- Thank you received: 0
'Edge' of the Universe
- Larry Burford
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
19 years 6 months ago #11266
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
What good is the simplicity of your model for building things big to us if that simplicity comes at the expense of greater complexity in building things small to us? -|Tom|-
No matter what scale we observe in the universe, a decision must be made that attractive force exists or repulsive force in combination with geometry must exist. The essence of repulsive force is that face to face collisions must occur in order to have an effect or result. The essence of attractive force is that results must occur without collision - by definition. Attractive force demands one of two things: either action from a distance or that particles are somehow alive, awake and make decisions. IMHO, neither of these options is tenable or has been demonstrated.
In regard to geometry, there is structure at every scale. IMHO, I see no evidence or logic for things being the same at every scale:
1) At atomic scale, electron microscopes show a fuzzy ball, which is consistent with the limited resolution of electron microscopes and the phenomena of electron cloud.
2) At molecular scale we have very distinct structure. Actual industrial chemistry is highly successful at predicting how to synthesize new compounds and what their properties will be, based on structure. For example, there are 12 isomers of simple sugar. Each sugar has distinct behavior and the only difference between them is their geometry.
3) At the scale of a human, one can build crystals of our size, based on the orientation, size and length of chemical bonds.
4) At the scale of an asteriod, one has the first hint that the summation of gravitational force is beginning to push the body into a sphere. However, they resemble "melted potatoes".
5) At the scale of moons and planets, we have spheres, although high spin can cause them to be oblate.
6) At the scale of a solar system, we do not have a sphere, although it consists of spheres.
7) At the scale of a galaxy, the structure is vaguely similar to but distinct from a solar system.
A cluster of galaxies appears random. Sort of like a collection of nerve cells.
9) A supercluster is similar to a cluster.
10) At the largest scale that we can perceive, there are great walls of galaxies separted by great voids. No hint of sphere.
The premise that things are the same at all scales does not appear to be the case.
The fact that a proton would have geometry does not make it special or fundamental. Every scale has geometry. Based on the analysis of experimental results and observational data, chosing a hollow pyramid for the proton geometry leads to high utility in predicting larger forms that we observe. Obviously this choice is still speculative and open to critical review.
A hollow pyramid shape for the proton answers more issues than simply the structure of larger entities:
1) In strict accordance with collisions being the cause for results, it explains the arrow of time. It selects the direction of time and clearly shows why it is not reversible.
2)The hollow pyramid completes the great circle route for the exchange of energy between the gravitational flux and the light carrying medium. That is, it explains why the universe does not proceed to a dead end, but remains a stable structure of dynamic equilibrium.
I accept and concurr that the five dimensions are unbounded. Therefore, the proton will be made of entities of much smaller structure. It is typical and predictive that we see what something is well before we see why and how it is that way.
My put on the proton is only speculative. However, I have proposed a test which either supports that shape or negates that shape in a separate article.
Gregg Wilson
No matter what scale we observe in the universe, a decision must be made that attractive force exists or repulsive force in combination with geometry must exist. The essence of repulsive force is that face to face collisions must occur in order to have an effect or result. The essence of attractive force is that results must occur without collision - by definition. Attractive force demands one of two things: either action from a distance or that particles are somehow alive, awake and make decisions. IMHO, neither of these options is tenable or has been demonstrated.
In regard to geometry, there is structure at every scale. IMHO, I see no evidence or logic for things being the same at every scale:
1) At atomic scale, electron microscopes show a fuzzy ball, which is consistent with the limited resolution of electron microscopes and the phenomena of electron cloud.
2) At molecular scale we have very distinct structure. Actual industrial chemistry is highly successful at predicting how to synthesize new compounds and what their properties will be, based on structure. For example, there are 12 isomers of simple sugar. Each sugar has distinct behavior and the only difference between them is their geometry.
3) At the scale of a human, one can build crystals of our size, based on the orientation, size and length of chemical bonds.
4) At the scale of an asteriod, one has the first hint that the summation of gravitational force is beginning to push the body into a sphere. However, they resemble "melted potatoes".
5) At the scale of moons and planets, we have spheres, although high spin can cause them to be oblate.
6) At the scale of a solar system, we do not have a sphere, although it consists of spheres.
7) At the scale of a galaxy, the structure is vaguely similar to but distinct from a solar system.
A cluster of galaxies appears random. Sort of like a collection of nerve cells.9) A supercluster is similar to a cluster.
10) At the largest scale that we can perceive, there are great walls of galaxies separted by great voids. No hint of sphere.
The premise that things are the same at all scales does not appear to be the case.
The fact that a proton would have geometry does not make it special or fundamental. Every scale has geometry. Based on the analysis of experimental results and observational data, chosing a hollow pyramid for the proton geometry leads to high utility in predicting larger forms that we observe. Obviously this choice is still speculative and open to critical review.
A hollow pyramid shape for the proton answers more issues than simply the structure of larger entities:
1) In strict accordance with collisions being the cause for results, it explains the arrow of time. It selects the direction of time and clearly shows why it is not reversible.
2)The hollow pyramid completes the great circle route for the exchange of energy between the gravitational flux and the light carrying medium. That is, it explains why the universe does not proceed to a dead end, but remains a stable structure of dynamic equilibrium.
I accept and concurr that the five dimensions are unbounded. Therefore, the proton will be made of entities of much smaller structure. It is typical and predictive that we see what something is well before we see why and how it is that way.
My put on the proton is only speculative. However, I have proposed a test which either supports that shape or negates that shape in a separate article.
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Time to create page: 0.347 seconds