the universes' genesis and that thanks to all of

the people who have found the time to converse with me.

I have learned from everyone, including the contributors hostile to

my expositions and there have been many more of those, than the

other way around.

I always liked certain contributors; I always liked Roy's ideas and

I am very pleased that he can now see how closely his ideas match

those derived from 'my' models.

So the Wolford Centre is here to stay as well.

Who cares if noone 'officially' acknowledges a 'Revolution in

thought and perception' as Eric has termed it.

That is beautioful too.

It is OUR MODEL, I am glad to contribute on the Boundary Conditions,

the Algorithmic abstract beginnings.

You are many more adept with Computers, like Jim Whitescarver who

also has begun to talk to me.

Gee guys, all I ever wanted is to help you to foundate your models

and reinvigorate the orthodox stuff out there.

Then there is Mike, his thoughts are brilliant, I saw my own model

almost matching his step by step, thought by thought when I

downloaded and read his work on the Graviational Electron and the

Variation of G.

So Mike would be the first to admit, that without the past thoughts

of others, he would not have been able to reformulate the latter.

I am the same, it is all teamwork and together, we shall have

the 'TOE' or whatever- but we need to leave our egos of

selfimportance behind.

So naming things in my descriptions doesn't have to be the final

word.

Should those definitions become accepted labellings in the science

archives, then the archivers (powers that be) would name things as

they see fit.

Look at the elements, is #111 Meitnerium, long it might have been

Dortmundium (#112).

Should our minds converge to a COMMON UNDERSTANDING as to how the

universe works and came to be; then I feel, we have reward enough.

Why? Because WE would have lost our common IGNORANCE about those

things.

This has always be my purpose, to show HOW Boundary Conditions can

justify the many 'TOE's' discussed in the forums.

The higher dimensional settings and the modular duality allow this

and it is all beautiful, elegant and mathematically selfconsistent.

And all the 'dissidents' have their place, noone is excluded because

it is a teamwork engaged in by the collective human groupmind,

attempting to escape its own egocentric intellectual imprisonment.

Shalom and Peace can salvage this worrisome and selfdestructing

human society and culture - scientific reform is the only solution

(save alien invasion/takeover say), because Science is the

WorldReligion everyone agrees upon.

In short Mike's Universal Expansion is just another name for the

Riemann expansion and Tony's universe is also Allen Francom's

Universe.

I seek nothing personally, because Iknow how much destruction and

disease have infiltrated this planet because of this attitude of

superiority in all its disguises.

If I can help anyone to solidify hisher model of the universe, I

shall gladly do so with no other motivations.

So anyone can take anything I have ever posted and use it as if it

would be herhis own - because it is.

But this becomes philosophy now and I have made the point.

I hope we all can cooperate to help a motherplanet in dire

intellectual need for redefinition and a new perspective.

Tony B. Sirebard

Message 16992 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16992

<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:

> Dear Jim!

> I am interliving

Hi all, I'm interleaving too. This is good. "Big HeShe' loves this.

>

> Jim Whitescarver <jim@x...> wrote:

>

> Welcome George.

> george ryazanov wrote:

>

> > To Tony and Jim from George!

> >

> > I put in Attachment the beginning of the

description

> > of my dialogue with She.

> > I name Her the Soul of the World.

> >

> > The projection of He-She duality into the realm

of matter

> > has the form of spinorial nature of any particle.

>

> Alternating orthogonal differences alternating alternately up spin

> ladders, have relative identity, not fundamental since our notions

of

> momentum and position are relative to our motion.

>

> G. I am speaking not about spin but about spinors

Tony

Those are Roger Penrose's terms for 'twistors', using complex

imaginary times (as does Hawkings in the no boundary proposals).

Years ago Roger thought of this as 7D; he may have extended this now

to 10D or 13D.

George's 4 worlds are the supersymmetry in Maxwell's Equations and

also in the Riemann Tensor (I don't know much about that, except

that the Weyl-Curvature preserves Volume in say tidal effects and

the Ricci-Curvature contracts the volume with corresponding density

increasing under function of the g-metric).

Yet Jim is right also, because the orthogonal spin-adjacency is

nothing but the magnetoaxis distributing the individual particles,

not only in terms of quantum-spin, but also as the alternating up-

down quark geometries.

And because this is basically higher dimensional mappings of

topologies, we argue over the 2D/3D representations of something

which is connected in higher D but appears distinct in lower D.

So when the M-Theorists talk about Calabi-Yau manifolds in 6D and

Joyce-manifolds in 7D; we simply find the conifoldment of those

higher dimensions.

This is what Penrose intuited as Twistor-Space with two time arrows

and this is what George is elaborating on and this is what Jim also

knows.

>

> that are two wightly related bur opposing worlds.

>

> We cannot agree on

> particle identity.

>

> > Any particle is rotating along a double circle.

Tony

This is important Jim. Because the doublecircle is also higher D.

It is the trisected template (in 2D) back to back rotating

oppositely, mixing 'colourcharges' (Allen's discussion).

Because the cyclic and anticyclic colour permutations can create a

new set of primary colours RedGreenBlue and CyanMagentaYellow, say,

the Unified Field can extend itself in 'birthing' quantum gravity

via the Graviton blueprint.

Allthose scenarios are occuring still higher D, say as in WITHIN the

SOURCEBOSONIC BLUEPRINT.

But the creration of the graviton allows the Quantum Big Bang and

the manifestation of Space out of undefined space.

And all particles derive from this ylemic blueprint, which is your

higher D Moebian H-Atom as ylemic neutron, say.

> Why must we embellish discrete alternations with pi in the sky? A

circle

> may be envisioned instantly, but not constructed in finite time.

There

> is no evidence of anything existing which is not constructible.

>

> G. Those double circle form the basis of all physics.

>

> >

> > Tony's higher dimensions are a result of

> > the three steps of inflation:

>

> i would say emergence.

>

> > from quark to strong,

>

> deeply secrete inner space, third order independence

(orthogonality).

>

> > from strong to electro-weak,

>

> Half correlated 2nd order independence.

>

> > from all that to gravity.

>

> entropy.

Tony

Exposited in the above. \George's Double Circle is Jim's Moebian

Serpent - isn't it beautiful?

What are you arguing about?

The transitions from the four fundamental interactions derive from

the selfsame Moebian Serpent and engage the fourfolded nestings

within each other of the 5folded symmetry of the 4 interactions.

So George is right, yet vague and Jim is right in critisizing the

vagueness.

>

> G. I do not understand your comments.

>

> >

> > The archetype of these transitions

> > I have described in all details in an example

> > of gravity generated by electromagnetism.

>

> gravity is the loss (secrete reception) of the electromagnetism

> manifesting our space.

>

> >

Tony

The archetype of archetypes, mathematically, is a very simple

identity:

XY=X+Y=i^2=expi.pi)=-1.

> > George.

>

> If you ignore the data you are not doing science.

>

> G. I derive physics that is much more powerful

>

> that modern physics or any dissident variant.

>

> While there are

> logical truths which most certainly must be manifest up to some n.

> number of states which may be reasonably presumed to exist. These

do

> not, however, include and infinities.

I feel we have to really slog out Cantorian definitions of infinite

sets, cardinality, Goedelian incompleteness the continuities of

discrete systems and so on.

But this exercise in mathematics is relevant for physics, because in

it is found the Mind of God and this I agree, we can only approach

in the evolution of our own mnindfulness.

But She wishes us to try anyway.

And Jim, I feelyou might have a headstart here with your knowledge

of information physics.

But Shannon Information links to the Information models of

Bekenstein and the Holographic Principle of Susskind, so we should

find some ways of connecting information theory with cosmology.

>

> I think you and Tony have made things a little too complicated for

me.

> I cannot believe in particles or waves or fields acting magically

at a

> distance unless

Tony

Jim your 'Magic' is the Moebian Serpent of your own scientific

intuition.

>

> G. Where do you see this?

>

> they are consistent with measurement. Instead they are

> contradicted by measurement.

>

Tony

All Measurements become rationally explicable in the higher D fgorm

of the Physics of Unity.

Tony

> Jim

>

>

> G. George

Message 16993 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16993

Allen Francom

<light_rock@y...> wrote:

>

> Hi Roy and Allen and Forum.

Allow me to interleave with brief commentary.

> Hi Roy,

>

> I will think more about what you said, but I

> have a hard time, no pun, at first glance,

> worrying about the constancy of rules throughout

> the universe.

>

> If what you just said is correct, then Time

> as well as space is also emergent and the

> problem is what is enforcing the consistency

> "of the laws of physics"...

The emergence mathematically is the Mapping of Associations onto a

Counting Procedure, i.e. the Natural Numbers.

Your 'problem' is simply to understand, that there is no set of

rules to EXPLAIN the Natural Numbers.

But ASSOCIATION of the CLOSED Superstring as the digital 0 and the

OPEN Superstring as the digital 1 becomes the PHYSICAL association

of the intrinsic undefinable.

This is the Second Goedelian Incompleteness Theorem, demanding

a 'stronger' definition system than that given by the Natural Number

Count.

This 'stronger' system is the 'Thought/MindFulness' creating the

mapping of the associations, the associations hence becoming

physically 'Readable' from the underpinning abstract code.

This abstract encoding is Roy's 'Energy' in nonphysical terms; i.e.

none but the Definition for God in its 'unfathomibility'; yet

explicable following the mappings of the abstract idea onto the

concrete idea.

>

> In what I'm suggesting, the universe is "digital",

> and the motivation of "change" is essentially

> a "cosmic clock signal".

>

> So yes "off on" I suppose, however, this is the

> same as saying "something happened".

>

> That's why I can hold it up as the archetype

> of "energy", and by Einstein, matter.

>

> In InfoPhysics, Jim describes a "creation event" and

> supplies text that "like a doubler circuit" the fabric

> of timespace emerges.

>

> That is similar to what both you and I are saying.

>

> However, in both cases I respectfully submit that

> "change" at a base layer is a "clock", "the primal

> clock".

>

> Jim will say "information is propogating".

>

> Propogating is a verb, relies on "time".

>

> +0- is great, but nothing happens unless time

> goes, otherwise it is static and unchanging.

>

> So again, basically, in order for a video game

> to work, actors interact, bullets fly, and

> gravity pull, a clock is behind it all, otherwise

> the screen is blank.

>

> I don't know a better way to say it, and I

> believe, thanks to infophysics, that the analogy,

> while not perfect, is however perfectly valid.

>

> :)

>

> ?

>

> -AEF

>

> Tony

The Digitalisation is the opening and closing of the superstring

EpsEss permeating both space and time as its own intrinsic

definition, allowing everything alse to emerge as forms of energy

and as vibration patterns about the Wolford Centre.

Tony B.

> --- Roy Wolford <rwolf@r...> wrote:

>

> > Hi Allen:

> > I really never associated energy with the

> > ticking of a clock, I guess because tick tock would

> > be the same as off on. I can see the relationship

> > to a ticking clock as an informational tool, but I

> > believe it to be hampered due to the following.

> >

> > I guess I think in alternating current of

> > positive, neutral, negative instead of direct

> > current, off and on. IF one must look at energy as

> > a ticking clock, then the mechanism involved would,

> > of necessity, have to concern positive and negative

> > influences of pressure.

> >

> > The question we have is either energy is a

> > "bundle" of space trying to exist, or energy is not

> > a "bundle" of space trying to exist. Both involve a

> > factor to two. Energy, with positive, or negative,

> > the clock ticking or tocking. The energy bundle

> > involves charge and potential, oscillations. The

> > ticking clock involves induced motion in a relative

> > fashion always in a steady state. So, I take the

> > tick to mean impact, or the bumping together.

> >

> > The ticking in the Adjacency Theory, in my opinion

> > would depend upon the degree of compaction,

> > (pressure). Perhaps I do not completely understand,

> > but the degree of instantanity would not depend upon

> > distance, but would depend upon how compacted CPH

> > would be.

> >

> > In other words, back to our world, which would

> > transfer impact better, a hunk of lead or a piece of

> > iron? Is there any reason that this effect cannot

> > be present in the subquantum world? What degree of

> > absorbtion would be involved in ticking?

> >

> > I think my referal to two types of zero answers some

> > of the questions. We have the mathematical zero

> > representing a number and then we have my

> > infinity<+0->infinity representing potential.

> >

> > With charge, a neutral factor must be involved,

> > leaving potential on either side. With a clock,

> > there is not any potential. So, I guess this is why

> > I believe the trinary computer is a necessity.

> > Without it, we will be stuck with the ticking clock

> > without potential.

> >

> > Our computers are ticking clocks, 0 or 1, tic or

> > toc, therefore are hampered by lack of knowledge.

> > When all the facts are not present, the answers will

> > always be riddles. So, they solve the math, but not

> > the problems.

> >

> > So basicly, I see the ticking clock as telling us

> > whether it is left handed or right handed, up or

> > down, possible or impossible, in or out, equal or

> > not equal, and all the factors of two, but leaving

> > out potential. So, the subquantum plasma could be

> > ticking along at millions of degrees, without

> > potential, unable to radiate the heat generated by

> > adjacency until the critical state of containment is

> > reached. Let there be light.

> >

> > So, I guess we have our cake and can eat it too.

> >

> > Just a few thoughts on the "matter" for now.

> >

> > Have fun,

> > Roy

> >

Message 17003 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17003

Jim Whitescarver <jim@x> wrote:

> Hey Tony,

>

> I hate to rain on your parade, but while you and George use

abstractions

> that might be good analogies to reality, I am compelled to be the

> information police and call them mathimagical fantasies that go

beyond

> science. We were taught that these things were real, but we were

misled.

>

Dear Jim and Forum!

Thank you Jim for your discourse.

Your comment above is accepted in the premise of 'Science' as it has

been practised and as it is understood since the reformation.

But what many advocating now is the need for an 'extended science' I

call it OmniScience, just one of many labels one could give to it.

Hence Physics becomes OmniPhysics and Chemistry OmniChemistry say.

But there is one 'Pure Science' which like an artform,doesn;t

require omnification and that pure artform is Mathematics.

And you keep on terming this artform Mathimagics, this is ok.

But it is still the Mathematics of the Greek Geometers, Euclid and

Pythagoras,..and Euler and Fourier, Poincare, Einstein and

Penrose,... and Witten and Donaldson and Wiles.

So what has misled what? Did the Mathematics restrict the

measurements or did the physical parameters limit the mathematics?

You know the answer to that; the physical parameters are the

measurements, mathematically defined, however crudely.

> Godel used proof by contradiction to solve a self referential

problem.

> So did Cantor. The results have a direct meaning only in the

> mathimagical world of Platonic thinking. It is fantasy. The

practical

> result is that classical logical analysis is wrong. They

contradict the

> law of the excluded middle and then proceed to apply that law to

obtain

> their result.

Mathematics hence in a sense interrogates and probes the physical

mappings of itself.

Again you infer the 'wrongness' or 'falsifiability' of logic and

mathematics as a selfreferential and may I say selfcontaine or

selfencompassing entity - this is the Mind of God, as George and I

would say.

And agreed, the Platonic World is the Mathimagic of ideal shapes and

mathematical relationships.

But it is also Karl Popper's Worlds of Culture mapping the Mental

World, which then maps the Physical World (of measurements) in a

linear hierarchy.

If you now allow a circularisation of this Popperian World of

Culture and its archetypes; then you get the Platonic World in

mapping both the Mental Worlds of Thought, including Fantasy and the

Physical World.

This is also Roger Penrose's idea as an unashamed Platonist.

Your excluded 'middle' so is trifurcated as Three in One.

>

> What is a Natural number? Are they really natural?

>

> Are their numbers really that cannot be generated by any logical

> process? Any extant number is generable by some algorithm. There

must

> be some logic process or Turing machine that outputs the number.

>

> Well clearly logical processes and Turing machines are countable

and

> correspond to the integers.

>

> Any list of such number may be numbered with the corresponding

number of

> the associated Turing machine.

Yes, but this again points to the Birth of the Binary State as the

creation of the linearisation of the finite from the circular

infinite or multivalued.

Cantor's Transfinite sets, by definition, always engage higher

cardinality in the subsets of the sets; leading DIRECTLY to the

Aleph-All Cardinality where integers are countable as infinities in

the limit of the Aleph-All eigenstate.

This is mathematically defined in the Omega-Interval [0,1].

>

> There are no systems that manifest transfinite numbers.

That is the Aleph-All Cardinality.

Transfinite numbers are not manifested as such, but become

associated in mappings of potential phasal states.

This I have used in physics to model the universe in linear time as

a 'frozen' eigenstate, awaiting activation.

This 'frozenness' IS the Aleph-All Limit X as the most irrational

number of all the irrational numbers.

X=0.618033..displays the least rationalisability of all the

irrational numbers.

The 'unfreezing' of the cosmic wavefunction (defined in Alep-All)

then sets a selfreferential scalar time as MAT (Mean-Alignment-Time).

MAT in 'my' phaseshifted universe/world is set at midnight, November

4th, 1996, Canberra, Australia, local time.

This Mathimagic then allows determination of a locally applied

dimensionless cycletime n=1.1324.. following solution of the

quadratic: n^2+n-2.414792841=0 in mapping imaginary time onto real

time, i.e. as the 12D-10D mapping identity.

n(real)=1.132419321 and n(image)=-2.132419321 as approximations.

Both 'roots' represent the transfinite mapping of infinities onto

the Omega interval of the Unity.

The real root also so models a prototypical universe, invariant in

major axis rotation, relative to its focal points.

So this model then realises Cantor transfinitism in the logical

extension of a physically representative entity defined by the

Transfinite mapping onto the Finite.

Rotating this entity about minor axes, moves the focalisations and

the variance of rotation, say mathematically mapped in complex

number multiplication, then allows the minimum subset of Alep-All to

finitise the infinities, just as an integer discrete distribution of

eigenstates (universes), phaseshifted from its prototype; yet

holographically containing its initial eigenstate.

>

> In the real world only relative values are manifest, thus only

surreal

> numbers are natural to nature.

I do not get this. What are surreal numbers?

Plationic idealisations do become physical in ratios, underpinning

measurements, but the integers, reducible to the Binary State

suffice to model any physical realisable entity/measurement/ratio in

my view.

In short only the Wolford-Centre exists: -Infinity<-0->+Infinity and

as the 'Cutting of the Circle' (Dedekind and Dirichlet Bound.

The Wolford-Centre becomes both the Binary State algorithmically and

the superbrane class I (with open and closed vibration patterns) in

a potential physicalisation for that algorithmic state.

>

> Having said that, I can say I agree with the analogy, but consider

it

> improper, not in itself, but because it is based on bogus

assertions

> that are improperly accepted by modern philosophy. Your analogy

is

> good, and could be reformulated using valid assertions.

There is always room for improvement and whatever I propose as

extended definitions, will form a skeletal approximation for better

things, more 'encompassing' definitions to follow.

Our argument is about IF 'my' approximation is deep, selfconsistent

and encompassing enough to serve as such a foundation to be built

upon.

Thank you Jim and shall answer your discourse with Pop shortly.You

haven't commented upon the Moebian Serpent? Roy also would like to

receive some input from you about that.

Best Affinities to you Tony B.

Message 17004 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17004

Jim Whitescarver <jim@x> wrote:

> Thanks for your support Tony, you seem to be one of the only

people that

> understands what I am talking about. I am pleased that George

also

> concurs with some of it. But it seems that you guys have bought

in to

> the standard model hook line and sinker. This makes what is

> fundamentally very simple nearly incomprehensible. It is a

tribute to

> your dizzying intellect that you can make sense of all that. It

is a

> tribute to information physics that most of that garbage can be

thrown away.

Dear Jim, George, Allen and Forum!

Allen, I find it intriguing that your genalogy relates to Moebius.

It must be in the bloodline, this attunement to archetypes and the

'twisting' of space/reality perception this entails.

I have called it Moebian Serpent, precisely because it is one of the

most pervasive and potent of the archetypes.

Now Jim would call this Mathimagic or numerology; whilst George and

I would term it the Mind of God, encoded in the Laws of Physics,

becoming decoded in Culture and Mythology, yet again mappable onto

the physical parameters and relationships.

Hence the decoding of the mythologies is closely associated, even

one-to-one, to the decoding of the Laws of Physics into mathematical

semantics.

SERPENT=PRESENT=97=SONOFMAN for example directly leads us into the

Story of the Temptation in the 'Garden of Eden'.

Here the 'Serpent' is moving up-and-down, like Jim's Helix and not

sidewise like a snake of the fauna.

It can be shown by scriptural analysis, decipherment,

interpretations in multilevel settings etc, that the SERPENT is also

the Cosmic Redeemer or Christ, enticing the 'Human Mind' to escape

the Innocence of ignorance (about the nature of good and evil).

So the powerful archetype of the Serpent (Caduceus of the

MedicalProfession as the Serpent Rod of Moses as the pharaonic

symbol of IbisGod Thoth/Hermes/Zoroaster/Jesus etc.) found in

cultures allaround the globe, also finds its place of primacy in

physics and in mathematics (as the Moebian twistor geometry).

This then does not mean, that George and I have 'bought' into the

Standard Models without reservation.

Because we found the 'Standard Descriptions' insufficient to account

for the natural phenomena; an extended science proved desirable.

Yet this OmniScience (one of many possible labels) would render

Physics as OmniPhysics and Chemistry as OmniChemistry, though

building on the welltested and established edifices of the

scientific methodology and philosophy as paracticed by the 'elders'.

One of the natural sciences, often considered an artform, however

needs not be 'omnified' and that is Mathematics.

OmniMathematics is still just Mathematics as the 'Mind of God';

there is no OmniGod, just the one God say as the encompassment of

many gods. This is the Holographic Principle in artistic terms.

If now George calls this the 'Mind of God' underpinning all

philosophical principles as a sort of communication of the Oneness

with Itself or if an atheistic philosopher searches for the 'ether'

of all ethers permeating reality as a physical(quasi)substance; all

this still converges as the buddhistic search for selfrealisation,

a Spinozaen concretisation of the continuum, the monadic self of

Leibniz and the 'Universum des Alten Eines' (Universe of the Old

One) of Einstein.

>

> Let's get down to basics.

>

> Spinors twist up spin ladders, which are alternating alternations

in two

> orthogonal dimensions. Each "step" is 1/2 dimensional. NOTHING

IS

> SPINNING, NOTHING GOES IN CIRCLES. The Angular momentum reflects

the

> energy of alternations in two dimensions only. You can think of

it as a

> spiral staircase with 90 degree steps, but nothing is really

spinning.

> There may be an emergent third dimension of time, but NO MORE

DIMENSIONS

> because there is no more information, (unless we have multiple

spinors

> in which case we might have up to two more per spinor). We

embellish

> them with extra properties and dimensions to suit our notion of

> continuous time-space, but our time-space is emergent, not

fundamental.

I really like this notion of 2D.It concurs beautifully with my

(oversimplified) statement of 2D=5D=8D=11D.

And Jim's argument holds, because to twist the 2D one requires 3D.

This renders the twosided coin of Head and Tail as a Onesided

Twisted Coin, where the Head can see the Tail via a higher

dimensional manouver or topological deformation.

Without the 'higher 3D twist, the Head, say requires two mirrors,

one in front and one behind the coin, so that the image in the

mirror reflects the other image in the other mirror allowing Head

and Tail to look at one another via a 'Physical Mediu,'/Ether etc.

The Mathemagic would say - is this just coincidence Jim?

SPACETIME=91=SPIRIT=MIRROR! (Hebrew Kabbalah code, anglosaxonised

A=1, B=2,...Z=26 for 26 Bosonic Dimension in the supersymmetric

superstring aka algorithmic alphabet).

> We embellish it with funny influences at a distance (fields)

because we

> have been fooled into thinking such things exist.

>

> Quarks are quacks. They are fleeting manifestations of triple

> differences manifest briefly when you explode an atom. As

Heisenberg

> puts it, they are illusionary. The interior of the atom follows

the

> same physics as the outside, quantum state state, there are no new

> physics, no such thing as color forces. They are an unnecessary

> complication with only very occasional usefulness.

Jim you are correct, but incomplete and underinformed in your

assessments here.

Allow me to elucidate.

The Standard Models in both Cosmology and in Particle Physics are

incomplete. This is well known, publisized and no conspiracy.

There are horizon problems, monopole density problems, very

persistent redshift problems in cosmology.

Then the strong interaction force misses hgarmonisation with the

weak interaction force because of the missing Higgs mechanism.

So 18 parameters must be inserted into the equations to make quantum

chromodynamics work, describing the particle hierarchies.

Would or does any physicist working in those fields proclaim the

Standard Models as complete?

Take the 8 gluons which are colourcharged and mediate the strong

force between the quarks, supplemented by mesonic quark/antiquark

connectors.

There are no red quarks shooting off gluons to other quarks

transmuting into say green quarks.

The three quarks connected by gluonic springs model is mechanistic

analogy and passe in the New Standard Model.

There are no colourcharges as physical colours somehow giving energy

to the disjointed quarks/gluons as energy inducers.

Here we have the 2D analogy, working very well to depict the highD

PHYSICAL Reality.

Ask any painter how many colours he requires to mix all other

colours. The back of your colour TV tube harbours three primary

colour cones: Red, Green and Blue.

RedGreenBlue are additive in primary radiation and Antcolours

CyanMagentaYellow are subtractive in primary mass.

RadiationColours ADD to White (W) and MassColours SUBTRACT to Black

(B).

This manifestation is mapped from the higher D as the Moebian

connectivity on which we perhaps agree.

Now the New Standard Model eliminates the gluonic colourcharges and

so the 8 different gluons in redefining 8 permutation states.

BBB,BBW,BWB,WBB,WWB,WBW,BWW,WWW model the transformation of the

radiative state into the restmassinduced state and vice versa.

The baryonic SU-symmetries are in triplet form and the mesonic quark-

antiquarks are in doublet forms (using anticolours RC,GM or BY).

Is this still the Standard Model as you have encountered it?

Or is it a New Standard Model, accomodating the higher dimensions?

Has the New thrown out the Old or has it refined the latter?

That is why George and I remain extremely reluctant to discard the

orthodox premises, favouring instead refinement and extension,

accomodating the new measurements, observations and propositions in

the true tradition of a progressing science.

George's model claims to be even more encompassing than what I have

proposed; exactly because he is leaving the physical parameters as

just one of four worlds, exploring instead the higher expressions

for this physical world in their holographically, albeit energised

mappings.

Those higherD mappings aren't really higher D as you might perceive

them to be.

Rather they are located just in the 3D scenario of space as a

multilevel or complexified state (mathematically multiplied to gain

rotational freedom).

But those higher D's manifest in FEELINGS and the aesthetic senses

of beauty, harmony and so on.

This becomes the 'Angelic Principalities' (to whom you felt

attracted, do you understand why?).

This is the 'angelic communication' of higher D 'energies'

communicationg as their selfenergies (frequency Eigenstates_ with

the lower worlds, which are also the higher wotlds, depending on

perceptive resonance.

That is why every individual

physicist/mathematician/philosopher/thinker MUST attempt to CREATE

hisher very own world/universe.

None can do this for herhim; the SELFRESONANCE is the KEY

into 'Heavenlization'.

That is why there is Jim's Model for the Universe in 'seeming'

competition with so many other Theories of Everything.

But Jim's World is not in competition with George's World or with

Tony's World, because the resonances are modulating the Frequencies.

Velocity=R(n).F eliminates Time and establishes a EigenScale as

depicted and 'measured' in the de Broglie phaseacceleration.

R(n) is a function of scale, engaging cycletime n, the dimensionless

TauTime in General Relativity (Rc(t)=c.dt/dTau).

So the horizon poroblem in cosmology resolves itself, as do the

redshift dilemmas, so does the monopole density problem, so does the

ether of all ether (non)metric background and so do the superluminal

velocities.

Because when UNIVERSES blend with each other, then Jim's World

phaseshifts relative to George's relative to Tony's.

So who can create the universes, but the Sons of God?

And if God is the 'Mind of Mathematics' then ONLY the MATHIMATIA,

the synergy of Spirit and Science can produce the OmniScience.

The prototypical universe is the one we observe and measure.

It is a prolate ellipsoid with invariant focal points upon major

axis rotation.

It resides PHYSICALLY in 11D as the envelope of all subdimensional

entities.

It is nothing but an ABSTRACT ellipse drawn on a 'piece of 2D paper'

in the 'Mind of God'.

When NOW-Time is perceived in its LINEARISATION,then MANY Sons of

God will begin to follow their Father's Footsteps in constructing

the ABSTRACT 2D-ellipses on PHYSICAL 2D-papers.

So many Sons will begin to construct universes as their own worlds

within the world of their parents Big HeShe.

Some of the potential universes will become selfconsistent and

potentially feasible , both in abstraction and in mapping potential.

And then the ptototypicall universe of measurement will begin to

phaseshift in its Aleph-All Cantorian cardinality.

The invariant focal points will move into pointcircles following

minor axes rotation of the prototype.

And then Jim will remember and George and Tony and Zeus and Milo and

Joel and Allen and Roy and Mike and ...

Ah, we have done all this before, 19.11 billion years ago; when we

sat next to the Father (as unborn parts/semen/ of the Father) when

HE created She the same way we doing now.

WE were the LOGOS., the WORD OF GOD as unfulfilled potential,

directly as IMAGE of the MIND of GOD.

>

> You guys love fancy physics and I hate to bust your bubble, but in

order

> to understand my double hyper helix model of the atom you got to

dump

> the standard model and accept only what can be distinguished by

> measurement. The Moebian Serpent is only half the picture, spin

and

> charge, the are three additional orthogonal differences that

comprise

> the double hyper helix which direct the propagations of the

serpent. (I

> call them color differences but they are no different from any

other

> differences) I surmise from your discussion you can easily

understand

> what the double hyper helix is, it corresponds to your double

circle,

> without the Platonic embellishments.

>

> With Love,

>

> Jim With Love to the Sons Tony B.

>

PS.: The Sons means SonDaughters=DaughterSons.