n * 6 + or - 1 = Hexagons Two Radii
Posts
Total:
41
-->
@zedvictor4
So tell me very simply, how you think that your hypothesis actually interplays with the visible universe.
Ive stated this in several differrent threads the Dart and the old Dart. I believe all particles of Universe ---except Graviton and Darkion--- are composed of two or more tori.
-->
@ebuc
Ok...So I understand why you edge your bets with Graviton and Darkon.
So explain the significance of particle shape?
So explain the significance of particle shape?
I don know if there is a "significance". It is what is, I'm just and explorer looking to discover the the truth and Fuller states that energy has shape.
I think Graviton and Darkion are not energy ---as i have defined it--- but do believe there is an associated, Euclidean, primary/basic shape/geomery/pattern and a dynamic shape/geometry /pattern for those two, just as believe there is for all particles of Universe and for occupied space Universe.
My prime number explortions ---firs the sine-wave pattern--- then later on the sine-wave pattern 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 etc, inside a tube--- just happen to be a specific kind of toroidal inversting-outverting concept for particles.
Keep i mind that, the fertilised egg of all chordata develops three germ layers ---Cosmic Trinary Outline--- before it inverts to create the spinal chord ergo the spinal tube and the spinal chord is the axis for all chordata.
....."A chordate (/ˈkɔːrdeɪt/) is an animal of the phylum Chordata (/kɔːrˈdeɪtə/). During some period of their life cycle, chordates possess a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail: these four anatomical features define this phylum."....
My specific space and time tori have two invertings;
1{ one from peak of positive curvature, and,
2} on from peak of negative curvature.
LINK to Institute for Study of Consciousness is based on Arthur Youngs four level/line and 7 Primary Stages
Redoing this so it is easier to follow the closed torus pattern via 12 nodal points ---symbolized as V, tho not shown as V below---. So below the 12th nodal point begins and ends with the zero on the inside top peak of sine-wave inside the tube and seen as {12}<0. So {12} is zero.
>......11...................................1............................................................5..............................7........................................outer..>
-
-
>........................12<0.........................................................................................6............................................................top..>
>.......................................................................3.............................................................................................9..........bottom.>
-
-
>10...................................................2...................................4............................................................8.........................inner.....>
I also want to get some terminologies clarified.
First, a looped cycle { frequency } and that is beginning with outer peak of curvature or inner peak of curvature, and we come back to the outer or inner ergo from #1 - #5 is one loop { frequency } then #5 - #11 is 2nd loop { frequency } ergo the above pattern is a 2-frequency looped cycle,
2nd is torus cycle { revolution around whole torus }, is the going around the whole torus once ergo the above is one torus that is initiated at non-counting zero and ends at #12 which is also non-counting zero. This paradox will be considered more in future explorations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next we introduce and 2nd initiating nodal event on bottom peak of sine-wave, inside the tube and identify it as '0' and again, the end resultant I'm trying to achieve here, is for each nodal event V, to be considered as vertexial event Y. This happens because each nodal event is two lines intersecting V, and with 2nd trajectory we have three or more lines intersecting approximation, as vertexial event Y.
>.................'10' Y 11 .............................'12' Y 1 ...........................................................'4' Y 5..........................'6' Y 7.......................................outer.>
-
-
>.......................................Y 12<0................................................................................................'5' Y 6.............................................................top....>
>.............Y '11'<'0'...................................................................'2' Y 3...................................................................................................'8' Y 9...bottom..>
-
-
>.'9' Y 10 ............................................................'1' Y 2............................'3' Y 4.............................................................'7' Y 8.........................inner..>
Ok, that looks much clearer to me and a total of 12 vertexial events Y on with each trajectory.
Finally, there is the issue of what is a trajectory of what exactly? I'm going to go out on a limb here and infer/suggest, that, 1 - 5 along with '2' - '12' is a wholistically integral set, that, cannot ever be isolated out into seperate events i.e. 1 - 5 is one graviton-darkion, or possibly even we can say, that, 1 - 12 and '2' - '12' are one wholistically integral set as one graviton-darkion.
With this idea we are proposing two seperate concepts;
1} that graviton and darkion are intricately/inimatly intertwined as one whole particle that has two aspects, and,
2} that, this above concepts draws the finite limit of eternal subdivision of a finite whole as Bucky Fuller suggests, as to may be what the finite Universe does, is to eternally subdivide , itself into smaller and smaller sub-unit wholes. I never liked that idea, my above is to put a finite limite on t to what we can say a line, point, nodal events and vertexial events are.
Ok, so if you've read post #35, I next want to compare the final pattern, with my former more Euclidean version of a single graviton, that, was as follows;
A truncated di-pyramid with a central-spinal-axis defined by an oscillatory, central vertex running diametrically inside all three of the larger triangles, back and forth and acts to subdivide each larger triangle with three sub-triangles inside.
This means there is a total of 10 vertexes;
...note, that alternative scenario is there is 11 or 12 vertexial points i.e. 2 or three such points acting as the central-spinal-axis.....
1} nine perimeter vertexes, and,
2} one central vertex that osscillates between the two diametric larger triangles at each end of the truncated di-pyramid.
So how would I take the inside-outed toroidal model and have its vertexial events be likened to the Euclidean model?
Well, we need at least 10 vertexial events. So if we start with Y 12 < 0 on top peak of sine-wave, we go to '9' Y 10, on the inner peak of curvature, that, leaves us short of one complete revolution of a torus ---that has 12 vertexial events--- by two vertexial events.
So for the moment, lets us assume we need all 12 vertexial events of a torus and that would be 3 vertexes definning the central-spinal-axis on the Euclidean version of truncated di-pyramid.
Ok, so here is the catch to making both versions/models conicide as if they were the same model;
One of the four line levels has to act as outer perimeter of the truncated dipyramid, Euclidean model.
Or, perhaps we can say it is the two inside lines/levels taking turns acting as the outside perimeter of the Euclidean model.
Too visualize this idea, lets consider the below pattern and think of '12 Y 1, '1' Y 2, and '2' Y 3, as the outer perimeter and '5' Y 6 as the central vertex for those three. Ive placed some arrows <<<<<<<<< to better visualize this postional change, that may osscilate, or as I go along we may see or say that whatever the two inside vertexes may knock one of the others out to the perimeter as the may oscillate on their central-spinal-axis.
>.................'10' Y 11 .............................'12' Y 1 ...........................................................'4' Y 5..........................'6' Y 7.......................................outer.>
-
-
>.......................................Y 12<0...................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<'5' Y 6.............................................................top....>
>.............Y '11'<'0'>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...................'2'Y 3...................................................................................................'8' Y 9...bottom..>
-
-
>.'9' Y 10 ............................................................'1' Y 2............................'3' Y 4.............................................................'7' Y 8.........................inner..>
So whereas '5' Y 6 is inside, maybe Y '11' , 0 >>>>>>>>may come along>>>>>>> an knock i'5' Y 6 out to become perimeter or vice versa. H,mm this going to require some intense consideration of the mind to get a scenario that makes some kind of visual sense.
25 days later
-->
@FLRW
Prime numbers are significant. I don't know why.
Prime numbers are significant. I don't know why.
I agree ergo that makes two of us that dont know why.
What my inside-outing { asymmetrical } of the symmetrical sine-wave 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6 is, that, all prime numbers except 2 and 3 are found on the outer, positive curvature peak of geodesic events surface, along with other non-prime numbers.
Symmetrical sine-wave is an abstract perfection ergo not our occupied space Universe, however, when the numerical four level symmetrical sine-wave is inside-outed ---as Ive presented--- we discover our observed physical reality { Observed or Experiential Time } is the sine-wave on the inside of the torus, and numerically 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36 and their exists 36 kinds of flavored quarks.
18 flavored quarks
18 flavored anti-quarks
-->
@janesix
Prime numbers are not significant. I know why. It is simply a made up definition to explain 5 toes and 5 fingers.
Ebuc, I am going to say something that I promise you is not said with malice but I admit it is slightly insulting.
When I read posts like your OP, the sheer fact you dedicated all the time and effort to make something that noone on the forum will understand except for you, makes me physically laugh out loud in a genuine sense.
I honestly want you to know that there are other users I don't always care about the threads of, so this is not about making you feel bad. I just truly find the fact that you post here, a non-physics-expert forum about your deep quantum theory stuff and literally type out dots and bolded numbers to illustrate your ideas in the text format all yo explain something that is gibberish to almost (if not completely) all of us who will read, it.
So, thank you for the comedy but I beg you that if you want to change from making soem users laugh and others be extremely bemused that you break down what you truly mean in a clearer, written format in plain English not text-design illustatrions.
-->
@RationalMadman
So, thank you for the comedy but I beg you that if you want to change from making soem users laugh and others be extremely bemused that you break down what you truly mean in a clearer, written format in plain English not text-design illustatrions.
Great RM, please share with me which words, sentences, text-design are not clear to you, and the alternative words, sentences, text-design, that, you believe would clarify concepts I'm trying to present.
Whats that you say, you have none to offer. Just as I expected. Old news.