Half-spin

Now this entire idea of half-spins gave me some trouble in my first forays into visualizing sub-atomic particles. What does a half spin look like?

Turns out you can do some nice approximations of the concept using our 60 degree Synergetic System. The image above has been left unlabeled because we haven’t really gotten that far yet, but let’s notice the similarities between the UUD UDD configuration of the Standard Model with the legs of the half tetrahedron which Fuller relates to the action-reaction-resultant which occurs in any particle interaction. We know that these and all other particles obey the generalized principles of Newton’s Law’s and we can see the vectors indicated by the red and blue lines as vectors and we can also see that when they combine in a certain way they can form a tetrahedron. The minimum system in Universe. the minimum division between inside and outside. Could it make a nice model for an atom (hydrogen) which is the most plentiful, smallest, and most easily combining element in Universe? It ‘s found everywhere. With me, so far?

 So, we can see some similarities but we aren’t ready to start equating symbols to particles without seeing how this geometric twist works helping us visualize just what is going on.
Let’s see if we can make any further connections.

Advertisements

Infinity

I would like to state that, at this point, I don’t believe in the concept of “infinity”. The idea that anything goes on forever; time or direction wise doesn’t compute with me. That should make it obvious that I don’t believe that the Universe is infinite. I think most modern physicists ascribe to this view also. Unless, of course, one wants to equate “infinite” with “God” and basically other incomprehensible concepts.

Our very definitions of point, line, area, volume, as examples of 0, 1, 2 and 3 dimensional concepts, just don’t exist, even conceptually. Can you perceive of a one sided plane surface? We throw in the idea of infinity as an axiom to be taken as stated, much as the idea of 3 dimensions is taken as axiomatic rather than as the misconstrued standard that it has proven to be. None of these things works consistently, or conceptually.

What we have, at the base line are, location, direction (angle) and vector (the length and direction from one point to another). With these basic, quite intuitive, concepts, we can express the complexities of our Universe in ways unprecedented with our 3 dimensional “Standard Model”.

Nucleus of Standard Model



These are the symbols used by western science to show the nucleus of an atom with its constituent parts.

Below we have a rough sketch of the ideas Fuller has for the visualization of the components of the nucleus. See any similarities? The numbers 3, 4, 12, 24, 48 and 64 show up regularly in both systems.

Notice that the Standard Model uses the term spin with the Fermions all exhibiting increments of “half spins”. In the next post I hope to show some models which should spread some light on exactly what a “half-spin” is.

Mind Fun

This should become part of a heading called “Mind Fuckers” or something like that. Mull this one over.
Our bodies, indeed, our entire physical world, is made up of “particles” none of which can actually be seen, by-the-way, but which exhibit very definite and consistent patterns of behavior due to largely unknown or misunderstood forces. So, every atom in our bodies which in turn make up the molecules, enzymes, proteins, cells, organs, organ systems etc. are all operating at full tilt; somewhere near the speed of light in some cases. All of that activity supplies blood to my highly evolved (thus far) brain which then uses this computer to write these words which, as soon as they are put down begin to ever so slowly breakdown via entropy into the same randomness from whence they came.
Now, if time’s arrow is the direction of entropy and/or vice versa, what happens to time while I (all those atoms which comprise “me”) am creating via syntropy; making ever more complex devices from the chaos. Does time reverse? Does it pause? Does that creative time ever get “paid back” is some mysterious way?

Perhaps a good analogy is a plant. It takes in the sunlight water and certain minerals and replicates the patterns encrypted in the DNA of its seed to become the fruited plant which we then harvest, breakdown via cooking, chewing and digesting to repeat the process.

I’m putting this out because I find it is triggering many interesting and sometimes conflicting ideas of what we are and what it is, exactly, we are going here. I heard one of the many pundits of evolution say the other day that the purpose of any evolving civilization should be to get off the face of the planet they are evolving on. It’s not a stable place to be. One big solar flare in the wrong direction and puff…there goes earth’s atmosphere. Who cares about the CO2? But, this is the subject for another time. Just consider whether time goes backward if we are being creative. It seems logically that it should. The related physics question (you may remember this one from high school too) says that if an astronaut goes off at the speed of light and his twin brother stays on earth, when the astronaut twin gets back he would be younger because time slows down as your speed increases, hypothetically stopping when you got to the speed of light but, and here’s the tricky part, when the astronaut twin stops won’t the light he has been speeding ahead of catch back up with him? Would he age faster on the return trip or as he slowed down? And, per relativity, how would we know which twin was, in fact, moving and in which direction? All of these questions require incredible kludges and suspensions of disbelief to even begin to make any sense but then strangle in their own complexity.

I think there’s a better, easier and more intuitive way.

It’s called Synergetics.

First There’s Nothing, Then There Is.

Fuller starts us out at a place that nicely coincides with the numbers given us by modern physics.

In high school math you may or may not recall the parts about actions and reactions, Newton’s laws, that stuff. The billiard balls and angles. Well, basically we still use these same laws, and, not a whole hell of alot more. We shoot things at things for US$50 Billion and see how they react. Makes sense in a basically 2 dimensional universe. We can even make it work more or less in a 3 dimensional Universe but let’s have a look at this, shall we?

The billiard balls we are examinimg are moving about in what appear to be indeterminate patterns. For arguments sake, and a coherent starting place, we’ll call this “space”; Aether, vacuum space, Zero Point Energy, Higgs field, whatever. Seems to be where all the energy is, no matter how you cut it. It’s everywhere and it’s just energy events. Now, let’s take, for a moment, the work of the Russian scientists  referenced in David Wilcock’s work which we will use presently to nicely model the toroidal (doughnut shapes) used in Kozyrev’s and, later, Nassim Haramein’s presentations.

Fuller uses the term “energy event” and combines these as action-reaction-resultant. Remember, there aren’t 2 balls on a flat plane but millions all going in different directions. Now, let’s throw in the unprovable, but highly plausible, hypothesis that somehow, consciousness (human or otherwise) can cause these energy events as a disturbance in the counter-rotating layers of this aether. We can even use this model to exhibit where angular momentum (another physics sticking point) may come from.

 
To summarize, let’s see if we can map these up/down spins of modern physics with the 4 dimensional advantages of Synergetics. Shown here on the right as some of Fuller’s original sketches.

I’m open to suggestions.

I can now also see how the Up and Down characteristics of physics can relate to the radiant and gravitational aspects of Synergetics giving us the “tunable/untunable” in the form of visible and invisible, perhaps?

Einstein, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Perhaps the key breakdown of modern physics has occurred around the apparent irreconcilability of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity with quantum mechanics. They just don’t seem to fit. This dichotomy coincides with the loss of modelability in physics, somewhere around the mid 1950’s.

It occurred to me, as I was getting into the work of Ken Wilber, that in one of his works; Sex, Ecology and Everything he states that one of the inherent occurrences in psychology was that as different aspects of a wide range of research were uncovered, each was seen as a standalone conclusion. Freud saw everything in terms of sex and ego and id and this was thought to be the driving force behind virtually everything, Followed by Jung, B.F. Skinner, et al. all looking at pieces which turn out to be parts of a much greater holon. It was only as the “big picture” was pieced together that the obvious synergy, inherent in this aspect of evolution, became “obvious”.

We are doing the same thing in physics. Relativity and Quantum mechanics are both contained within the greater whole of Synergetics yet we are looking at each as a separate part. Mapping the sub-atomic particles is a logical first step.

Standard Model

 The Challenge which faces us at this juncture is whether we can map the “particles” of the Standard Model of physics (chart on the right), to the geometry of Synergetics which gives us a more intuitive vision of our Universe. I, for one, have a stretch to envision a “strange” force.

I am currently reviewing the various shapes in Synergetics with the apparent particles discovered by physics and looking at and for patterns most of which can be seen at the top of the home page. I hope to put up another chart shortly, if I can find some obvious connections to get the process going. Keep in mind none of these are conclusions, just an alternative way of looking at a Universe that appears to be, at times, largely incomprehensible.

I would invite anyone to contribute any suggestions. This is all new for me and I am hoping that others in diverse fields; science, spiritualism, psychology, who see connections (in positive ways please) let me know by commenting.

Direction of Entropy

Since there is general agreement (scientists, spiritualists, new agers) that time is an illusion, created by the mind, to enable us to comprehend what, by most all accounts, takes place in an instant, we won’t get into the myriad variations here, but start thinking about it.

Though time is an illusion, it still appears very real to us within this physical existence we have chosen. We have entropy as radiation defining time but where does the syntropy come from? Yeah, you know, the thing making the stuff that is breaking down. Does time go backward when we are creating things?

Or could we be dark matter? Consciousness gathering the elemental particles disbursed by entropy and re-knitting them in endless variations?

Considering how physics has buggered with the numbers and re-worked the equations, we should be able to do the same. Only let’s try to be a bit more consistent, shall we?

Nassim Haramein – A POV


I was recently sent and watched Nassim Haramein on YouTube. I was really shocked and thrilled to see a Physics Conference discussing the very cosmology I have been working on for the past 50 years, right down to the very models I have created. It was a strange feeling, like hearing Billy Joel singing a song you had written. But, I also realize how this is just an awakening to a new realm of potential research and I do believe all of this must be kept open source.

Upon further review, I got to several of the sites debunking Haramein and his views as expressed in the film Thrive, which many of you are probably familiar with. What I did get was that most of the items for which Haramein was attacked could be omitted (I had already) and the basic concepts still stand. It is often posited that any new idea goes through 3 stages; ridicule, vilification, and finally, recognition as obvious. Let’s see how it goes.

Crossing the Event Horizon

This is the video I have been endeavoring to make but, I can fill in many of the gaps and clarify a few of his assumptions. He has done great work, especially with the mathematical/physics technical issues but, it feels like he spends a lot of time describing how he “figured out” all of this. Of course, he may not have read Synergetics but, every point he makes was described in much more detail by Fuller in 1974. Simplification is the key. I think that we all have to espouse our ideas and see how they all fit. After all, we are all looking at the same thing.

It’s just good to see physicists starting to understand how nature, science and spiritual “mysteries” can be resolved. This is just the beginning. The Glass Bead Game starts here!

Stay tuned.