Problems with current concepts in science

# Time

I have been having some overlap in fields while thinking about the nature of time. Time gives us some of the more interesting paradoxes in Western Science; The Twin Paradox, Time Dilation, Instantaneity. Once again I would like you to consider the possibility that we adhere so tightly to our “beliefs” that it blocks us from seeing the obvious.

Let me point out a few of these beliefs:

• We believe that speed is measured relative to an “at rest” state which doesn’t exist in nature. Everything vibrates.
• We believe that the Universe is divided into a 3 dimensional coordinate system that nature uses.
• Einstein has shown, among other things; that the speed of light appears to be a constant,
• some events in the physical world appear to occur instantaneously over great distances,
• time appears to be an illusion of mind, relative and different for each individual.

These give some insurmountable problems when trying to deal with the concept of time. Let’s try a different point of view.

Let’s start by realizing that everything vibrates at some subdivision of the speed of light (c) which appears to us to be a constant. This is Eternity. When we can traverse the Universe in an instant we experience Eternity. Let’s see this once again as the aether. This was part of what Einstein was trying to resolve with the idea of “hidden variables”. How does one resolve instantaneous action with the concept of time and the concept of the speed of light being a constant and insurmountable.
Ascension 2000.

In order to truly be able to get a grasp on Kozyrev’s work and related findings, certain new analogies for physical matter are required. Rigorously, Kozyrev’s work forces us to visualize all physical objects of matter in the Universe as if they were sponges that are submerged in water.

In all of these analogies, we should consider the sponges as having remained in water for a long enough period of time that they are completely saturated. Bearing this in mind, there are two things we can do with such sponges underwater: we can decrease the volume of water that they contain or increase it, by very simple mechanical procedures.

1.Decrease: If a submerged, saturated sponge is squeezed, cooled or rotated, then some of the water inside of it will be released into its surroundings, decreasing its mass. Once the sponge is no longer disturbed, the pressure on the millions of tiny pores is relieved, causing it to again absorb water and expand back to its normal resting mass.

2.Increase: We can also pump more water pressure into the sponge in its rest state, such as by heating (vibrating) it, thus causing some of the pores to expand with more water than they can comfortably hold. In this case, once we relieve the added pressure, the sponge will naturally release its excess water and shrink back down to its normal resting mass.

Though it would seem impossible to most people, Kozyrev showed that by shaking, spinning, heating, cooling, vibrating or breaking physical objects, their weight can be increased or decreased by subtle but definite amounts. And this is but one aspect of his amazing work.

Please note, at this point we don’t have to concern ourselves with the validity of the above stated model. We are merely testing it as a hypothesis and it will either work or not.

# 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.

# 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.

# 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 left), 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?

# Sacred Geometry and Unified Fields

This video may be a little drawn out but he makes great points.
Everything he posits fits nicely within Synergetics: The “Vacuum Energy” is the aether, the “Space” is the Isotropic Vector Matrix (the 4 dimensional, 60 deg matrix of Synergetics) is the Higgs Field, the God Particle is the Vector Equilibrium is the Higgs Boson. It all works!

# An invitation to the 4th Dimension

I am going to ask you to believe a few things here right at the outset of this proposal. Not that they aren’t true, it’s just that I can’t prove them. The reason I can’t prove them is that they are at a scale that is beyond the limits of our senses. Now keep in mind that science has been asking us to do exactly that since the mid-20th century. We were told, “It’s too complicated”, “beyond comprehension”, “doesn’t make sense but…”. Well, I have never quite been able to buy into that idea. I’m not alone apparently. Oh, and the other little catch to the established sciences; every time we discover the “answer” (the Higgs Boson is one of the latest) it leads to another 20 years of study to figure out what it all means.

So, these few things I am going to ask you to believe are no more than others; family, church, culture, ask you to believe. The difference is that, once we get these few things out of the way, we don’t have to do it again, ever. Everything else is built on these few beliefs. So, if everything turns out to be incorporated within this frame of reference, can we fail to accept these basic beliefs? The really good news is that we will get to do exactly that. I am proposing a way of looking at things, the way nature actually works, by using the same coordinate system that nature uses throughout the Universe. This system was called Synergetics by its discoverer/inventor, Richard Buckminster Fuller.

I have studied Synergetics since it first came out in the mid-70s. Basically, what it said was that our 90º X,Y,Z coordinate system was flawed and not what nature uses and he proposed that nature used a 60º 4 dimensional coordinate system based on the closest packing of spheres.

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, “…maybe there are no particles, but only waves.” Fuller states early on that science has never demonstrated a particle and contends that there only waves. Hawking also states that, “When we combine quantum mechanics with relativity, there seems to be a new possibility that did not arise before; that space and time together might form a finite, four-dimensional space without singularities or boundaries,” (both required to make the current theory work) “like the surface of the Earth with more dimensions.” I contend that Fuller’s Synergetics  describes that very space. So, there you have it, from the top guy. Sir Isaac Newton Chair of Astrophysics, Cambridge University. No particles, only waves and 4 dimensions. Stephen Hawking thinks that that might be a possibility. So, this is what I am asking you to believe. There are no particles only waves and these waves tie together in little knots and these are hydrogen atoms and they are openings into a background energy we’ll call the aether. I’m even going to show you what I believe they look like. I can’t prove anything but, it doesn’t require any wild imaginings either. Consider the Sun; where does that energy come from? Then consider all the visible stars, all pumping energy into space. Science says it all came about as the product of a big explosion which took place millions of years ago and scattered this energy randomly in clusters throughout the known Universe to coalesce into matter.

Here’s the problem with that; if we accept this instantaneous explosion and we see ourselves within this expanding Universe, it must be expanding from a point. The catch is that the Universe appears to be expanding from wherever we measure it. Let me repeat that, it’s really critical. The Universe is expanding (accelerating, actually) from whatever point we/I measure it. If I look out from here, it is expanding uniformly…from here. If you measure it from where you are, that’s the center. This is what you are being asked to swallow by modern science. They know all about the background energy, how long the energy needs to cool down, density of matter out there, but it just doesn’t add up!

“No matter,” says science, “We’ll make up ‘dark matter’ to explain it.”

And we may ask, “What is dark matter?”

And, the answer is, “We don’t know but, we need it to explain this accelerating expansion.” So this is what I was asked to swallow, a circuitous line of thinking at best, and I did… until I read Synergetics, because Fuller gives us a way of looking at these most basic of beliefs in a way that makes sense.

Here’s another way of looking at a 4 dimensional space with the axes through the center of the triangular faces of a Vector Equilibrium.

Another contradiction we are asked to swallow in particle physics is the dual nature of light. Light exhibits some qualities of a particle (mostly, it can travel through a vacuum) and of a wave (can pass through another solid and exhibits diffraction patterns). I will present here another possible view of what we are being asked to believe by modern science. Not another belief , to be swallowed, just a new approach to an existing problem. We’ll get into more detail presently.

Just to keep it real, let’s see how our tetrahedron/Synergetic space works as a model of minimum reality; a hydrogen atom. Most plentiful element in the Universe, main component of our stars and the source of all energy. Here’s where the 4th dimension, as physical reality, begins.

Finally, let’s put out a few hypotheses to start thinking about.

First, to address the issue of the expanding Universe, let’s try this view. Instead of “us” as points in an expanding Universe, consider that we are shrinking within an energy background. Keeps “me” at the center of my Universe and you at the center of your’s with no complications from physical laws. Relativity allows for just such a scenario. Now, in that context think of this second hypothesis…that we, as consciousness, are dark matter. pulling in energy, causing synergy (opposite of energy), knitting our own Universes out of the unlimited background energy of the aether. Any reason it wouldn’t worK?

# Inside

If you are on a slower connection it may appear jerky until all of the images have downloaded. As long as the images are changing, they are still not completely downloaded. If you do drugs you may want to have a friend watch it first.

What we are looking at here is my initial introduction to a new form of modeling and model building. Based on Buckminster Fuller’s Synergetics, I am developing a way to model some of the more difficult images to envision in modern physics. In the future I hope to expand greatly on this model and to, perhaps, receive feedback on the concepts presented.

What you are seeing here is the Synergetic Model of what the nucleus of an atom looks like. We aren’t going to bother with “what atom?” or atomic weight just a generic proton (nucleus) and electron combination. We will produce several variations on this theme and see if any of them coincide with other scientific, philosophical, or theological views.

# Entropy and Consciousness

One of the generalized principles of the Universe is that it is entropic. This means that matter and energy are always going toward greater chaos. If you leave an object, say a tea-cup, sit for long enough it will, at some point, start to break down. It will break into ever smaller pieces, effects like erosion will continue to break it into dust. This occurs universally. Grains of sand never self-assemble into teacups. Molecules don’t come together to form clay and bake themselves into the shape of a teacup. So where does the teacup come from? Where does a tree or a rock come from?

Our contention here is that consciousness is the source of anti-entropy or, syntropy. Entropy is the progression toward ever-increasing chaos while syntropy is the opposite; the assembling of chaos into higher levels of organization. It seems rather obvious that that teacup is the product of consciousness. In point of fact all objects, all organized systems, are always and only the manifestation of an idea assembled by consciousness. Science is now realizing that consciousness is not a product of the physical world. I was taught that the Universe started with a “Big Bang” which distributed myriad particles throughout space and that these particles attracted each other and collected into globules and clusters that somehow assembled into elements and molecules and formed matter and then somewhere in this process, cells formed and organized into cellular systems and biological entities and then somewhere in there consciousness was born. Does this make any sense? In a Universe where entropy is the rule where does a teacup come from?

Without going into detail let’s see if consciousness creating matter makes sense. If we choose to believe that this is so; that at a very fundamental level, consciousness is the spark which initiates the basic assembly of something into the most elemental of particles, that this is the driving force which initiates matter, we can see if the concept holds up. We can see that without consciousness there is no syntropy and for argument’s sake we’ll simply state, as do many religions, that all objects have consciousness. A rock, a tree, a grain of sand an animal. Any example of syntropy has consciousness behind it. We are not making something out of nothing, merely assembling energy events into groups or holons which in turn break apart and reassemble into ever more complex combinations of atoms, molecules, amino acids, cells, cell systems, organs, organ systems and organizations.