I’ve been working with vector based structures for a while and ran across this model of the closest packed spheres which comprise a 2-frequency Vector Equilibrium. Remember the frequency is the number of spaces between the spheres in an edge, not the number of spheres.
I would like the viewer to remember that the vector based model below (a 1-frequency VE) is based on this spherical packing, the vectors connecting the centers of the spheres. This represents an “at-rest” or “zero-point” which is only passed through for an instant of the cycle of frequency which, we now know, pervades everything. Let’s call this a model of the Higgs Boson.
So here we have the animation which is the overview of all the images we have been showing here. Using simply 24 straight lines, 14 spheres and a surrounding torus or two we have constructed a basic 4 Dimensional structure which, with surprisingly little modification (and only to positions and lighting) can be manipulated to model; Platonic Solids, several scientific and religious icons and many scientific, musical and financial concepts. I would like to propose that, perhaps, this modelling system can model anything we an imagine. After all, isn’t that exactly what we are doing?
Let’s consider that each of these models is a Holon. That is something that is whole in itelf and yet part of something bigger. Salt atoms are Holons unto themselves but combine to form salt molecules and salt crystals. Humans are Holons but come together to form groups, tribes, communities all of which are Holons. We will go into detail on this concept in another page. For right now we are going to see if, maybe, we can get some form of basic Holon “structure” which works at more than just the “micro-conceptual” level. Take a few moments to get this downloaded. You may find it interesting.
I have just had a friend recommend an article he read on the significance of Standard Tuning of A440 HZ or A432 HZ and the ramifications of this fact. He and I are both musicians but the implication of the article is that this 8 HZ difference represents far more than musical inclinations. From this site you can get to all sorts of discussions and controversies: Rothschild’s, Illuminati, enslavement.
This got me to the field of Cymatics and some spectacular patterns generated by sound vibrations. It also got me to a really interesting conspiracy theory basically claiming that The Pope and Hitler had tried to shift standard tuning from 432 HZ, which, they (the conspirators) claim had always been used for 2000 years because; they had discovered that this shift in frequency was what caused people to be more inclined to fight and disagree, to generate aggression. Kind of like when you are running out of your favorite <fill-in-the-blank> .
A lot of these sites basically took some very interesting and verifiable facts and combined them in some interesting ways to then generate some pretty fantastic conclusions supposedly based on these facts. Then I realized this is really what happens with every conspiracy theory. Start with an idea, preferably outrageous, and take a few facts, kludge them together and BINGO “Theory Proved.”
Now, fact checking is a bitch; someone makes a statement, maybe they reference it, maybe they don’t. Do you believe them? Here’s what I usually do. The first statement I don’t already know something about, I look up (in what I believe are reliable sources) to get some background. Then I continue with the article. If the conspirator makes a statement and I can confirm it easily I continue. After a number of these fact checks prove verifiable I can ease off and continue the article leaving out the fact checking. However, if I am going to put that article up or quote it, I really should check all of the significant statements. As Arthur C. Clark said, “If you allow me to pick and choose which facts I can use, I can prove anything.”
Unfortunately, when I applied this standard reference practice most of the conspiracy stuff just went away. The first 5 facts I looked into were just plain false. Why weren’t the great cathedral organs tuned to 432? Why were the tuning forks of Haydn (415) and Bach (422) NOT tuned to 432? Why wouldn’t the ear cochlea adjust, over growth, to adapt to its environment? Why wouldn’t any orchestra use the tuning to lure customers back to their superior feeling music? Why aren’t we all crazy? Well, let’s hold on that one, the jury’s still out. More significantly, where is the hard evidence? Give me something. Take 2 rooms full of 6 yr olds and expose one to a 440 tone and the other to a 432? Try it for a while then switch tones. This ain’t rocket science but I think it falls squarely in the scientific method. Expose someone to 432 HZ while doing an MRI and then to 440 HZ. We can see all sorts of things. Where’s the evidence?
It’s a pain in the ass but, ya gotta do it. “But what does this have to do with Synergetics?”, you might ask? Just this:
I contend Synergetics gives us a way to simplify the entire fact checking process by not having to keep proving the same shit over and over again, which is exactly what we are doing. Take some facts, put them together based on preconceived notions and jump to a totally irrelevant conclusion. It may be hardwired in, which is why I try to stick to a pretty strict interpretation of the Scientific Method.
Here’s how it works:
I want to take this entire idea that there is a true significance to the difference between A440 HZ and A432 HZ and see if we can’t make sense of it. But, rather than start with the conclusion (the Pope and the Hitler had discovered something about that frequency ) and seeking facts to support what this discovery must be, let’s see if we can’t come up with a much simpler and clearer explanation for facts we are being shown. I suspect this may take a while but, I think, if we can make it work, it will be self confirming. Furthermore, we hope to demonstrate that these same facts may be recombined to explain any number of phenomena. Sacred Geometry, Holistic Medicine, Psychology, Market fluctuations, Chemistry, Physics, Languages are the ones I have looked at so far and all seem to work nicely within the network provided us by Synergetics. Not giving us predictions, but allowing us to understand what variables are truly important to the area we are exploring and giving more reliable predictability, while allowing for true freedom. In addition, it gives us several additional variables we didn’t even know we had!
The real beauty is that it is a very small set of facts. We shall refer to these as “generalized principles”, which must work everywhere and everywhen to be even considered facts and, once gotten, become the basis of any other area of the Universe we would like to explore. This is how a hologram works, this is how we apply the concept of holons and it all works together.
Sorry, no pictures yet but I am working on the models.
Stay tuned! I want to examine the work of Nassim Haramein and Frank Chester at the Rhode Island School of Design, both of whom have some very good ideas but abuse the application of their “so-called” discoveries.
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.
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”.
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.
This should become part of a heading called “Mind Messers. ” 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.
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 a lot 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 examining 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.
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?
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.
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.