Confluent Congruence

[Epsilon=One]

Confluent Congruence (CC)

Confluent Congruence (CC) is an aspect of the gravitational effect, which explains why gravity acts universally and at hyper-relativistic (www.101123.com/HR) speeds (HR) near Infinity (www.101123.com/I).

Confluent Congruence (CC) is a term that defines the phenomena wherein all manifestations that arise from seminal motion (www.101123.com/SM) pulse, hyper-relativistically, between the dualities of Infinity (www.101123.com/I) (the infintesimal and the infinite). Thus, at these extremes of motion all manifestations, regardless of time, are congruent.

Confluent Congruence (CC) can be thought of as "infinities within infinity."

Thus, a particle located anywhere, at any time,
has "parts" that have moments of congruency
with "parts" of every other particle
located anywhere, at any time.
It is the effect of CC that accounts for the phenomenon of the gravitational effect being proportional to the mass involved; and, that the gravitational effect is intrinsic to all manifestations that have the property of mass.

The property of mass is a consequence of the Pauli Exclusion Principle (CQthus.com/PEP) (PEP).
See: Definition of a Particle (www.101123.com/DoP).

Relative, Hierarchic Compression (www.101123.com/RHC) (RHC) is another aspect of the gravitational effect.

©Copyright 2005-2008 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.

[alexross]

I wonder if you would care to think of applying this in a complex framework?
Complex Confluent Congruence (CCC)?

Thus, a particle located anywhere, at any time,
has "REAL parts" that have moments of congruency
with "COMPLEX parts" of every other particle
located anywhere, at any time.

CQM really is invasive, isnt it?

Yours Sincerely,
Alex
Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.
7, Midland Street
Accrington
Lancashire
United Kingdom
BB5 2AX
Telephone: 01254 237482
Fax: 01254 237482

[Epsilon=One]

I wonder if you would care to think of applying this in a complex framework?
Complex Confluent Congruence (CCC)?A complex framework is my intent. I use the term "complex" overly with some other manifestations such as Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101) and oscillations. I hope my description of CC conveys the total complexity.

I am not entirely comfortable with the term "framework" as it has connotations as does the term "field" that can be misleading for some laypersons. I prefer Dyosphere (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151).

Thus, a particle located anywhere, at any time, has "REAL parts" that have moments of congruency with "COMPLEX parts" of every other particle
located anywhere, at any time.You understand the concept . . . exactly!

It should be clear that "particles" are complex harmonies and resonances that because of complex reflections display the phenomenon of the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP).

CQM really is invasive, isnt it?CQM . . . Complex Quantum Dynamics ???

[ste]

Confluent Congruence (CC) is an aspect of the gravitational effect, which explains why gravity acts universally and at near the speed of Infinity.

If this is so, then why do we perceive gravity for being as weak as it is?

[Epsilon=One]

If this is so, then why do we perceive gravity for being as weak as it is?Common gravity is not a primary force. And, the phenomena is several forces; the common Cosmic misperceived "atraction-at-a distance" phenomenon that, appears to have its source at the infinitesimal, is a secondary force and is perceived, at the anthropoidal scale, as much further from its source than the "strong" and "weak" interactions.

Of course, it's difficult to understand why Light is a force when it is theorizzed to have neither ma ss nor acceleration; and, why inertia is not a force.

Whatever; Light also acts closer to it source . . . and does have deceleration; though, despite Einstein's erroneous claim that Light is bent by the "gravity" of large bodies, Light does not have ma ss, which requires "half-spin"; as imparted by a dual, ellipsoidal "envelope."

[ste]

It is the effect of CC that accounts for the phenomenon of the gravitational effect being proportional to the ma ss involved; and, that the gravitational effect is intrinsic to all manifestations that have the property of ma ss.

How can it be illustrated geometrically why this is so? How are soloids involved?

Thus, a particle located anywhere, at any time,
has "parts" that have moments of congruency
with "parts" of every other particle
located anywhere, at any time.
In which dimension/s can one identify these intrinsic "parts", and their congruency with the said other particle? Why does this apply to every particle that exists?

[Epsilon=One]

How can it be illustrated geometrically why this is so? How are soloids involved?The more quanta that make up ma ss; the more units of force that create an illusion of gravity. The Soloid (www.CQthus.com/PT/Soloid) is a heuristic symbolization of said ma ss.

In which dimension/s can one identify these intrinsic "parts", and their congruency with the said other particle? Why does this apply to every particle that exists?Not sure how you are defining the term "dimension" such that it applies in this situation.

The "particles" are congruent when their pulses stop their motion . . . thus, they are congruent at Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I), which is congruent with every point in the Universe.

It applies to every particle because all particles "pulse" (quanta, Resoloids (www.Resoloid.com), or photons); and that pulse is harmonically tuned by fundamental, intrinsic time (www.CQthus.com/PT/FIT) (FIT).

[ste]

When you refer to the pulsations of "quanta" (or pulsoid), do you refer to the resultant vibration of the quantum, or individual pulsations within the pulsoid itself?

Common gravity is not a primary force.
Define what you mean by a "primary force".

[Epsilon=One]

When you refer to the pulsations of "quanta" (or pulsoid), do you refer to the resultant vibration of the quantum, or individual pulsations within the pulsoid itself?The only pulsations within quanta are the cyclic collapse of resonances that are referred to with the all encompassing term of Resoloid (www.Resoloid.com).

Vibration is a different concept than that of pulsing.

Define what you mean by a "primary force".A force that is not comprised of forces more fundamental than the forces/motion that create Pulsoids (www.CQthus.com/PT/P).

See: Unified Concept (www.CQthus.com/PT/UC) (UC).

[ste]

The only pulsations within quanta are the cyclic collapse of resonances that are referred to with the all encompassing term of Resoloid.
Are these resonances completely independent of one another, or do they ever interact to cause a resultant movement?

Vibration is a different concept than that of pulsing.
The term I believe I should really be using here is motion. My intention is, to express: a universal phenomenon which interacts with one another causing a disturbance.

[Epsilon=One]

Are these resonances completely independent of one another, or do they ever interact to cause a resultant movement?Some resonances merge as the pulsations increase; others remain independent. The difference depends upon the geometry of their evolution.

The term I believe I should really be using here is motion. My intention is, to express: a universal phenomenon which interacts with one another causing a disturbance.Motion is correct.

[ste]

How does motion create a force? In what ways do they differ? Does the vector in an ellipse describe force, or motion?

Vibration is a different concept than that of pulsing.
What is the difference?

[Epsilon=One]

How does motion create a force? In what ways do they differ? Does the vector in an ellipse describe force, or motion?

What is the difference?Motion is fundamental force.

Force is not consistently defined by the Standard Models that use different equations for its metaphysical definitions.

Force, per se, is an improper, ill-defined, confusing term.