Dynamic, nonsymmetrical separation.

[Epsilon=One]

The Dynamic Nature
.........of Dimensionless Points,
..................Dimensionless Spheres, and their
...........................Dynamic, Emergent Separation (DES)

The dynamic nature of the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere marks the limit of conceptual reduction within the realm of existence.

Such Dynamic, Emergent Separation (DES) must be nonsymmetrical (non-quaquaversal); and, it is considered as the beginning of an "emergent" philosophy/theory of fundamental science. That is:

All that exists begins with Dynamic, Emergent Separation (DES).

The instant that there is DES the manifestation is pulsoidal (a pulsing ellipsoid) that is referred to as an Emergent Ellipsoid (www.101123.com/EEd) (EEd).

When discussing the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere (DES) as the source of Reality (www.101123.com/R), the purpose of the discussion is not to arrive at a provable observation. What is important, though, is to demonstrate that everything that exists, that is logical and observable, can be rationalized as evolving from such a source; and that it can be so reconciled to logic and observation such that doubt is thoroughly mitigated; and, most importantly, that which cannot be so rationalized and reconciled can thereby be decisively labeled as metaphysical. It is at the moment of DES that the Oneness of Science, Theology, and Philosophy (www.101123.com/STP) (STP) is particularly salient.

Thus, all the currently described forces of Standard Model (SM) physics, of academic theory, would be categorized as metaphysical; as, such are without an internal reconciliation or reconciliation with one another and/or are logical, or observable, from beginning to ending.

And, most importantly, not only are SM forces metaphysical, but also the mathematics that is used to describe said forces and SM manifestations is considered as unprovable; as has been so aptly demonstrated by Kurt Gödel (www.CQthus.com/Go) with his “Incompleteness Theorem” (www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT) (GIT). Of course, the limitations of GIT are removed by Pulsoid Theory’s (www.101123.com/PTis) (PT) Proof of One (www.101123/PoO) (PoO).

The limit of reduction is the duality of Infinity (www.101123.com/I); so that will be a starting point. Infinity will be symbolized as a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere. As there are no dimensions, the radius of the sphere will be "One" and it will be congruent with the dimensionless point.Interestingly, in Unimetry (www.101123.com/Uni), Nature's geometry, a sphere with a radius of One, "1," can be considered to be as infinite as a zero, "0," is infinitesimal. The smallest quantum must be ellipsoidal with a vector that is greater than One. Thus, an ellipsoid with a vector that is One is a sphere . . . and does not exist; which non-existence is a usual quality of Infinity (www.101123.com/I), the duality of the infinite and the infinitesimal.The environment of Reality (www.101123.com/R) is that of tangential quanta in the form of pulsing spheroids that are elliptical and referred to as Pulsoids (www.101123.com/P), that are heuristically represented by two-dimensional Tini Circle Groups (www.101123.com/TCG) (tangent inscribed circles) with Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI) curvatures. Somewhat analogous to the bubbles of a dynamic foam.

The smallest spheroids have radii that represent motion that is near infinite speed; the largest spheroids have radii that represents near motionlessness that approaches infinitesimal speed. The smaller the curvature, or the larger the radius, the slower the represented motion. The total environment of Reality (www.101123.com/R) is motion that exists between the dual loci of Infinity and that flows between the dual foci of Emergent Ellipsoids (www.101123.com/EEd) (EEd).

Between the loci of Infinity (www.10123.com/I), the infinitesimal and the infinite, is that which exists.

Infinity (www.101123.com/I) is defined as a dual, unreachable limit that is defined by speed . . . both fast and motionless. Infinity (www.101123.com/I), Oneness, is the singularity.

Infinity (www.101123.com/I) is the only provable because it cannot be disproved.

Infinity (www.101123.com/I), the singularity, simplicity, pluperfect Chaos is the locus of the postulate (www.101123.com/PPT) (PPT) of Pulsoid Theory (overview) (www.101123.com/OV).

All that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist must evolve from that which is simplest . . . the singularity referred to as Infinity (www.101123.com/I).

Thus, the locus of Reality (www.101123.com/R), the environment of Reality (www.101123.com/R), must emerge from the separation of a dimensionless point and a dimensionless sphere, which represents the dual loci of Infinity (www.101123.com/I) . . . a limit that is defined by motion not distance or size. Therefore, with such a “container” there is no beginning or ending . . . one is the other . . . and vice versa . . . Science, Theology, and Philosophy are One (www.101123.com/STP) (STP).

The nature of said emergence and evolution is heuristically described by the ellipsoidal Pulsoid (www.101123.com/Pulsoids), the seminal quanta of Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PT), which is itself defined by the Emergent Ellipsoid (www101123.com/EEd) (EEd) that is a three-dimensional rotation of an Emergent Ellipse (EE), which represents the dual "envelope" seminal quanta, that is an original concept of Unimetry (www.101123.com/Uni), wherein two ellipses have identical vectors (thus, saliently, an identical major diameter, "M."), identical Pulses, "P," and, of course, identical Elliptical Constants (www.101123.com/EC) (EC); and yet, there are different elliptical curvatures.It is the described dual "envelopes" that account for the "half-spin" that differentiates fermions from bosons that have a simple, unwinding spin.

The Resoloids (www.101123.com/R-loid)/bosons that have been ejected from said dual "envelope" quanta dissipate/slow down and create their own single ellipsoidal geometry.Reality (www.101123.com/R) is fundamentally comprised of quanta of pure (simple/chaotic) motion that begins without speed or dimensions; as there is not as yet “time (www.101123.com/Time).” This pure motion is referred to as seminal motion (www.101123.com/SM). The quantum of motion can be said to be a quantum of “space.” “Space” is described as the Dyosphere (www.101123.com//Dyo); and, the quantum is often referred to as an “envelope” because it envelops/carries the “things of existence” that are conventionally referred to as fermions.

Fermions that escape the envelope, through traumatic ejection, are conventionally referred to as bosons. Fermions and bosons are, in the common vernacular, respectively, matter (subatomic particles) and light (electromagnet waves). The motion within the “envelope” is hyper-relativistic (www.101123.com/HR) (HR); the “things of existence” and the “envelope” itself progress at much slower relativistic speeds that decelerate at a rate established by the Conceptual Unit (www.101123.com/CU). It is the Conceptual Unit (www.101123.com/CU) that regulates the “clock” (www.101123.com/Clock) of fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) (www.101123.com/FIT).

When said seminal quantum of Reality (www.101123.com/R) acquires, almost instantaneously, the properties of: “numbers,” harmony, resonance, and thus, fundamental, intrinsic time (www.101123.com/FIT) (FIT); the quantum becomes the Pulsoid (http://www.101123.com/P) of Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PTis).

The smallest circles in Tini Circle Groups (www.101123.com/TCG) (near infinity in curvature) are heuristically symbolic of continually emerging spheroids that expand with a regulated pulse. And, at a critical point, they compress until, at another critical point, their bonds cannot hold the compressed energy and they explode.

The explosion is observed as quasars and gamma-ray bursts. The dissipating detritus is atoms, ions, and photons. That which compresses prior to explosion is the quixotic “dark” matter (www.101123.com/DM), which is a pulsing, wave “envelope” of harmonic, hyper-relativistic (www.101123.com/HR) (HR) motion (emerging “dark” energy) that contains spinning resonances that are “dark”/transparent until they (Resoloids (www.101123.com/R-loid)) escape and “unwind” their energy as photons that are visible as escaping waves of ellipsoidal energy.

Once the harmony of the “envelope” is “broken,” after critical compression, it is only a matter of time until all the quantum components dissipate to a point where harmonious coalescence can again pursue the eternal cycle of: coalescence, propagation, compression, and dissipation (www.101123.com/ETR), over and over in perpetuity. Thus, the Universe is singular and “steady-state.”

The separation
The quantum pulses when its expansion is such that harmonic, internal oscillations form primary resonances that begin with a radius of a Conceptual Unit (www.101123.com/CU), which radius and Pulse Gap increases exactly one Conceptual Unit (www.101123.com/CU) per Pulse. Thus, it is seminal motion (www.101123.com/SM) with the Inverse Square Law (www.101123.com/ISL) (ISL) and the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC) that unifies all forces.

The dynamics of the geometry of the Emergent Ellipsoid (www.101123.com/EEd) and subsequent Resoloids (www.101123.com/R-loid) is consistent with and reconciles with all the observations of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), supersymmetry (SUSY), cosmology, and cosmogony.

The seminal sphere is without dimensions because its speed is infinite , thus its radius of one is without any dimensional length (There is no Conceptual Unit (CU) until the radius of Infinity (www.101123.com/ROI) (ROI) exceeds One). The diameter of the seminal sphere is referred to as an Infinity line (www.101123.com/IL) (IL).

When there is seminal motion (www.101123.com/SM) there is a motion of separation from the surface of the sphere and a different motion of separation from the dimensionless point. This separation is shown, heuristically, as emanating from the end of any radius of a seminal sphere, in all directions, with a uniform length. Actually, as the sphere and point move into Reality (www.101123.com/R) the motion along the vectors is quite complex.

As this outward motion proceeds the dimensionless point at the center begins to expand (moves off center) while the sphere enlarges. All vectors of expansion must be the same length because they expanded from equal circumstances.

The expansion is not a perfect sphere because the geometry of expansion is different depending upon whether the quaquaversal motion is inward from the dimensionless sphere and outward from the dimensionless point such that a pulse emerges; or, the motion is outward towards the dimensionless sphere and inward towards the dimensionless point such that the emergent pulse collapses. The motion is different at all points along the vectors (including the major Radials which are also vecors.)

Because of the imbalance of the motion from a point and the surface of a sphere, as they separate, the locus will not be a sphere. The salient concept is that the motion will be equal and will be represented by a component referred to as a vector, "v."

The geometry of separation is fully described by the Pulsoid Theorem, v = εP² (www.101123.com/eP2) and/or the Brunardot Theorem, c² = 2v² – s² (www.101123.com/BT).

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://b.g2d.us/dd-600.gif

©Copyright 2006-2008 by Brunardot. All rights reserved.
Terms: PhysicsMathForums.com, Brunardot, and Pulsoid Theory must be cited.
Sorry! This Thread has not been completed.
Please Bookmark and return to this site often.

If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
requested otherwise.

Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.Please ask questions. :)With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required......http://1.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://7.g2d.us/e.jpghttp://2.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://3.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://4.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://5.g2d.us/e.gif
..........http://6.g2d.us/e.gif
..........If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.

[ste]

The dynamic nature of the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere marks the limit of conceptual reduction within the realm of existence.
Unless you plan on revising the definition of a sphere, the above statement makes no sense. A sphere is defined as the locus of the points in three dimensions that are equidistant from a particular point called the center. Therefore, it is impossible for a sphere to exist without dimensions. Do you mean a point instead? A point which becomes the center of the circle of Reality?


When discussing the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere (DES) as the source of Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R), the purpose of the discussion is not to arrive at a provable observation.
The above statement should be bolded for emphasis. I did not fully realize WHAT all the geometry and the diagrams meant until I thought of them in different terms. Piece by piece, I'm completing the mental puzzle.


What is important, though, is to demonstrate that everything that exists, that is logical and observable, can be rationalized as evolving from such a source; and that it can be so reconciled to logic and observation such that doubt is thoroughly mitigated;
No doubts here, that is the purpose of my questions. I am attempting to make the picture clearer for myself and other who might have the same gaps as I do. And ultimately my goal is to see the complete beauty of the logic behind the universe which you have illustrated for me.


Thus, all the currently described forces and Standard Models (SM) of academic physics would be categorized as metaphysical; as, they are without an internal reconciliation or a reconciliation with one another and/or a logical or observable beginning and ending.
A truly formidable thought; One that will no doubt be upsetting to many. Paradigms are not frequently overturned on the scale that pulsoid theory begs for. This is by no chance, either. Naturally, humans absorb knowledge at dazzling rates, and as a consequence lower their guard for logical fallacies. Time will tell what the future holds. If reconciled, with logic, as you've proposed, the introduction pulsoids could usher a whole new generation of the pursuit of knowledge. Having realized the mistakes of the past, maybe civilization will develop mechanisms to ensure that the same scenario of "ignore"-ance is never repeated again. It is my greatest hope.


And, most importantly, not only are SM forces metaphysical, but also the mathematics that is used to describe said forces and SM manifestations is considered as unprovable; as has been so aptly demonstrated by Kurt Gödel (www.CQthus.com/PT/Go) with his “Incompleteness Theorem.” (www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT)
It will take some time for this to become more widely known. People like to hold on to things. Especially ideas that are blatently regarded as "truth".


The limit of reduction is the duality of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I); so that will be a starting point. Infinity will be symbolized as a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere. As there are no dimensions, the radius of the sphere will be "One" and it will be congruent with the dimensionless point.

Now wait a second here. If the point is "dimensionless", then our radius will be Zero, "0". Wouldn't we then be referring instead to the infinitesimal rather than the Infinite?


Interestingly, in Unimetry (www.CQthus.com/Unimetry), Nature's geometry, a sphere with a radius of One, "1," can be considered to be as infinite as a zero, "0," is infinitesimal. The smallest quantum must be ellipsoidal with a vector that is greater than One. Thus, an ellipsoid with a vector that is One is a sphere . . . and does not exist; which non-existence is a usual quality of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I), the duality of the infinite and the infintesimal.

How can we conclude that an ellipsoid with a vector of One does not exist?

[Epsilon=One]

Unless you plan on revising the definition of a sphere, the above statement makes no sense. A sphere is defined as the locus of the points in three dimensions that are equidistant from a particular point called the center. Therefore, it is impossible for a sphere to exist without dimensions. Do you mean a point instead? A point which becomes the center of the circle of Reality?No. I mean a sphere. I define a sphere as the locus of all points that are equidistant from a point. Carefully read the radius of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/ROI) (ROI). Ask questions concerning what may be confusing.

Before you can progress very far in understanding Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PT) (PT), you must understand the concepts of the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC) and Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I). Children have few problems with such concepts that are non-intuitive because their minds have not been impressed with explanations of sensory misconceptions. Sorta like how children can easily learn multiple languages and then effortlessly move between them without the need of mental translation. The eye electrical stimuli are handled by the brain in like manner; as is walking, etc.

The above statement should be bolded for emphasis. Not sure what statement you are referring to. ???

I did not fully realize WHAT all the geometry and the diagrams meant until I thought of them in different terms. Piece by piece, I'm completing the mental puzzle.The above is far from completed; just a few reminders for myself. My time has been limited. Now that I'm able to get off of forum problems, I’ll try to spend more time on the essentials and organization of my posts. I generally feel little need beyond making some points for my own purposes as there have been few questions.

I’m quite impressed with your effort. It is good in some ways for yourself that you struggle without asking more questions; however, it would be much easier for you if you did ask more questions. Also, others might benefit that aren’t quite as astute; or, are part of academia and dare not participate.

No doubts here, that is the purpose of my questions. I am attempting to make the picture clearer for myself and other who might have the same gaps as I do. And ultimately my goal is to see the complete beauty of the logic behind the universe which you have illustrated for me.Thanks. Obviously, I wrote the above before I read this comment of yours.

A truly formidable thought; One that will no doubt be upsetting to many. Paradigms are not frequently overturned on the scale that pulsoid theory begs for. This is by no chance, either. Naturally, humans absorb knowledge at dazzling rates, and as a consequence lower their guard for logical fallacies. Time will tell what the future holds. If reconciled, with logic, as you've proposed, the introduction pulsoids could usher a whole new generation of the pursuit of knowledge. Having realized the mistakes of the past, maybe civilization will develop mechanisms to ensure that the same scenario of "ignore"-ance is never repeated again. It is my greatest hope.Mine too. However, I don’t plan on holding my breath. I doubt if I will ever see the day of PT acceptance for anything. Hopefully, you will fare better. Perhaps of even more importance is the recognition that the sciences (yes, sciences) of politics and economics be thoroughly automated/computerized and taken from the hands of multiple incompetents. These disciplines should only need occasional feedback tweaking by experts. As for a Paradigm Shift, I coined the term to the best of my knowledge in 1955; and, I expected it would be a hundred years, or more, before the next one would occur. To my amazement, many social (and scientific/technology) changes that I never expected to see began almost immediately and are continuing at a pace that amazed me until about 1980. Since then I am little amazed; though still quite in awe. The most disappointing, as a child of the 40s, I thought we had learned our lessons concerning war and prohibition. I still cannot fully understand the historical stupidity of most of those that lead.

It will take some time for this to become more widely known. People like to hold on to things. Especially ideas that are blatently regarded as "truth".Academia with its vested interests and often funded by the military/industrial/corporate interests is a formidable foe; much like the middle ages/dark age and the Roman Catholic church.

Now wait a second here. If the point is "dimensionless", then our radius will be Zero, "0". Wouldn't we then be referring instead to the infinitesimal rather than the Infinite?Ahhh; you are on to something. Actually, the point represents the infinitival, and the sphere represents the infinite . . . and, Reality is what is in-between . . . so to speak. When there is motion, there must be separation; when there is separation there are vectors; when there are vectors there are Pulsoids (www.CQthus.com/PT/P); and, with Pulsoids there is Reality. Of course, the Pulsoids eventually dissipate and the cycle repeats.

Motion, (and ellipsoids and solitons) which is everywhere observed, is the hallmark of Reality . . . the Unified Concept (www.CQthus.com/PT/UC), which is inexplicable and must be taken on faith. Such faith is the modic um that I often refer to as a replacement for current secular and religious faith.

How can we conclude that an ellipsoid with a vector of One does not exist?Because a vector of One returns a continuing static sphere of a radius of One rather than an ellipsoid within an ellipsoid that pulses because of the harmony and resonances that occur because of the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC).

[ste]

No. I mean a sphere. I define a sphere as the locus of all points that are equidistant from a point. Carefully read the radius of Infinity (ROI). Ask questions concerning what may be confusing.
What baffles me is how a sphere can be dimensionless. It directly contradicts the accepted geometric definition. It is for this very reason that many of your readers discard your posts as "mad science (www.ratbags.com/loon/2000/09scientists.htm)" or "llooney (www.crank.net/philosophy.html)". Most would interpret the phrase "dimensionless sphere" as a tautology; the words make grammatical sense but they have no meaning, at least in their interpretation of the definitions involved. A sphere cannot be dimensionless because a sphere, by definition has three dimensions. If you can clarify further, it would be much appreciated.

Not sure what statement you are referring to. ???

I was originally referring to this:

When discussing the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere (DES) as the source of Reality, the purpose of the discussion is not to arrive at a provable observation.

The reason I say this is because I had been trying to directly reconcile the concept with observation (something I still look for, in general). It seems that another approach is needed here, or at least one I had not anticipated.

Before you can progress very far in understanding Pulsoid Theory (PT), you must understand the concepts of the Elliptical Constant (EC) and Infinity.
I've been directed to different posts by you, and I read. Occasionally, I'll feel like I understand something, but then I'll get the gut feeling that I'm missing something crucial. Then I realize the vastness of the system. You remind me constantly to seek simplicity, but how can one do this if true understanding demands complete understanding? I appreciate how you try to make your readers think. It is what makes your posts so compelling to me. A riddle, if you will. A convoluted riddle that practically calls my name to figure it out. So I find what I interpret as a weak or a concept that isn't explained satisfactorily and I ask about it. Leap by leap.

However the missing bits are getting to me. There has always been that gut feeling, once again, that something fundamental is missing. Tantalizing is the name of the game.

Children have few problems with such concepts that are non-intuitive because their minds have not been impressed with explanations of sensory misconceptions.
I may be misreading you here, but if you are asking me to discard my intuition to understand a newly introduced concept, that is something that I cannot accept. No matter how "basic", "central" or "fundamental" an idea is, I must make a logical leap to understand it before I give it any serious consideration as being real. I understand that not everything can be directly observed, as I admitted above. However, a theory MUST make some magnitude of sense, or at least have a shred of connection to be reconciled observable reality. This is what I have yet to find, between the lines.

As for a Paradigm Shift, I coined the term to the best of my knowledge in 1955; and, I expected it would be a hundred years, or more, before the next one would occur.
The etymology behind this phrase is interesting to me. How do you think the idea ended up with Thomas Kuhn? Did you ever have any discussions with him?


Academia with its vested interests and often funded by the military/industrial/corporate interests is a formidable foe; much like the middle ages/dark age and the Roman Catholic church.
Agreed. Academics should be about the desire to learn and feed the curiosity of humanity. Curiosity should never be looked upon as wrong, and the ability to ask questions must never be put down.

[Epsilon=One]

What baffles me is how a sphere can be dimensionless. It directly contradicts the accepted geometric definition. It is for this very reason that many of your readers discard your posts as "mad science (www.ratbags.com/loon/2000/09scientists.htm)" or "llooney (www.crank.net/philosophy.html)". Most would interpret the phrase "dimensionless sphere" as a tautology; the words make grammatical sense but they have no meaning, at least in their interpretation of the definitions involved. A sphere cannot be dimensionless because a sphere, by definition has three dimensions. If you can clarify further, it would be much appreciated.You are falling into the trap of flawed/incomplete, orthodox reasoning.

If you are going to be concerned with the fundamental concepts of Pulsoid Theory (PT), you must understand the concept of the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC) and Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I) before you progress to more evolved conclusions of PT.

It is good that you are digging to the fundamentals; however, your research apparently jumps from conclusion to conclusion within your search. Your questions indicate that you do not understand the hyper-relativistic, oscillating Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) and its evolution from Infinity through the phenomenon of the EC.

Your inability to comprehend a dimensionless sphere is a result of not understanding the fundamental concepts of PT. If you require an understanding of the fundamentals, your interest must stay with the most fundamental concepts until they are clear.

All understanding of abstract concepts begins with definitions.

Possibly your block with a dimensionless sphere can be satisfied by defining your sphere as an orthogonal sphere and a dimensionless sphere as a fundamental sphere.

Remember, your definition depends upon unproven or incomplete mathematics. That is, you are depending upon dimensions that are undefined/proven and lengths that are multiples of an undefined/proven constant. (See: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT).)

Whatever you define an orthogonal sphere as; a fundamental sphere cannot have orthogonal dimensions as they do not evolve until a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) evolves. If the radii of a (fundamental) sphere (a special ellipsoid) are equal to the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC) the sphere must be dimensionless as the soliton and wave are zero, while the vectors, hypotenuse and radius are congruent with the Pulse that is equal to the EC. Thus, no Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P); therefore, no Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R); thus, no dimensions. When there is motion, there is separation and vectors; thus existence that evolves as a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P).

I've been directed to different posts by you, and I read. Occasionally, I'll feel like I understand something, but then I'll get the gut feeling that I'm missing something crucial.Stop at that point and ask questions. Or wander off down a wrong path. Either way is a good way to learn; I prefer the latter; but, it takes much longer. I learn by a method of elimination. If that is what you prefer, expect a long road.

Then I realize the vastness of the system.You have grasped an important concept. TOE is not narrowly focused.

You remind me constantly to seek simplicity, but how can one do this if true understanding demands complete understanding?The fundamental concepts, by definition, must be simple.

The evolution of the fundamental concepts to anthropoidal systems is vast and quite difficult until the fundamentals are clearly rationalized. That’s what research scientists do. More so than theorists, theologians, and philosophers.

I appreciate how you try to make your readers think. It is what makes your posts so compelling to me.Thinking is the only way that I know to break from the yoke of secular and religious faith.

A riddle, if you will. A convoluted riddle that practically calls my name to figure it out. So I find what I interpret as a weak or a concept that isn't explained satisfactorily and I ask about it.No; you don’t. You “leap” from conclusion to conclusion . . . then you ask questions; which is OK. Slower; but, in the long run you’ll probably learn the totality faster when suddenly all falls into place. Sort of an epiphany, which is how the theory occurred to me after years of futilely going down the paths of every enigma that I could find.

However the missing bits are getting to me. There has always been that gut feeling, once again, that something fundamental is missing. Tantalizing is the name of the game.From your geometric constructions I have had a “gut feeling” that you do not understand the hyper-relativistic dynamics of the Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) or the geometric and general concept of the EC.

I may be misreading you here, but if you are asking me to discard my intuition to understand a newly introduced concept, that is something that I cannot accept. No matter how "basic", "central" or "fundamental" an idea is, I must make a logical leap to understand it before I give it any serious consideration as being real. I understand that not everything can be directly observed, as I admitted above. However, a theory MUST make some magnitude of sense, or at least have a shred of connection to be reconciled observable reality. This is what I have yet to find, between the lines.Your intuition is probably flawed by your faith in Standard Model logic; which logic, obviously, must be seriously, fundamentally flawed; as, no Standard Model is internally consistent; or, reconcilable with other Standard Models. An accountant will tell you that there is no such thing as partial reconcilability.

The etymology behind this phrase is interesting to me. How do you think the idea ended up with Thomas Kuhn? Did you ever have any discussions with him?Early on, probably the summer of ’55, I was fascinated with the “ring” of the elitist word paradigm. I considered the Unified Concept an abrupt departure from conventional theory . . . a shift. Thus, I coined “paradigm-shift” to describe it. Decades later, I believe it was Mario Rabinowitz (www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-44,SUNA:en&q=mario+rabinowitz), someone mentioned T.S. Kuhn to me. At that time I was unaware that there was a discipline of scientific history; read his book; and, then repeatedly wrote him until a manuscript was returned by the post office. I never heard from him. In fact he is the only notable person that never replied to my letters. He is now dead. I suspect that we both independently developed the phrase; though, I’m quite sure from my research that I was well ahead of him.

Interestingly, my first website in the 80s was Paradigm-shift.org (before I knew of any other use of the term) that I lost when an early server crashed. Today it is an immensely popular sight that I still regret losing; though, the current owner has done more with it than I ever would have.

Agreed. Academics should be about the desire to learn and feed the curiosity of humanity. Curiosity should never be looked upon as wrong, and the ability to ask questions must never be put down.Unfortunately, there are many more overriding priorities within academia.

[ste]

You are falling into the trap of flawed/incomplete, orthodox reasoning.
What I'm trying to do is use an agreed definition of a sphere in order to understand what you're trying to communicate. As it seems, this definition relies on something which hasn't been defined yet, I guess I need to chose another route.

Your inability to comprehend a dimensionless sphere is a result of not understanding the fundamental concepts of PT. If you require an understanding of the fundamentals, your interest must stay with the most fundamental concepts until they are clear.

All understanding of abstract concepts begins with definitions.
Yes, definitions are what I'm trying to focus on. The problem is that I can never find a single term that doesn't rely on the understanding of another. So when I DO try to break down a concept into its basic principles, I only find that my reasoning doesn't allow me to understand it because my knowledge is either incomplete or I cannot visualize or conceive a concept you've explained. I'm deliberately trying to discard any preconceived assumption which may stand in the way, but some definitions just seem contradictory to me. If I discard EVERYTHING I know, what logic can I possibly use to mentally verify a concept? If fundamental pieces are missing, I will continue to try and figure out what they are.

It is good that you are digging to the fundamentals; however, your research apparently jumps from conclusion to conclusion within your search. Your questions indicate that you do not understand the hyper-relativistic, oscillating Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) and its evolution from Infinity through the phenomenon of the EC.
I have to start somewhere. I don't know how many times I've read and re-read both of those pages, but the same problems I described above apply. Not that I'm giving up, not even close. Supposedly Feynman re-read physics books until he could no longer stand to look at the pages anymore. Perhaps from here I shall revive my previous effort of trying to understand the EC, and its relevance to a pulsoid.

What does hyper-relativistic mean? Is there any way you could help put this in perspective for me?

Possibly your block with a dimensionless sphere can be satisfied by defining your sphere as an orthogonal sphere and a dimensionless sphere as a fundamental sphere.

Remember, your definition depends upon unproven or incomplete mathematics. That is, you are depending upon dimensions that are undefined/proven and lengths that are multiples of an undefined/proven constant. (See: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT).)
I am by no means a pure mathematician, but I've previously found a basic understanding of mathematics in general. I suppose that you are right, regarding the undefined dimensions. I did not take that into consideration. I think my greatest trouble with understanding a dimensionless sphere is the fact that it is so elementary that it is difficult to describe through the use of what does make sense to me, mathematics. If all understanding is limited to derivative knowledge of a topic, it its difficult to define that topic.

Whatever you define an orthogonal sphere as; a fundamental sphere cannot have orthogonal dimensions as they do not evolve until a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) evolves. If the radii of a (fundamental) sphere (a special ellipsoid) are equal to the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC) the sphere must be dimensionless as the soliton and wave are zero, while the vectors, hypotenuse and radius are congruent with the Pulse that is equal to the EC. Thus, no Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P); therefore, no Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R); thus, no dimensions. When there is motion, there is separation and vectors; thus existence that evolves as a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P).Interesting thoughts. I will have to read your explanation paragraph quite a few more times before I am ready to question it further.

You “leap” from conclusion to conclusion . . . then you ask questions; which is OK. Slower; but, in the long run you’ll probably learn the totality faster when suddenly all falls into place. Sort of an epiphany, which is how the theory occurred to me after years of futilely going down the paths of every enigma that I could find.I tend to be slow when it comes to learning a new concept, in general. And when I refer to learning, I mean truly grasping, to a point where I could explain it to myself and all who ask. If someone asked me right now what pulsoid theory is, I would be able to explain little to nothing. The fact is, a friend of mine whom I consider to be one of the most proficient with logic HAS asked me what it's "all about". I may think that I understand, but usually when it comes to applying the knowledge which I think I have acquired, I realize how much I do not understand. Continue to be patient and I will eventually understand. That of feeling things "suddenly" falling into place is something is something I frequently encounter when becoming comfortable with new material.

From your geometric constructions I have had a “gut feeling” that you do not understand the hyper-relativistic dynamics of the Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) or the geometric and general concept of the EC.

Your intuition is probably flawed by your faith in Standard Model logic; which logic, obviously, must be seriously, fundamentally flawed; as, no Standard Model is internally consistent; or, reconcilable with other Standard Models. An accountant will tell you that there is no such thing as partial reconcilability.
Further understanding is what I continue to strive for. I will try to rely solely on logic for understanding of the fundamentals.

[Epsilon=One]

Yes, definitions are what I'm trying to focus on. The problem is that I can never find a single term that doesn't rely on the understanding of another.Unfortunately Standard Model physics does not much bother with precise definitions concerning fundamental concepts. Probably because Standard Model physics is not based upon concepts more fundamental than the metaphysical forces of contemporary theorists. To avoid the circularity; fuzziness; and continuous, involved repetition; I’ve had to rely upon neologisms and formatting. Generally, when this is done I refer you to the “base” definition, which well may not be complete or lack clarity. Thus, the request for questions.

Note that "time," a concept which academic physics depends upon is undefined . . . an enigma . . . inexplicable. And yet, its considered to be variable . . . "time dilation." Go figure!!!

So when I DO try to break down a concept into its basic principles, I only find that my reasoning doesn't allow me to understand it because my knowledge is either incomplete or I cannot visualize or conceive a concept you've explained.This is my fault; your biases; and, my style of establishing original concepts rather than a step-by-step process. If I were to start with a step-by-step process I would begin with Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I)/UnReality vs. Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R); and, the mathematical concept of the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC), which directly underlies the proof of mathematics, which is the most fundamental method of describing Nature.

If I discard EVERYTHING I know, what logic can I possibly use to mentally verify a concept? If fundamental pieces are missing, I will continue to try and figure out what they are.I am not asking you to discard logic or observation. I am asking you to discard the most fundamental, theoretical conclusions of the major theories of physics. They are obviously, fundamentally flawed. I am asking you to note that the hallmark/bedrock of Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R) is motion. And, to understand why that motion is all fundamentally ellipsoidal.

I have to start somewhere. I don't know how many times I've read and re-read both of those pages, but the same problems I described above apply. Not that I'm giving up, not even close. Supposedly Feynman re-read physics books until he could no longer stand to look at the pages anymore. Perhaps from here I shall revive my previous effort of trying to understand the EC, and its relevance to a pulsoid.Feynman was one of my heroes. I didn’t know him personally; though my closest confident did. I admired him for many reasons besides the happenstance that he was a true physicist.

I don’t believe you understand a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P); let alone, its relevance to the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC).

What does hyper-relativistic mean? Is there any way you could help put this in perspective for me?Ahaa! Herein may lay the problem. Hyper-relativistic means faster than the speed of light (or, it could be argued, conversely, almost motionless) with an implication of a speed near the infinite (or infinitesimal).

This concept alone is worthy of a paradigm-shift; and, certainly, a prerequisite of understanding PT. I didn’t bother defining the term because it is not a neologism.

I am by no means a pure mathematician, but I've previously found a basic understanding of mathematics in general.Few academic mathematicians are pure mathematicians. It is too difficult for them to explain what one plus one means. Particularly, since Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT) (GIT).

…the fact that it is so elementary that it is difficult to describe…Very insightful. This is the difficulty with most all that is fundamental; particularly applicable to science and mathematics.

Interesting thoughts. I will have to read your explanation paragraph quite a few more times before I am ready to question it further.Excellent approach; something that was beyond Mr. R.P.

I tend to be slow when it comes to learning a new concept, in general. And when I refer to learning, I mean truly grasping, to a point where I could explain it to myself and all who ask.I, likewise.

If someone asked me right now what pulsoid theory is, I would be able to explain little to nothing. The fact is, a friend of mine whom I consider to be one of the most proficient with logic HAS asked me what it's "all about".At least you understand what you do not understand. Few are as fortunate. For starters, tell your friend that a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) rationalizes the dynamics, geometry, and etiology of the quantum of quantum mechanics (QM) and loop quantum gravity (LQG); the “strings” of string theory (ST); completes GIT; and defines the what and why of particle “spin” and “half spin,” which resolves the internal geometry and wave/particle duality of Light.

…feeling things "suddenly" falling into place is something…I frequently encounter when becoming comfortable with new material.I understand. Sorta like riding a bicycle.

I will try to rely solely on logic for understanding of the fundamentals.Right on!!!

[ste]

The motion within the “envelope” is hyper-relativistic; the “things of existence” and the “envelope” itself progress at much slower relativistic speeds that decelerate at a rate established by the Conceptual Unit. It is the Conceptual Unit that regulates the “clock” of fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).
If the "things of existence" exist within the ellipsoidal "envelope", then why don't they move at hyper-relativistic speeds? What is outside of the "envelope"? Since the Conceptual Unit is constant at all stages, how can it regulate the "clock" of FIT?

The smallest circles in Tini Circle Groups (near infinity in curvature) are representative of continually emerging spheroids that expand with a regulated pulse. And, at a critical point, they compress until, at another critical point, their bonds cannot hold the compressed energy and they explode.
Are these spheroids you referring to the "turbulent resonance phenomenon" that you refer to as particles? How do Tinicirts relate to particles? Why do they compress?

Define "energy". How does energy get "in" a pulsoid in the first place?


Once the harmony of the “envelope” is “broken,” after critical compression, it is only a matter of time until all the quantum components dissipate to a point where harmonious coalescence can again pursue the eternal cycle of: coalescence, propagation, compression, and dissipation, over and over in perpetuity. Thus, the Universe is singular and “steady-state.”
How is the harmony of the "envelope" broken, and which one (envelope) is it? Why does the cycle repeat? Are the spheroids moving around freely in a pulsoid? By harmony, do you mean when the ellipse is a pulsoidal ellipse?

[Epsilon=One]

If the "things of existence" exist within the ellipsoidal "envelope", then why don't they move at hyper-relativistic speeds?You missed my use of the word "relativistic."

What is outside of the "envelope"? There is nothing outside the "envelope" other than other identical ellipsoidal "envelopes." This is what is demonstrated by Tini Circle Groups (www.101123.com/tcg) (TCG). Remember, a sphere is a special ellipsoid.

Since the Conceptual Unit is constant at all stages, how can it regulate the "clock" of FIT?All "clocks" are regulated by an escapement of some sort, which "measures out" a uniform "unit."

Are these spheroids you referring to the "turbulent resonance phenomenon" that you refer to as particles?In a sense. They are Resoloids (www.101123.com/res), which are wave resonances that manifest as fermions.

How do Tinicirts relate to particles? Why do they compress?Tinicirts (a term related to TCG's) are mathematical symbolisms representing the compacting of Pulsoids (www.101123.com/P) and Resoloids.

They compress because, they are continually/infinitely forming, resonances act in accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle (www.CQthus.com/PEP) (PEP); rather, than as a non-harmonic wave as long as they are endlessly reflected within an ellipsoidal periphery before Critical Compression (www.101123.com/crc) (CrC).

Define "energy". How does energy get "in" a pulsoid in the first place?"Energy" is a highly evolved manifestation of "pure" motion, which motion begins with Seminal motion (www.101123.com/sm).

Seminal motion becomes "energy" after the dimensions evolve and said motion forms a Pulsoid in accordance with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (www.CQthus.com/HUP) (HUP).

"Energy" within a Pulsoid is the consequence of motion reflecting upon itself in accordance with the focal point and peripheral geometry of ellipsoids. Remember: The focal points and periphery of a pulsoid are the dualities of Infinity (www.101123.com/i).

How is the harmony of the "envelope" broken, and which one (envelope) is it? Why does the cycle repeat? Are the spheroids moving around freely in a pulsoid? By harmony, do you mean when the ellipse is a pulsoidal ellipse?The harmony is broken when the Pulsoid is Critically Compressed (www.101123.com/crc) (CrC).

It is not "one (envelope)"; it is one Resoloid (www.101123.com/res) that is ejected. When a Resoloid is ejected, it begins to dissipate (There is no ellipsoidal periphery to contain the motion.) and is no longer fermionic. An ejected Resoloid manifests as a boson (Light).

[Goago]

Above program is featuring more complex programming techniques. If in the previous program the codes only use one parameter as Dynamic component, in above program the code must implement some additional features to allow the program runs dynamically.

This program will allow the user to search a particular customer name and one other search condition which will be executed during runtime. This program will then display all the records from table customer SCUSTOM which matches with the conditions defined by the user.

Apart from the usage of Internal Table, the program will also require the usage of Table EDPLINE. This is a special feature in Release 4.6 in its pre-release to allow the construction of string or characters which later will be used within the SELECT statement.

As any other program, the first requirement is variable and table declaration. This program will be using one internal table to keep all the data “ITAB_SCUSTOM” Line 3 and one constructible WHERE statement built on a TABLE OF EDPLINE and EDPLINE Line 4 and 5. EDPLINE will handle all small pieces or components of WHERE statement and the TABLE OF EDPLINE will construct all the pieces or components from EDPLINE into a WHERE string statement which will be used in the WHERE condition in SELECT statement.

For the selection screen, the program will allow the user to input a particular name LIKE which means any number of first characters which the user want to search on. And also, the program will allow one other optional selection condition from the user Line 6 and 7. In this example the default is “A” for the name and “ID BETWEEN 1 and 99” as the other condition.

Once the user click “Execute” or F8 button, the program will start allocating information from the selection screen into EDPLINE which in this example called “STR_LINE” Line . If the user input an additional condition in the selection screen, the program will also add that information into “STR_LINE” Line 9 – 11.

After all the conditions constructed, the information in “STR_LINE” will be appended into “STR_WHERE” as the “TABLE OF EDPLINE” Line 13 which will be used in the SELECT statement Line 14.

Using that dynamically constructed SELECT statement, the program will display the matching records available in table customer SCUSTOM.

Dynamic Open SQL – within SUB ROUTINE