Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Releasing Apparent Constraints In Physics

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on November 28, 2003 08:12:21 UTC

Hi Yanniru,

I appreciate that you seriously consider sub-atomic particles can be mapped in an A,B,C,D,E,F style.

But the system I propose does not involve dictatorships or non-agreed bias: it is only repeat COUNTING in one base that may give an appearance of lop-sidedness.

The key is to understand the apparent significance of "counting" in physics. The patterns of physics appear to describe a SHELL of possibilities. All the structures are empty.

This is extremely reminiscent of Neo's discovery about the machines in MATRIX 3. He finds they are full of light.

"As you measure, so you are measured".

Example: if the "strong" nuclear force is described as: the supposed confinement of pattern A and patern B together in C WHEN C IS COUNTED AGAIN in pattern D: it is only "strong" by assuming that it is a one-way process.

If "A" and "B" are to meet and share common ground in "C"; if you are only counting "possibility shells for "A" and "B" " BACKWARDS IN TIME (?) (by future interactions) then you just count "A" as a unit and "B" as a unit; "C" becomes where "A minus a fraction" overlapped with "B" "minus a fraction".("C" being the overlapped fractions).

COUNTING AGAIN "C" would involve chipping more off original "A" and original "B" to ensure that the second "C" (that is "D") WAS DIFFERENT from the first.

By chipping two NESTED fractions off "A" and "B" you are binding them together by definition by repeated density of overlap.

"C" becomes confined like a Russian doll, every new version of "C" builds a deeper layer of detail in the shell originally described as just where "A" and "B" overlap. The shell gets thicker just as the "wall" in midair gets thicker in the Zeno's Arrow paradox.

But in reality arrows appear to hit their targets and not stop in mid-air. It is only NUMBER that conceals the illusion in Zeno's paradox; in fact each "moment" of time is defined by reference to each "half the remaining distance to the target": so time was being shortened in sync. with the distances being shortened.

In physics, "A" and "B" in their overlap "C" are getting diced up each time their overlap is counted; but this involves backwards-defining of "A" and "B" via their interactions. But in reality "A" and "B" are not hollow shells filled only with empty numbers.

They are negotiating parties to a living conversation with "C", "D", etc. with any structure created out of transparency; out of pure freedom and consciousnsess.

"A" and "B" may be not locked into singular repeats of themselves re: interactions; but may participate more actively in interactions; negotiating at every step?

"A" , "B", and "C" may all re-negotiate each others situation on meeting "D" is the idea say...

Physics does cover this with neutrinos etc. but continues to describe possible paths defined only as hollow numbershells without content?

The patterns of physics and the apparent force in the forces might be a misleadingly restrictive view of the universe, a view based on numbers bumping into numbers and on every way the numbers can conserve.

The second "C" deepens the overlap from the first "C" overlap of "A" and "B" BY DEFINITION. To see "C" again (as "D") means chipping a bit more off what are already overlapping fractions of "A" and "B".

****But what I propose is that "counting" is BY AGREEMENT and optional. So "A" and "B" are free to give to common ground "C"; and "C" may give back to "A" and "B". With no fixed rigid counting; there remain pathways open to re-consider when "C" meets "D"; my model is that every perspective is considered, every voice has a hearing, no one is left out.

Everything is transparent, built out of mutual consideration. Everything is made only of God who is Love.

The following is from an earlier post:


Consider: Two potential participants in discussion meet; they are two so are counted already by Existence; they meet in freedom and give gifts of each other's perspective to create a new common overlap region of view.

So started with: new creation possibility that 2 will meet and exchange gifts of perspective. They both give of themselves to create the 'brainchild' of their giving: the child might be called "minus a third" as is the third party, a new, mutual, perspective, that appears from the gifts to mutual ground given by the 'parents'. So in the meeting of 2, 2 gifts offered: pi/4 becomes 1 - 1/3 new creation.

Suppose this new "child of discussion" were to meet, in a new discussion, the parent-perspectives from whence it was born; and all three parties gave gifts of their own perspectives to a new common ground, giving birth to a new creation from their considerations. From the point of view of the 'parents' of the original 'brain-child' of their debate; this "minus 1/3" has given something of themselves back to them in any new creative discussions: there are now 5 perspectives: the 'brain-child's gift (i) to new common ground (d), the gifts (ii)(iii) to the 'parents'(a)(b) from the 'brain-child' (c), and the gifts (iii, iv) from the parents (a)(b) to the new common ground (d).

The newly created common ground (d) is 1 meeting of meeting, pi/4 = 1 -1/3 (from 'child' and 'parents' to this new creation( d)), + 1/5 as follows: looking backwards in time we see a 1/5 in the new creation, a 1/5 given back to the earlier created 'child of discussions', a 1/5 given back to first 'parent', a 1/5 given back to second 'parent', and a 1/5 given back from original 'child' to it's parents along original path that gave birth to original 'child' when 'parents' met. (Maybe this is what "Feynman path integral" is about.)

Now suppose a new conference: participants are the two original 'parents'(a)(b), the 'brain-child' (c) of their discussion, and the new common ground (d) from a debate all three attended. These four give gifts to create a new perspective. This 'new perspective' partially receives back the previous back-in-time +1/5 that comes due to the participation of the 'new common ground' (d); but is now 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7.

You have seven 1/7ths come from the +1/5 as you have partial minus (five + two) gifts:
-1/7th: original parents (a)(b) to first 'child' (c);
-1/7th, -1/7th: 'child' to the 2 parents;
-1/7th, -1/7th: 'first child'(c) to new common ground (d) via those gifts to two parents (so 2 gifts parents to new common ground);
-1/7th: new common ground (d) gift to new perspective (e);
-1/7th: and 'new perspective'.

I think it may be that Dr. Stafford's discovery of the mapping of physics laws via his 4-space and his partial differential equation; may be seen via the Leibnitz equation pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7 + 1/9 -1/11 and so on. Although a lot of chemistry and physics seems implicit here; the use of numbers like 1/7th in what I've done here is really just as "possibility shells"; which are potential paths but to what extent paths are filled (the size of the gifts) is optional. To some extent our very presence on this Earth means we are already gifts to each other, we are children of God. What is being described is the possibilities to listen/ communicate with others, and to create through mutual consideration. Beyond math where counting is voluntary and not imprisoning; a glimpse might be seen that God is love; being and letting be; creation by mutual agreement. QED, Feynman path integrals, sum-of-histories, virtual-particle exchanges associated with creation in a 4th dimension, seem implicit in these patterns. The pattern pi/4= 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7 +1/9 -1/11 and so on appears to map a situation where "every way agreement can happen" is considered, where every perspective is taken into consideration in producing an agreement; where everyone has their say on any proposed changes anyone makes at any level of the discussion. The whole "draft agreement" can be re-juggled at each level with the arrival of a new participant; nothing is determined it seems until agreed to, it is all open to discussion with any voice free to be heard and how much each contributes is not restricted


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins