Harmonics and Shape of Space

[r6r6]

Does the shape of gravitational spacetime and dark energy-- also as spacetime ---have anything to do with ideas of even and odd harmonics?

We think of di-polar electric charges as perpetually chasing their tail/self ergo and eternally self-perpetuating Universe.

What about the shape of spacetime that is both positive and negative as the kernal/crux of perpetuating motion?

To me, a strictly linear motion has no reference of itself ergo not even the minimal consciousness. However, if the motion changes direction i.e. and angle occurs, now there may exist a relationship to its tail that is not charge related.

We say that, the postivve gravitational shape of space is IN i.e. INward towards itself. We say that the negative dark energy shape is repulsive to it self if not also repulsive to gravity.

I would have the reader consider the following link to a torus once again, that has positive, negative and zero curvature.

In addition to those curvatures or lack of curvatures, I would also ask the reader to consider odd and even harmonics in relationship to the numerical patterns I assign to a great toroid.

Even harmonics are 2, 4, 6 8 etc...

Odd harmonics are 3, 5, 7, 9 etc.....

....1.........5....7..............11......13...............17.....19.................23..............


0................6.....................12........................18............................24.........
.........3.................9...........................15........................21.....................


......2....4...........8....10..................14.....16..............20.......22..............

[Gem]

In the making abstract forms, such as gravity, electron, proton etc, there is an effect that is measured and named, but there is no correct visualisation that depicts these as formal entities. There is nothing there and we really talk about the things that we are imagining, but we talk seriously and truthfully about the actual experienced/observed event. We see consistency where all electrons behave in exactly the same way - and there are no 'slightly different' electrons that act differently - so we measure extremely accurately these formless things and name elements of that interaction and thereby construct a modular structure that as simply as possible can be used to describe 'what happens' - but it's not a real thing - it is entirely constructed as a language so that we can speak of it in a coherent and agreeable way.

To the lay person it seems as though that model is enshrined as some sort of truth, and I'd imagine that there are physicists who also believe that there is an actual and real thing being observed, called 'the universe'. But I dare say most have come to terms that particles are essentially formless apart from their moments of interaction.

The next step - due to quantum physics not making any remarkable progress for the last 1/2 century (although that knowledge brought leaps and bounds in technology) - is a new understanding that the universe, for any practical purpose, operates according to 'a law of the mind', and a very careful inquiry into how thought/mind operates - not psychologically, but actually - will bring about a new leap in knowledge about the universe, which is, from any person's standpoint, the perceived.

In this process one turns the table an investigates the observer, and by so doing, also understands the observed very deeply, and not as 'knowledge', but as a living actual fact which culminates in the perception, at which point, the observer is the observed, and not apart from it.

[r6r6]

Hi Gem, and a couple of things to consider;

1)
....."Paul Dirac

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way.

.....With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations.

.........With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way."....

http://www.eskesthai.com/search?updated-min=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50

2) shape of atom
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-shape-of-atoms/

3) shape of fermi bubbles
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/new-structure.html

4) shape of mangetic field
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%27s+magnetic+field&biw=1115&bih=534 &source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinvaCe7tfJAh Xl64MKHUOjALcQ_AUIBigB

I.e. I think your too quick to dismiss visualization as insignificant imaginationation of Universe or any of its parts.

r6

Originally Posted by Gem

In the making abstract forms, such as gravity, electron, proton etc, there is an effect that is measured and named, but there is no correct visualisation that depicts these as formal entities. There is nothing there and we really talk about the things that we are imagining, but we talk seriously and truthfully about the actual experienced/observed event.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Hi Gem, and a couple of things to consider;

1)
....."Paul Dirac

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way.

.....With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations.

.........With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way."....

http://www.eskesthai.com/search?updated-min=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50

2) shape of atom
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-shape-of-atoms/

3) shape of fermi bubbles
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/new-structure.html

4) shape of mangetic field
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%27s+magnetic+field&biw=1115&bih=534 &source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinvaCe7tfJAh Xl64MKHUOjALcQ_AUIBigB

I.e. I think your too quick to dismiss visualization as insignificant imaginationation of Universe or any of its parts.

r6

Oh - the links aren't working, it sees like a SF server issue, but I'll paste then in the search thingy later.

On visualisation. What we look at is a representation, which is a relationship between points. Other artifacts of line area volume angle and so on are consequential to the relationship. It all fits to gether because the relationship is very particular, an works in a very specific way; therefore, the visual geometry and the algebra describe exactly the same relationship. The universe is a relationship as well, the relative universe, which works in the same way, so we find, mathematics is the language that describes things accurately. We can't ever describe it completely, because the primary axiom, that choice of symbol, only exists as a relationship as well. Godel explained it in the proper math, but the logic itself is very simple.

Did you you know that atom imaging is done in a detector that uses the averages of atoms, and is not the image of 'an atom'. In fact, if the proton shown in the image was actual size, the electron orbit would be somewhere across town. The image produced by the detector is a representation that depicts information gathered from millions of atoms, and it doesn't actually resemble the atom itself. We have been drawing similar images since Rutherford and Bohr without the aid of hi-tech. To say this instrument that produced the image of the atom is showing us an atom is like saying Rutherford/Bohr saw an atom and drew it. The image is very informative, but it is in fact still a mere geometric representation of analysed information, and very probably only accessible as a consequence of the measurement. What it is at times when it isn't being detected is another whole kettle of fish.

Prior to the formation of geometry, there is a pre-formal thought which is more like the possibility of thought rather than a thought proper. My dot theory was thought out at that level, and then expressed with a few dots. As I said before, the mental conceptual relationships and the material relationships in the universe abide by the same 'laws'. I don't mean the laws of physics. I mean the laws of form that are the reason geometry is so utterly exact and unbreakable. So, as the mental form and universal form operate on the same relational principle, the particles also exist in this pre-formal potentiality, until they are expressed as relationship/interaction, just like a thought - and as Max Planck claims, mind is the matrix behind matter. Therefore, the 'shape of the atom' or the electron or photon or whatever quantum interaction there is, occurs upon perception in the same way that a thought does.

[r6r6]

Gem--On visualisation. What we look at is a representation, which is a relationship between points.

They are visualizations via instrumentation of what exists.

It all fits to gether because the relationship is very particular, an works in a very specific way; therefore, the visual geometry and the algebra describe exactly the same relationship.

It all fits because the instrumentation is telling us what exists as pattern that is we visualize.

The universe is a relationship as well, the relative universe, which works in the same way, so we find, mathematics is the language that describes things accurately.

Our finite, occupied space Universe has nothing else to relate too.

Our Universe is composed of many interrelationships. Your wording complicates if not obfuscates rather simple concepts.

We can't ever describe it completely, because the primary axiom, that choice of symbol, only exists as a relationship as well. Godel explained it in the proper math, but the logic itself is very simple.

Irrelevant side tangent to the facts that we can visualize shape of atom, magnetic field etc...your still to quick too so easily dismiss our humans ability to visualize some parts of Universe, via our instrumentation abilities.

I gave those links to show that we are not just imagining these visualization there actually exists instrumentation that can produce what we cannot see with naked eye.

Did you you know that atom imaging is done in a detector that uses the averages of atoms, and is not the image of 'an atom'. In fact, if the proton shown in the image was actual size, the electron orbit would be somewhere across town.

No, I did no read the details, yet if you believe their findings on the shape of the atom as posted on that site is incorrect, then please tell us what the correct shape of the atom is.

The image produced by the detector is a representation that depicts information gathered from millions of atoms, and it doesn't actually resemble the atom itself.

Irrelevant. Our brains take in a finite amount of photons to produce images. I certainly am confident of the shape of my car as I see it.

We have been drawing similar images since Rutherford and Bohr without the aid of hi-tech. To say this instrument that produced the image of the atom is showing us an atom is like saying Rutherford/Bohr saw an atom and drew it.

Your still trying to dismiss that we can have visual images of some parts of Universe. The instrumentation affirms/validates what others have only imagined.

Your stuck in some mind set that no instrumentation can produce and accurate visualizaton of an atom and I believe, for the most part, your incorrect.

The image is very informative, but it is in fact still a mere geometric representation of analysed information, and very probably only accessible as a consequence of the measurement. What it is at times when it isn't being detected is another whole kettle of fish.

All of occupied space is a geometric pattern. A chair, a human, a fish, etc.......your trying to deny facts of existence, that, some we can see with naked and eye and verify via touch, sound waves, EMRadiation, etc...

Therefore, the 'shape of the atom' or the electron or photon or whatever quantum interaction there is, occurs upon perception in the same way that a thought does.

I look forward to the day when you can provide us a link the shape/visulaization of a "thought". Not likely Gem.

I have provided you with what claim/infer/imply can only be imagined. Not true. I supplied you with information that validates instrumental verifications of shape of that specific atom, and I believe there exists intrumemtal verification of shape of magetic field on that Google page have the same or similar torus shape around Earth of magentic field.

This is not imagination, as you suggest is the best we can do to ever visualize some aspects of our Universe.

You are to quick to so easily dissmiss what is not only possible is happenging and been happeing for many years. Instrumental validation for what humans in past imagined to exist or visually look like.

r6

[Gem]

[quote=r6r6r]They are visualizations via instrumentation of what exists.


It all fits because the instrumentation is telling us what exists as pattern that is we visualize. [quote]

It fits because it simply must cohere as a relation. That essence pre-exists form and regardless of what kind of symbol/axiom is selected, the same rules of relation apply.

Our finite, occupied space Universe has nothing else to relate too.

It is a relation, and it has no unitary existence.

Our Universe is composed of many interrelationships. Your wording complicates if not obfuscates rather simple concepts.

The fact that you are confused does not necessarily imply a lack of clarity on my part.

Irrelevant side tangent to the facts that we can visualize shape of atom, magnetic field etc...your still to quick too so easily dismiss our humans ability to visualize some parts of Universe, via our instrumentation abilities.

On the contrary, I just said it is a visualisation - no different in essence to Rutherford and Bohr's visualisations. This hi tech generated image is the product of information analysis (just like Rutherford and Bohr's atom was) and isn't an image of 'an atom'.

I gave those links to show that we are not just imagining these visualization there actually exists instrumentation that can produce what we cannot see with naked eye.

Millions of atoms were put into the machine and a computer analysed information gathered by all those interactions. It produced what amounts to a visualation, and does not depict a single atom.

No, I did no read the details, yet if you believe their findings on the shape of the atom as posted on that site is incorrect, then please tell us what the correct shape of the atom is.

The shape they produced is very similar to Rutherford and Bohr, so I am persuaded that a shape of that kind best represents the information we gather about atoms.

Irrelevant. Our brains take in a finite amount of photons to produce images. I certainly am confident of the shape of my car as I see it.

Exactly. But we aren't trying to see a proton a or an atom. The car is uber-billions of interactions, and we see the probability distribution of all those interactions. It's very definite and completely doubtless. It's the same as if you rolled a dice an uber-billion times - you can be sure, without doubt, all the numbers from 1 to 6 will come up an equal number of times (with negligible variation).

Your still trying to dismiss that we can have visual images of some parts of Universe. The instrumentation affirms/validates what others have only imagined.

Bohr and Rutherford had a lot of information about atoms as they are detected in experiments. From that information they depicted the nucleus and electron orbits. The machine did the exact same thing, but with much more information.

Your stuck in some mind set that no instrumentation can produce and accurate visualizaton of an atom and I believe, for the most part, your incorrect.

I'm saying the visualisation is accurate because it is the most efficient way of representing the vast amount information that has been analysed. It is also accurate because it represents the probability distribution of an uber-billion 'dice roll' interactions. It is not, however, an image on 'an atom'.

All of occupied space is a geometric pattern. A chair, a human, a fish, etc.......your trying to deny facts of existence, that, some we can see with naked and eye and verify via touch, sound waves, EMRadiation, etc.


I look forward to the day when you can provide us a link the shape/visulaization of a "thought". Not likely Gem.

I think of a circle and draw a circle. Am I stating the obvious here?

I have provided you with what claim/infer/imply can only be imagined. Not true. I supplied you with information that validates instrumental verifications of shape of that specific atom, and I believe there exists intrumemtal verification of shape of magetic field on that Google page have the same or similar torus shape around Earth of magentic field.

On the contrary, imagination must cohere to the 'law of relation'. The mind and the universe are the same primary structure.

his is not imagination, as you suggest is the best we can do to ever visualize some aspects of our Universe.

It's a matter of probability distribution, as I explained.

You are to quick to so easily dissmiss what is not only possible is happenging and been happeing for many years. Instrumental validation for what humans in past imagined to exist or visually look like.

r6

The machine only analysed a lot of things, and produced a composite of that information.

This is like saying that the Mandelbrot set 'looks like' the computer generated images - but if you watch a Manderbrot zoom - the set doesn't look like anything in particular, in fact, we can only say that it goes on forever without ever looking the same.

[r6r6]

[quote=r6r6r]They are visualizations via instrumentation of what exists.It all fits because the instrumentation is telling us what exists as pattern that is we visualize. [quote]

It fits because it simply must cohere as a relation.

Duh yeah that is complicated and obfuscated way restating what I said.

That essence pre-exists form and regardless of what kind of symbol/axiom is selected, the same rules of relation apply.

Comlex obfucated languge that has no meaning, to me and I doubt anyone else Gem./

It is a relation, and it has no unitary existence.

Yeah Gem its all reltionship. Your in denial of what is being presented to you. A visual approximation of what had been heretofore only imaginged or present via instrumentation with less accuracy.

The fact that you are confused does not necessarily imply a lack of clarity on my part.

It many of the cases it does. Your in denial of Ive presented to you. Ditto my above. When you can drop your obfucated language and acknowledge the information Ive presented to you as stated, then, only then might we continue along on rational , logical common sense conversation.

On the contrary, I just said it is a visualisation - no different in essence to Rutherford and Bohr's visualisations. This hi tech generated image is the product of information analysis (just like Rutherford and Bohr's atom was) and isn't an image of 'an atom'.

In the past youve stated its just imagined.

Millions of atoms were put into the machine and a computer analysed information gathered by all those interactions. It produced what amounts to a visualation, and does not depict a single atom.

Yes the site I presented is regarding a single atom. Your in denial of what is being presented to you Gem.

The shape they produced is very similar to Rutherford and Bohr, so I am persuaded that a shape of that kind best represents the information we gather about atoms.

Duh, yeah Gem and it is not imagined as youve proposed and gave references of ancient scientist etc......this is not imagined it is intrumenation based creations of that shape of that specific elements shape of atom is.

Bohr and Rutherford had a lot of information about atoms as they are detected in experiments. From that information they depicted the nucleus and electron orbits. The machine did the exact same thing, but with much more information.

Yeah, and created the most accurate approximation to date. Not just imagined as you originally led off your replies with.

I'm saying the visualisation is accurate because it is the most efficient way of representing the vast amount information that has been analysed. It is also accurate because it represents the probability distribution of an uber-billion 'dice roll' interactions. It is not, however, an image on 'an atom'.

It is much more of than just an image than any of your 'imagined' shapes of atom are because it is based on instrumentation of the data involving that atom much more directly associated than your, mine or 98% of people on planets 'imagined'.

On the contrary, imagination must cohere to the 'law of relation'. The mind and the universe are the same primary structure.

Irrelevant to the information I presented regarding instrumental arrived at data to produce approximate and most accurate visualizations of what exist, to date.

You go off on irrelevant side tangents..Not so bad, if your werent so in denial and acknowledged the information presented you with going off your complicate obfuscating language set.

It's a matter of probability distribution, as I explained.

Its much more than imagined and that is what you originally claimed is all we can do. Not so.

The machine only analysed a lot of things, and produced a composite of that information.

OLd news. New news will be when you ackwoledge that this much more than jsut 'imagined' shapes of atoms and parts of Universe, that you inferred/implyed.

r6

[Gem]

[quote=r6r6r][They are visualizations via instrumentation of what exists.It all fits because the instrumentation is telling us what exists as pattern that is we visualize.

It fits because it simply must cohere as a relation.

Duh yeah that is complicated and obfuscated way restating what I said.


Comlex obfucated languge that has no meaning, to me and I doubt anyone else Gem./




Yeah Gem its all reltionship. Your in denial of what is being presented to you. A visual approximation of what had been heretofore only imaginged or present via instrumentation with less accuracy.

On the contrary, that's exactly what I said it is.

It many of the cases it does. Your in denial of Ive presented to you. Ditto my above. When you can drop your obfucated language and acknowledge the information Ive presented to you as stated, then, only then might we continue along on rational , logical common sense conversation.




In the past youve stated its just imagined.

Nope, you're not listening. I said it's a composite produced by analysing information. Rutherford and Bohr didn't 'just imagine', and the machine certainly didn't 'imagine'. They processed the information they had gathered, and produced a sensible representation.

Yes the site I presented is regarding a single atom. Your in denial of what is being presented to you Gem.

I repeat. The experiment entailed using millions of atoms. The information was very basically the averages of these atoms. The image is a really a composite representation of that analysis, and is NOT the picture of 'an atom'.

Duh, yeah Gem and it is not imagined as youve proposed and gave references of ancient scientist etc......this is not imagined it is intrumenation based creations of that shape of that specific elements shape of atom is.

I never said it's imagined. I said the imagination has to follow the same relational structure as the universe. I explained that the experiment didn't investigate one atom. Many, many atoms were used and the image is basically a composite average.

I also explained that if you roll a dice a million times, the probability distribution is quite certain - but if roll once, you just don't know what number will come up. We know the answer for a million dice rolls, but we don't know the answer of one dice roll.

Yeah, and created the most accurate approximation to date. Not just imagined as you originally led off your replies with.

That's right. And that's also what I said. I did NOT say it was imagined. That's just what you asserted.

It is much more of than just an image than any of your 'imagined' shapes of atom are because it is based on instrumentation of the data involving that atom much more directly associated than your, mine or 98% of people on planets 'imagined'.

Do I really have to repeat myself AGAIN? Try on your listening ears, man.

Irrelevant to the information I presented regarding instrumental arrived at data to produce approximate and most accurate visualizations of what exist, to date.

You go off on irrelevant side tangents..Not so bad, if your werent so in denial and acknowledged the information presented you with going off your complicate obfuscating language set.

Its much more than imagined and that is what you originally claimed is all we can do. Not so.

OLd news. New news will be when you ackwoledge that this much more than jsut 'imagined' shapes of atoms and parts of Universe, that you inferred/implyed.

r6

Yea - OK, but it's actually your own voice asserting I said it was imagined, when I actually said it's produced by analysing a lot of information, and isn't the picture of 'an atom'. Did you turn off your internal noise for long enough to hear that?

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

That's right. And that's also what I said. I did NOT say it was imagined. That's just what you asserted.
Do I really have to repeat myself AGAIN? Try on your listening ears, man.
Yea - OK, but it's actually your own voice asserting I said it was imagined, when I actually said it's produced by analysing a lot of information, and isn't the picture of 'an atom'. Did you turn off your internal noise for long enough to hear that?

Yeah because that is what I read. That is why I went and found you evidence of more than just imagined visuals.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Yeah because that is what I read. That is why I went and found you evidence of more than just imagined visuals.

r6

I didn't say it was imagined visuals in the first place. I explained how it's an image that is produced based on analysis of information. Essentially, it isn't 'real', and it is a representation.