God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Hi Dr. Dick! Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on September 17, 2003 09:57:49 UTC

Have fun!

Here's a sample from my physics document:

SUMMARY: PARTICLES AND FORCES

From freedom and consciousness in Existence; people involved in math-physics partake in discussion, exchange of views, self-referencing, comparison and matching of patterns, measurement and types of counting.

Taking the math style of counting: A,B: C (1+1=2)

The W- and W+ particles fit the roles of the A, B ; they have spin 1 towards C which can be the Zo (neutral version of spin in C terms; the Zo can be complementary juggling of W- and W+.

Now (A,B: C) is like "pattern, pattern: comparison" or "to and fro goes a pendulum". A,B can be thought of potentially exchanging information between each other via C to give a C bracket of two views of (A,B) giving:
.

B-influenced uncertainty in conservation of "A" definition would be "W+" particle (spin 1 in C); A-influenced uncertainty in conservation of "B" definition would be "W-" particle (spin 1 in C); C-perspective on the potential juggling among A,B to new A,B would be Zo particle (spin neutral in C).

A meeting B generates a point of discussion you might say; so one-D space unit. Noting the C perspective gives a line along which exchanges of views betwen A and B can occur; A and B can juggle ideas along the C line: so have 2D space unit: one exchange and juggle of views.

In talks, A and B might re-arrange their views again in reference to original views andtheir first re-arrangement. This gives a "D" spin on the discussion they are having. The earlier unit-linear 2-D space has become able to be polarized in A, B, or C directions within the D-perspective; giving a three-dimension space of three axis. Exchanges of opinion occur in the floating unit-bracketing or quantized bracketing of this 3-space.

Further, A and B might juggle their 3-dimensional discussion again; generating a unit of E-perspective on the three dimensional conversation.

Now the 3-space can self-refer via the E perspective; which gives space-time (unit juggling of 3-space)

A series of templates of the discussion betwen A and B is established; here physicists seem to group further spins on the discussion into broad versions of the previous templates. This may be a consequence of their assuming numbers in mathematics to be equally spaced.

Mathematics does not state if this 1 is an apple and that 1 is an orange. But it does treat them as plural, so different. So how are the differences coped with in mathematics? Perhaps by what Dr.Richard Stafford calls "adding unknown data": for example "52" is defined in maths as "every way the sum 52 can happen", that is, "the history of the sum" including such history as "1+789-800+62" or "26 + 26".

What about when you add "20" to "52"? The history of "20" (every way "20" can be the sum) and the history of "52" (every way "52" can be the sum) are merged as the history of "72". If the "20" was "20 apples" and the "52" was "52 cards"; this is superposed in "72" as apple-cards.

"72 apple-cards" is 72 "generalisation"; may call this "electric". Add say "10" and you have three numbers "20" + "52" + "10"; any two can be called "apple" + "card" giving a generalization quantized by the other number which divides the generalisation in an unspecified way (except in a shell-math way). Can call the three-in-one of a math-perspective on the meeting (quantum) of two math numbers: electric field.

Looking at this field in a linear way (group meets new number) gives a linear electric field or electric current. Combine a further new number perspective and these two new numbers can form their own generaliation. So may have "20" + "52" + "10" + "40" + "35": any two pairs can be given labels and share a same number-background. Any two generalisations can meet and be divided by the fifth number: gives a math-meeting background to two generalisations; so quantized specification field (magnetic field).

Two generalisations specify each other: "car" and "wheels" are categories that partially define each other.

When numbers are multiplied the category designations can survive: "apple x card" labelled as "20" x "52" gives a choice of view of "apple x 52" or "card x 20". Such choice of views is built into addition in so far as common facors are involved (e.g. a "2" view of "52 + 20" survives as options within "72"). Multiplication dilutes or weakens "20" by "52"; both are together weakly generalised (they met once, so one way they can be as groups diluted re: each other). Multiplication weakly specifies "20" by "52": there a lots of ways (dilution) of finding "20" or "52" in "20 x 52". So multiplication provides a weak force (weak freedom of definition surface) coming together of generalisation-specification (i.e. of electro-magnetism).

Division involves a strong force of generalisation and specification
"20 x 52" divided by "20" generalises 52 strongly as in one step "52" can be 52 almost anything from a math-shell perspective. Multiplying then dividing 20 by 52 seems to curl the 52 around the 20 like the 52 were a passing comet momentarily attracted to the 20. Division has also diverged "20" and "52" into separate specified categories, strongly distinct. Division seems to be a coming together of electro-magnetic under the strong force.

Alternating cycles of multiplication and division seems to involve plus variations and minus variations in the extent of the electro-magnetic (generalisation-specification) comings together. A cycle of a pair of (division or multiplication) involves four allocations of relative weak or strong impact on previous cycles.

So you can have "coming together" as gravity (often caught up in math-numbering); possible coming together of electro-magnetic in weak; in strong, or coming together of weak and strong; so supergravity; and possible: divergence or curl, of weak and strong re: each other (electro-magnetic weak-strong).

Mathematics seems to be about "history of a sum" and the "ways that counting can happen"; physics seems to be about "sum of a history" and the ways that "happen" can be counted. If physics is "math meets math" or two-dimensional math template; then seems to explain the role of 2-D numbers in math versions of physics.

Consider:

A,B: C. Two versions of (A,B) from juggling in C. "A" perspective in "C" of change in "B": W+ particle. "B" perspective in "C" of change in "A": W- particle. "C" perspective on (A,B) in "C": spin neutral Zo particle (cancelling out of W+ and W-).

Now: D view of group. This view gives a floating bracket that can sort any pair from (A,B,C). Any pair will leave one of A,B,C designated in role of "C" perspective as potential Zo for any allocation of W+ and W- roles. (A "floating bracket" seems similar concept to "partial differentiation").

Now, the "D" perspective on juggling A,B,C roles allows an uncertainty between "C" role and "D" role.

From an "E" perspective on juggle A,B,C,D roles, one gets quark definition. But the role swap possibility between C and D gives a space-time uncertainty in quark definition. If C and D decide who will swap with E, that leaves two places where C and D were for one of them. This deal allows three sympathetic roles of A,B,C to be filled while D and E are filed by folk from C and D.

The D,E uncertainty gives the "gluon" binding of quark definition in space-time ; the C,D uncertainty gives the "colour" force in polarizing quark definition. A cycle of E-viewed juggling where occupiers of A role, B role, C role are conserved gives three colours; any role swapping gives anti-colours.

Taking the E perspective where "E" role can be juggled amongst, as a group, the A,B,C,D roles ("E" is like a 5th dimension viewpoint on space-time juggling in cycles (in math-counting).

Taking A,B,C,D from E;

any pair in A,B,C,D roles in E perspective, where that pair is conserved but re-juggled (so say A,B swap ideas giving new A,B) is: "upquark".

Any single that remains single (say A stays A; or B stays B) is "downquark".

Cycles of counting "E" perspectives gives juggling of mathematics with (A,B,C,D,E) group:

A new D,E from previous D,E swapping ideas:
If D,E cancel: neutron. (space-space-time) (space-bias)(head in the clouds)
If D,E not cancel: proton. (space-time-time)(time-bias)(talking)
If D,E uncertain: electron (space-time uncertain)(listening)

Two cycles of "who is in D role"?:

Double D cancel (D-role occupier re-juggles thoughts): electron (as double D makes D uncertain in E?)

Double D not cancel: muon (heavy electron: uncertain electron as now have double E from conserved D!)

Double D uncertain: tau (very heavy electron: not sure if have double D from E, or double E from D.

Two cycles of "who is in E role"?:

Double E cancel (E-role occupier re-juggles thoughts): neutrino (thinking about the subject, so not totally head in the clouds)

Double E not cancel: muon neutrino (more massive (uncertain) neutrality (as did some thinking, some head in the clouds, but which was when?)

Double E uncertain: tau neutrino (very massive (uncertain) neutrality (as who was that, who could have done some thinking or could have had their head in the clouds?)

Looking at the D view of (A,B,C):

C,D cancel: neutrino (potential discussion that A and B reserved each other common space for in D)

C,D not cancel: anti-neutrino (potential discussion that A and B reserved space for each other at different times (common space going back in time

C,D uncertain: photonino? (uncertainty in space-time (is there a possibility of talking?)

Looking at A,B,C:
Two cycles of "who is in A,B role?":

(A,B)(A,B) cancel: upquark (Charged + 2/3 bias to A,B in A,B,C)

(A,B)(A,B) not cancel: charm (room for reappearance of old A,B content)

(A,B)(A,B) uncertain: top (you decide: are you A or B?)

Two cycles of "who is in C role?":

C:C cancel: downquark (charge - 1/3 bias to C in C (C reconsidered ideas!)

C:C not cancel: strange (C keeping quiet but still there)

C:C uncertain: beauty (A and B may meet again, don't know where, don't know when; beauty of heaven shines through)

From "The Force Of Symmetry: by Vincent Icke (Cambridge University Press), page 220: "a neutron changes into a proton while emitting an electron and an antineutron!"

This in the above is seen as: a neutron (D,E cancel) changes into a proton (D,E not cancel) via D,E uncertainty (electron) and an anti-neutrino (C,D not cancel because the D,E uncertainty must I guess involve some difference or certainty at least broadly distinguishing C and D perspectives?)

An idea that comes to mind: everyone tells the truth one way or another.

Looking at page 240 "The Force Of Symmetry":

"When you see a particle with right-handed polarization coming straight at you, its spin rotation looks like the positively mock charged particle above and left-handed spin is like the negative mock charge. This allows us the following way of undermining weak charge conservation: we stipulate that only particles with one particular handedness carry weak charge; others have weak charge zero."

"As it hapens, it is observed that only particles with left-handed (L) helicity and anti-particles with R-helicity carry weak charge. All others have weak charge zero, and therefore do not feel the weak force."

This could be explained:

A meets B; they exchange opinions in creating common ground C; and re-juggle ideas again inconsultation with C creating D. (call old A,B ideas-exchange to newly juggled A,B ideas, an upquark in creating D; as seen from A,B,C,D,E (E-cycle of 4-D space-time).

A proton (promoted viewpoint) from their discussion, seen in an 'atom' of space-time, contains two upquarks (two versions of (A,B)combined viewpoint. Generalisation-bias (electric charge) of the upquark is +2/3 (two thirds of (A,B old views; A,B new views; A,B neutral views), of the A,B promoted view is 2/3 as involves 2 A,B aspects of three.

A downquark in the promoted view from A,B discussion is some neutral ground of A and B that is given to the A,B proton view by C.

Communication chanels are open so what could happen in terms of contributions is what is being taken into consideration. The idea is a conversation where every view is heard, every groupview and possibility of perspective and re-thinking is taken into account. A math-shell effect from counting with numbers defines various tendencies as strong, weak, electro-magnetic, and gravitational.

A neutron in D is formed by two downquarks (views of A unchanged still A-type given from C common ground; views of B unchanged still B-type given from C common ground (each -1/3 generalisation-bias (electric charge) as e.g. "A" unchanged over three sights of A gives -1/3); and one upquark shared neutrality of perspective in D view of A,B and C view of A,B so possible neutral re-juggling of A,B within bounds of C to D view of neutral ground (so +2/3 charge in the neutron).

Weak force involves re-appearance of earlier pattern that was in A meets B (so resides in their creation of common ground C) but juggled out with the re-juggling of A,B ideas (so resides in C to D uncertainty or grouped perspective) then re-juggled back in by third appearance of A,B ideas in E.

Looking at layers of repeat cycles of A,B,C in the expanding floating group definitions of A,B,C from D and E broadening perspectives:

Have cycles: A,B group; A,B,C (C group); A,B, (C in D group); A,B,C (E group). Here some of A,B was in their C juggling; juggled out in their D juggling to be possibly lost back to C in C-D uncertainty (C(D group perspective) (so may have mock negative charge as left-hand spin) or possibly lost forward to E in C-E uncertainty (coming at you at E it looks like has mock positive charge?).

The weak charge involves three steps: pattern was there; pattern juggled out; pattern juggled back in. A three-in-one view of this as group-meets-unit gives two-views-of-pattern meets one view (so fermion perspective). From this perspective the fermion could be bias to the left or to the right of the juggled-out phase.

Just A,B gives a point of contact. C perspective converts the point into a line of reasoning. D perspective spreads the line into a sheet (discussion surface) (m-brane theory?). E perspective allows 3 ways of seeing a sheet from a line (world-line theory of 3-D?)(e.g. three ways sheet can roll out as in A way, B way, C way seen from line of choose sheet-way,D,E).(Roll alternatives option may explain two curled up dimensions in 3-D world-line view)(They are curled up within the uncertainty region defined by mathematical counting with assumed equal-spaced numbers; and meeting of two localised views of that counting system.

The disapparance of some C perspective into C-D view uncertainty then re-juggling back some C perspective; gives a line of C perspective on D intersecting D's linear view of C; with left and right rotation possibilities of the C line around D.

JUST A SAMPLE

-Alan