The Mystique of the Ellipse

[Epsilon=One]

The Mystique of the Ellipse

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://i.g2d.us/Weinberg_thtfl.gif

This post honors
Steven Weinberg....[1933 -......]
Philosopher, Physicist Laureate

Truth, beauty . . .
is simple, elegant;
and, subconsciously
. . . quickly recognized.

The ellipse is unique among all natural phenomena
because it defines the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC),
which is the most important discovery
in the history of mathematics
because the EC, heuristically, describes
the Conceptual Unit (www.101123.com/CU) (CU) that makes possible the emergent,
hyper-relativistic, pulsing, ellipsoidal quantum of space
that evolves to all fermions and bosons.

Pulsoid Theory (PT) is based entirely upon the geometry and simple algebra of the ellipse. PT’s basic premise is that everything that exists is fundamentally composed of pulsing, ellipsoidal quanta that moves, fundamentally in an elliptical manner.

It is the fundamental geometry of (SM) that is predicated by the singularity of its source that creates the CU that makes possible the evolution of:
orthogonal [URL=www.101123.com/D]dimensions (www.101123.com/SM[seminal motion[/URL),
fundamental, intrinsic time (www.101123.com/FIT) (FIT),
the Inverse Square Law (www.101123.com/ISL) (ISL),
and all the subsequent phenomena of that which exists.

The ellipse is defined by:
the Brunardot Theorem (www.101123.com/BT) (BT) , c² = 2v² – s²,
and the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC)
that is defined by: the Pulsoid Theorem (www.101123.com/eP2), v = εP² or ε = v/ P² or . . . ε = P²/v.

Such concepts as: the Pythagorean Theorem,
the Golden Ratio (www.101123.com/GR),
the Fibonacci Sequence (www.101123.com) that is revised,
and Brunardot Triangles (www.101123.com/Btr)
are corollaries of the Brunardot Theorem (www.101123.com/BT) (BT).

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://b.g2d.us/let500.gif
When, and why,
are all of these structural lines,
at the same time
. . . integers ?

. . .with the identical algebraic relationship
to one another regardless of
the elliptical eccentricity?

(See: Legend below, near the end of this post.)
http://b.g2d.us/ue.gif

The basic Unimetry (www.101123.com/Uni) equation for an ellipse is referred to as
the Brunardot Theorem (www.101123.com/BT), which is:

http://b.g2d.us/bt-eq150.jpg

The Brunardot Theorem (www.101123.com/BT) is a general theorem of which the Pythagorean Theorem (www.CQthus.com/Pyth) and the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) are corollaries

Regardless of the elliptical shape, every structural element of an ellipse has the same algebraic relationship to its perigee (or any other part). This relationship is dependent upon the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC), which is the escapement (www.CQthus.com/Esc) for the metronome of Reality (www.101123.com/metro).

The significance of the ellipse is that it underlies everything that exists. That which exists is either a particle or a wave. All particles, being subject to the illusion of gravitational attraction-at-a-distance (www.101123.com/AAA), move in an elliptical manner. And, all particles evolve from waves at Critical Coalescence (www.101123.com/CCo), which waves are the consequence of the resonating Pulsoidal Ellipses (www.101123.com/PE) of Pulsoids (www.101123.com/P). And, of course, the ellipse describes the internal geometry of a Light wave (www.101123.com/Lightg).

Thus, the Mystique of the Ellipse with its unique, simple constant that determines all of its structural relationship that is referred to as the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC), underlies all the complex, physical phenomena of Reality (www.101123.com/R) including mathematics, Consciousness, and . . . anthropoidal, illusionary enigmas.

..................Mathematics does not
..............................explain Nature;
.........................................Nature explains
.................................................. ..mathematics.Concerning mathematics: One must always ask, "Why"? Mathematics as a function of Nature; in the form of pulsing, hyper-relativistic, elliptical motion; reflects all the fundamental concepts of the physical world.

When the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) is set, every structural part of every ellipse has the same relationship to its perigee, “p” (Line EB); such as: the apogee, "o," (Line ED) equals: 2p² – p; or, the amplitude, “a,” (Line CF) equals: the square root of (2p³ – p²) or the square root of (r times p²), which is a Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI) if the perigee, "p," equals (any Par1 (www.101123.com/NI) square integer + 1)/2.

Of interest, r = 2p – 1; and h = (2r² + 1) / 2 = 2(v – p) + 1.

Also, if the radius, "r," (Line AD) equals any Par1 (www.101123.com/NI) square integer, the Chord diameter, "Td," (twice Line oT) equals the amplitude, "a," [the square root of (2p³ – p²)] – p + one, which is a Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI).

All Ultron Ellipses (www.101123.com/UE) have Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI) values for the amplitude, apogee, Chord diameter, glyph, lemma, Lemma diameter, hypotenuse, hypotenuse radius, major diameter, major radial, perigee, radius, soliton, vector, vector radius, wave, and diameter chord.

Also see: The Mystique of the Ultron Ellipse (www.101123.com/UEm).

>>..For selected Ultron Ellipse Cycle-Time Arrays "Click" this Line (www.101123.com/UA)...<<

There are four groups, of four tangent circles that are internal to the ellipse, one group for each quadrant of the ellipse, all of which are Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI) value diameters, for a total of sixteen, internal tangent circles.

These sixteen circles, heuristically, represent Resoloids (www.101123.com/R-loid), which are analogous to quarks in the composition of "dark" matter (www.101123.com/DM).

Hypotenuse radius = Line oP = Hr
= perigee, "p," minus 1.

Hypotenuse diameter = 2 x Line oP = Hd
= radius, "r," minus 1.

Vector radius = Line oV = Vr
= (amplitude, "a," minus perigee, "p") / 2.

Radial diameter = 2 x Line oR = Rd
= radius, "r," minus 2.

Chord diameter = Line oT = Cd
= amplitude, "a," minus perigee, "p," plus 1.

Thus,..................................
Hr = p – 1;
Hd = r – 1;
Vr = (a - p) / 2;
Rd = r – 2; and,
Cd = a – p + 1 (or: 2Vr + 1).

Or, more amazing,..................................
...........the inscribed circle diameters are:
Hd = r – 1;
Rd = Hd – 1
Vd = a – p
Cd = Vd + 1

One must ask:........................................
Why ?

Ultimate simplicity (www.101123.com/S) has been found;
at the crux of . . . complexity !!!
The, above, simple equations of Unimetry (www.101123.com/Uni), that represent radii and diameters, are all integer values for Pulsoidal Ellipses (www.101123.com/PE), which, heuristically, represent the most fundamental "strings" that comprise the more complex "strings" that are the four states of Light (www.101123.com/4) and mass; all of which are generated by the family of Conceptual Ellipses (www.101123.com/CE), Pulsoids (www.101123.com/P) and Taisaids (www.101123.com/showthread.php?t=102).

Of course, these four or five equations are meaningless without an adequate universal Proof of One (www.101123.com/PoO) . . . which must be applicable for any system.

"Whatever the final theory may be... Even if (it) turns out to be...strings that can be expressed in a few simple equations...that can describe gravitation...with other forces without mathematical inconsistencies, we will have to ask why there should be such a thing..."
--Steven Weinberg
--Dreams of a Final Theory, 1992.Naturally, the answer to Weinberg's plaint is found in the nature of Infinity (www.101123.com/I).

For any Pulsoidal Ellipse (http://www.101123.com/PE), the three inscribed circle radii, when the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) (EC) is set as in Conceptual Ellipses (www.101123.com/CE) (CE), are all Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI) (NI) found with simple addition and subtraction that involves only One, "1" (the difference between the hypotenuse and wave); the amplitude (minor radius), “a”; and the perigee.

The three inscribed circles, that are internal to the ellipse, represent twelve inscribed circles (three for each quadrant of the ellipse).

As time and/or cycle count increase, eight of the twelve circles merge to the center of the ellipse, while the remaining four circles merge, two each, toward each end of the major diameter; in the manner of a Hylotron (www.101123.com/Hy).
See: The Mystique of the Ultron Ellipse (www.101123.com/UEm).

One must ask:........................................
Why ?
And, again,
Why ?
And, again,
Why ?
Over and over,
until . . . Infinity.

And, still, another bit of amazement:The hypotenuse, "h," (a major element of Natural prime numbers (www.101123.com/NPN)) of a Conceptual Ellipse (www.101123.com/CE) (CE) is the perigee, "p," of a Pulsoidal Ellipse (www.101123.com/PE) (PE) with the same Time and Cycle values. (CE h = PE p)

Of course, the relationship of the Conceptual Ellipse (www.101123.com/CE) wave, "w," to the Pulsoidal Ellipse (www.101123.com/PE) perigee, "p," may be more significant, if slightly less elegant.
Ultron Ellipses (www.101123.com/UE) are Pulsoidal Ellipses (www.101123.com/PE) when the Cycle/Time values exceed the threshold of 225 units.

See: Conceptual Ellipses (www.101123.com/CE), Brunardot Ellipses (www.101123.com/BE),
.......Pulsoidal Ellipses (www.101123.com/PE), Ultron Ellipses (www.101123.com/UE) and,
.......Lemma Ellipses (www.101123.com/LE), the latter four of which,
.......heuristically, represent natural ellipsoidal
.......manifestations.

In summary: Not only does the mystique of the ellipse’s dynamic geometry generate structural spheres; but, also, the reflection of the elliptical curve is part of the ellipse’s mystique that applies to the enigmas of light waves.

If energy, such as a light wave, emanates from a focus of an ellipse, in any direction, said energy will be reflected by the elliptical curve directly to the other focus of the ellipse.

Thus, energy that is quaquaversally radiated at a focus (to and from a point in all directions) of an ellipsoid is reflected, in its entirety, back to the ellipsoid’s other focus.

Thus, all energy that is so radiated within an ellipsoid is perpetually conserved within the ellipsoid at the foci which is intrinsic to an Infinity line (www.101123.com/I).

It is this reflective characteristic of a light wave's internal structure (www.101123.com/Lightg) as an ellipsoid, that powers the continually expanding Triquametric motion (www.101123.com/TM) of light waves.

It is the continual hyper-relativistic, pulsating, expansion, with the increase of time, while the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) remains relativistically unchanged, that accounts for the Pulsoid's (www.101123.com/P) resonance and increased focal length (wave, “w”) which accounts for light’s Cosmic red-shift of frequency with an increase in time.

That is: the Cosmic red-shift of light’s frequency is a result of an expanding light wave while the locus of the Universe is unchanged . . . or “steady-state” as rationalized by the Equilibrium Theory of Reality (101123.com/ETR).

Legend for a Lemma Ellipse (www.101123.com/LE)
Line AB = FK = hypotenuse = h
Line AD = BJ = radius = r
Line AJ = diagonal = D
Line BC = CD = soliton = s
Line BD = wave = w
Line BE = DG = perigee = p
Line BF = vector = v
Line BG = ED = apogee = o
Line BK = lemma = l
Line CA = CJ = diagonal radial = d
Line CF = CH = amplitude = a
Line CE = CG major radial = m
Line DI = AB – BD = εpsilon = ε = One
Line EG = major diameter = M
Line EI = glyph = g
Line FH = minor diameter = A
Line GH = diameter chord = c
Line IG = key = k
Line oL = Lemma diameter = Ld = Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI)
Line oP = Hypotenuse radius = Hr = Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI)
Line oR = Radial diameter = Rd = Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI)
Line oT = Chord diameter = Cd = Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI)
Line oV = Vector radius = Vr = Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI)
Triangle ABD = Hypotenuse triangle = Brunardot triangle (www.101123.com/BTr5)
Triangle BCJ = Radial triangle = Pythagorean triangle (www.CQthus.com/PTr)
Triangle BFK = Lemma triangle = Pythagorean triangle (www. CQthus.com/PTr)
Triangle CBF = Vector triangle = Pythagorean triangle (www. CQthus.com/PTr)
Triangle CGH = Chord triangle = Pythagorean triangle (www. CQthus.com/PTr)
Inscribed circle ABD = Hypotenuse circle
Inscribed circle BCJ = Radial circle
Inscribed circle BFK = Lemma circle
Inscribed circle CBF = Vector circle
Inscribed circle CGH = Chord circle

p, s, v, o = the first four terms of a Brunardot Series (www.101123.com/BS)
All lines shown in the above image of a Lemma Ellipse (www.101123.com/LE) are integers derived from simple algebraic relationships for an unending sequence of Lemma Ellipses (www.101123.com/LE) that are generated from two unending sequences of Natural Integers (www.101123.com/NI).

©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://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.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hi :) ...

So questions, well, Honestly, I have on only looked at your drawing, last night, for the very first time. (first I have seen of Anything you have written/done...to the Best of MY knowledge, could be wrong if you have been published in Scientific Journals for other things)

So Please, Is it Original? original Thought? Yours?

Is it, perhaps, something that arose from 'Within you' that you later found out had been previously done? in History? or is it that it arose 'within you' and to the best of your knowledge, it is Original, on the face of the Planet, a Previously Unrecognized Self Evident truth (purset)...If so, is that your First one? or are there others...?


Can you do it in three dimensions?

If so, How?

(if the answers are previously Posted, Please, if it isn't already there, perhaps a Suggestion, or two, (2) on where to find reference to 'terminology' as it is apparent enough, to me, that what you expose me to, is, New to me...some of the terms, Names, of the definable elements of the Mathematics you employ...Thank You)

Am I allowed so Personal Questions? If so are you really 'singular' in Presentation, or does your Avatar represent a Group? (This is the Net, after all)

Your Available Personal Information Tells of someone who seems to Admit to being Certain 'things' that would be the Descriptors of one who "Breaks Ground" the "Fortunate Ones" ("accepting of themselves" for what they Know, they are) being the Ones who Find that Rock at the Bottom, the truth, therafter the Purset that Describes it, so is your admission, to it, a Precluding attempt to 'stymie' the Potential and possibilities of the accusation of being such? (that surely occur in any truly open discussion opportunity when Enough Parties/people are participating.....a Sign of Health in a Scientific Community...)

Or is it that you really just know yourself (very well, and) as that?

Or is it that really just to personal to pursue, on my part? my apologies, if I have strayed to far...

Certainly I enjoy your assertion about The Universe's Role, in Mathematics, a Rigorous Language, No Doubt, but a Language-None the less...

If you have this Figured out, have you been able to apply it to the Rest of what is 'Missing' in 'Current Knowledge' as to Complete a T.O.E.?

If Not, Why? What is Missing? or is it that this Has yet to be found as applicable? (Forgive me if that question seems Naive, on my part, I simply Like/Try (God"s Grace) to be Thorough)

Funny, seems as though I am the What? First Person to respond, Publically, Here....to you, or First to Question....were did that reporter go?..."Common Sense" Please Define that, accurately....Thanks.

[Epsilon=One]

…if you have been published in Scientific Journals for other things

So Please, Is it Original? original Thought? Yours?

As a heretic, peer review has doomed all attempts at publishing or collaboration; only Linus Pauling, Philip Morrison, and Mario Rabinowitz have had the courage to publicly wish me well.

Is it, perhaps, something that arose from 'Within you' that you later found out had been previously done? in History? or is it that it arose 'within you' and to the best of your knowledge, it is Original, on the face of the Planet, a Previously Unrecognized Self Evident truth (purset)...If so, is that your First one? or are there others...?

It arose from “within.” Recently, I self-published a manuscript concerning “a proof of one” of less than 16 pages. I estimate that it contained more than 50 original ideas; that, to the best of my knowledge, have never been expressed.

You are perceptive! I find ideas and theory where there is none; you would think there would be merit until they were displaced with better logic???

In 1955, after several intensive years of searching, in a flash, all salient issues merged to the Unified Concept (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=119). There was no need to build upon this to GUT and TOE (at that time there was only the Unified Field Theory), because that was where I had started from . . . by asking “Why?”; over and over, deeper and deeper. The answer seemed so simple that I couldn’t understand the resistance (there was no general acceptance of the Big Bang as a standard model until many years later).

Classmates and graduate students around the Ivy League were excited and encouraging (many are now laureates); however, I upset Oppenheimer and "J. Edgar" (McCarthy era); the rest is history . . . or the lack thereof.

Can you do it in three dimensions?

If so, How?

With educated intuitiveness; I don’t think the results will much differ in 3D.

I am persona non grata in most halls of academia; so, I have little opportunity to gain from an exchange of ideas; however, I did discuss 3D mathematics and interpretaion with Philip Morrison, Kip Thorne, John Schwarz, and Mario Rabinowitz in the early 90s with little success. Each had different approaches to the difficulties involved, which to my intuition, were of little consequence when considering the importance. I was unpersuasive; and, subsequently, I had many other pressing challenges to occupy my time (I lived on the streets of Crenshaw/La Brea and Stocker for the better part of a year at that time).

You seem to have the expertise. I would love to collaborate (probably ruin your career), with the hope of establishing 3D, graphic (digital) visuals. (It is now over 55 years since I taught accredited courses in calculus and spherical trigonometry. I do not enjoy the prospect of technical re-education; for the most part of the last 50 years I have not considered myself a technician; only a philosopher . . . academia, and Thomas S. Kuhn (http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin/kuhn/kuhn.htm), do not so consider!)

…perhaps a Suggestion, or two, (2) on where to find reference to 'terminology' as it is apparent enough, to me, that what you expose me to, is, New to me...some of the terms, Names, of the definable elements of the Mathematics you employ...Thank You)

I appreciate your difficulties. So much of my thoughts are original that I must carefully define my terms to shed unwanted connotations (words with “quote punctuation” don’t always suffice); thus, many neologisms and acronyms. It is near impossible to run an exhaustive reply. Please ask individually; there is such provision at the bottom of my posts. I try to cross-link as I progress; but, much back-tracking is impossible in the ad hoc forums that I am limited to.

Am I allowed so Personal Questions? If so are you really 'singular' in Presentation, or does your Avatar represent a Group? (This is the Net, after all)

Why not be personal?; it is often important when making judgment. I try to be as transparent as possible when directly questioned.

Generally, I only know “ignore”-ance. I have found no one until just recently who will publicly stand with me.

When did a group in all of history ever have an original thought???

Your Available Personal Information Tells of someone who seems to Admit to being Certain 'things' that would be the Descriptors of one who "Breaks Ground" the "Fortunate Ones" ("accepting of themselves" for what they Know, they are) being the Ones who Find that Rock at the Bottom, the truth, therafter the Purset that Describes it, so is your admission, to it, a Precluding attempt to 'stymie' the Potential and possibilities of the accusation of being such? (that surely occur in any truly open discussion opportunity when Enough Parties/people are participating.....a Sign of Health in a Scientific Community...)

As for "Health in a Scientific Community..." I have recently been locked out of, had high interest Threads locked/moved, unrelentingly attacked ad hominemly, had posts edited and subsequently deleted, etc. from the prestigious PhysicsForum.com (http://www.physicsforums.com/) as "Brunardot" for statements made in the Philosophy section in Threads that enjoyed much activity . . . especially from the mentors.

I don't know how to show enough appreciation for the intellectual honesty of this forum and "Dr. Elliot."

My body is rapidly aging . . . the world is deteriorating. No longer is caution as important as it used to be (I remind you of Salman Rushdie (http://www.webcurrent.com/rushdie.html)). Finding “truth” gives great strength . . . but there is a price to pay; just ask, Giordano Bruno (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html); "The 'Church' will never outlive him."

Or is it that you really just know yourself (very well, and) as that?

Without knowing oneself, one can know little else.

Or is it that really just to personal to pursue, on my part? my apologies, if I have strayed to far...

I too have strayed. Elliot knows how lonely I get.

Certainly I enjoy your assertion about The Universe's Role, in Mathematics, a Rigorous Language, No Doubt, but a Language-None the less...

Thank you! I have never found agreement on this point, which I so fervently believe.

If you have this Figured out, have you been able to apply it to the Rest of what is 'Missing' in 'Current Knowledge' as to Complete a T.O.E.?

Yes. I have so rationalized before the concept, or term, “T.O.E.” was conceived.

If Not, Why? What is Missing? or is it that this Has yet to be found as applicable? (Forgive me if that question seems Naive, on my part, I simply Like/Try (God"s Grace) to be Thorough)

No forgiveness necessary. Only the understanding of others is missing. Of course Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156) will require tweaking as long as there is Consciousness.

Funny, seems as though I am the What? First Person to respond, Publically, Here....to you, or First to Question....were did that reporter go? "Common Sense" Please Define that, accurately....Thanks.

You have great courage. I hope, as being first and as courage usually requires, that you won’t pay too high a price.

”Common Sense”: Something that is woefully lacking among the academic elite. I write for the common man (who owns a dictionary and managed to get through Algebra and Geometry 101 . . . or, has faith in my observations).

One more stray: You seem to have a firm grasp of an understanding of Infinity, when time allows. Would you critique this post: Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109)?.

Thanks for the effort and courtesy of your reply. I don't write to be understood without being asked questions.

I cannot teach anybody anything,
I can only make them think.

Socrates [470-399 B.C.]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

First, Thanks for the responce and it's apparent openness, I've not really had lots of time, either to read it, or respond, just yet, but I have saved a Copy and will try to get to a response as quickly as I can...thanks, for the patience.

(Not really something that I would seek to stretch, your patience, all things considered.....Thanks again, till soon...oh yes, and please pardon my typing, I miss, sometimes)

[Epsilon=One]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

First, Thanks for the responce and it's apparent openness, I've not really had lots of time, either to read it, or respond, just yet, but I have saved a Copy and will try to get to a response as quickly as I can...thanks, for the patience.

(Not really something that I would seek to stretch, your patience, all things considered.....Thanks again, till soon...oh yes, and please pardon my typing, I miss, sometimes)

I well understand typing and spelling problems in forums. No apology needed. You are understood “loud and clear.”

Don't waste too much time trying to understand my logic and geometry/algebra.

I purposely write to force thought; I expect many questions. I do ask rhetorical question; and, try to never make a statement that I can not rationalize.

The only way I can narrow understanding is to rely on questions.

If more convenient, you may e-mail me directly. Unless authorized otherwise, your thoughts will be in confidence.

P.S. Your printed copy may be obsolete. I continually update; as most of this forum is impromptu.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV


Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
As a heretic, peer review has doomed all attempts at publishing or collaboration; only Linus Pauling, Philip Morrison, and Mario Rabinowitz have had the courage to publicly wish me well.

Humm, Well the only name I recognize of hand is (Mr.) Linus Pauling, the others, sorry don't recognize them, but I would be willing to be one of the people who have "Wished you well" insamuch as that is simply Good Manners, nothing wrong with that.....as for "Heretic" well, truly I haven't a Clue if it's True-False-Partial....so I would simply note it, little More...

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
It arose from “within.” Recently, I self-published a manuscript concerning “a proof of one” of less than 16 pages. I estimate that it contained more than 50 original ideas; that, to the best of my knowledge, have never been expressed.

I had wondered if your 'avatar' had been a similarity to the expression "Everything is One" inasmuch as "I" (sorta) Figured out that that was what the "Sages of the Ages" had actually meant...no doubt, lacking the afforded words/terms (scientifically) to describe, to all, what it was they actually knew.

God's Grace I too have a work that, well short it was, about seven pages, could of done it in Five, for the Supreme Court of Canada, a Case of a Pedophile trying to get legal ('Charter' here in Canada) Right to produce, self produced, "Works of the Imagination"...had to prove to the Court that the Government of the Country was NOT acting as The Mind Police....fun....that one, the Government lied about how it got solved, and I got, well, here....sorta....Original Thought(?) it Sorta wasn't, compilation of a Group of (Original et al) Thoughts, though, that is was, and what it ended up being successful at, was proving that the action of the government Was NOT the/a 'Policing' of the Human Mind. (Lots available from "Google" simply type << John Robin Sharpe >> and/or 'Pages in Canada' and Lots comes up)

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
You are perceptive! I find ideas and theory where there is none; you would think there would be merit until they were displaced with better logic???

First, Thank you, the rest, I agree....

A Unified Concept theory in 1955, (I was only Born in 56) it really is too bad that you haven't gotten recognition, sad ,that it can be taken away, in a sense of speaking, simply by having Upset, the Wrong person...apparently, so far, mine has/had been Oprah, then, thereafter Mr. Bush...History, too, and the lack, as well...


Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
I am persona non grata in most halls of academia; so, I have little opportunity to gain from an exchange of ideas; however, I did discuss 3D mathematics and interpretaion with Philip Morrison, Kip Thorne, John Schwarz, and Mario Rabinowitz in the early 90s with little success. Each had different approaches to the difficulties involved, which to my intuition, were of little consequence when considering the importance. I was unpersuasive; and, subsequently, I had many other pressing challenges to occupy my time (I lived on the streets of Crenshaw/La Brea and Stocker for the better part of a year at that time).

You seem to have the expertise. I would love to collaborate (probably ruin your career), with the hope of establishing 3D, graphic (digital) visuals. (It is now over 55 years since I taught accredited courses in calculus and spherical trigonometry. I do not enjoy the prospect of technical re-education; for the most part of the last 50 years I have not considered myself a technician; only a philosopher . . . academia, and Thomas S. Kuhn, do not so consider!)

Persona Non Grata, why? isn't that sorta contrary to the Principles of Science? wherein the Best, most meritorious, answer is meant to be what gets put forth...as for the people, once again sorry don't know the names or the people...perhaps you should also Know that you seem to have found (Personally I do not know that...yet) the GUT in '55, I was Born, one year later....so....as for ruining my career, well, I am a Homeless man, living in a tent, presently, so "I" suspect that my 'career' can only get better....

As for the terminology, God willing, I will try to follow the advice, Thanks!

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
(SNIP)When did a group in all of history ever have an original thought???(SNoP)

Don't know if they ever have, but I am simply suspicious of 'Connecting' on the net, so to speak...have had situations wherein I was sorta Competeing against a "Group effort" of thoughts, just not in Science, so far.


Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
As for "Health in a Scientific Community..." I have recently been locked out of, had high interest Threads locked/moved, unrelentingly attacked ad hominemly, had posts edited and subsequently deleted, etc. from the prestigious PhysicsForum.com as "Brunardot" for statements made in the Philosophy section in Threads that enjoyed much activity . . . especially from the mentors.

I don't know how to show enough appreciation for the intellectual honesty of this forum and "Dr. Elliot."

Sad about the Physicsforums....I had stayed away from posting in the Physics sections, as they continually moved me to Theory Development, wanting some of the accreditations(?) (I don't actually know that but it felt like it)

Certainly agree with respect to Dr. Elliot, first time I have been able to type out Oprah's Name and not get subsequently, Kicked off.

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
My body is rapidly aging . . . the world is deteriorating. No longer is caution as important as it used to be (I remind you of Salman Rushdie). Finding “truth” gives great strength . . . but there is a price to pay; just ask, Giordano Bruno; "The 'Church' will never outlive him."

Sorry about your health, sorry about the 'waiting for an answer' too, should be abble to do better during the Week, as my access to computers, is better, when everything is open...the Libraries etc.

Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
Without knowing oneself, one can know little else.

I too have strayed. Elliot knows how lonely I get.

Thank you! I have never found agreement on this point, which I so fervently believe.

Yes. I have so rationalized before the concept, or term, “T.O.E.” was conceived.

To the First, How true, the second, please don't worry and I will try to be quicker, in response, the third, I too have tried to get 'that one out' so to speak, and for the last one, well, can you do all of the chemistry? How the atoms/forces construct all of Chemistry...?


Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
”Common Sense”: Something that is woefully lacking among the academic elite. I write for the common man (who owns a dictionary and managed to get through Algebra and Geometry 101 . . . or, has faith in my observations).

Sorry I had dropped that 'Common Sense' thing in because I had seen a link, in these forums, to an article about a Reporter who seemed to think that it should not be just scientists who review Scientific Works, he seemd to think Common Sense was an Apt enough Guide...personally, I have seen it in people, where, when it has been explained to them, they seem to be able to find the 'Common Sense' of it, but coming up with it, in the First place, seems to leave some of them Quite Lacking...the reason why I had wondered about The reporter's ability to come up with it's definition, after all, how could 'you' (anyone) claim to be using something and yet not be able to define what it is 'you' state you are doing/using?

Then again your case might just make for the Exception to the Rule, if all of what you state has the validity that 'common sense' (sorta) tells me it has....I must admit I haven't read enough, yet, to know...much...

Weekends are sorta more difficult for me to get computer time, But, God Willing I will be back at it early tommorrow morning.

Might I ask Who you were at the Physicsforums? your 'avatar' there? Mine was the same as Here, must have missed you, there....

You seem to be 'well read' in these forums, (sorta) funny, no one responds, same thing as in my life, and I cannot even, so little as, get my Government to admit that I had been simply involved in that Sharpe Case, SCC #27376

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) Unless authorized otherwise, your thoughts will be in confidence. (SNoP)

Thanks! your offer is Very Kind/Respectfull, but I, generally, tend to stay 'out in the open' till I have chance for the proper venue, then, it should be more private.

Funny "asking questions" I wasn't asked either, when I told then about "Sparkle and Shine" talked about how the Sun's image has that disc of light that seems to shimmer when properly (radiation protected) viewed (from Earth)....no one questioned me, so I didn't tell anyone that when viewed from the Earth the Shimmer can be attributed to the earth's atmosphere, so it needs be viewed from Space, and when done that way (a La Hubble..??) it is certainly clear enough that there is, along the edges of the Solar Body, a Slight 'tranisiting of light' that can be viewed, (sort of like a very quick Sliver of Light) as it transists the Curvature of the edges of the Solar Body. That is, actually, a Sorta 'Sheet of light' that is descending towards the Solar body, and is only viewable, from our perspective, due to the Curvature that is afforded us, Slightly past that very edge of the Sun's Body...sort of like we see into the descending light/Gravity, as it is Gravity that is doing that.

They never asked me, I never told, it could have been Very embarrassing....for them......

P.S. It is my typing that goes awry, just that I am, sorta, Lazy about the re-reads, re-reading what I have just typed.....who knew?

[Epsilon=One]

...the only name I recognize of hand is (Mr.) Linus Pauling, the others, sorry don't recognize them

Philip Morrison (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-33,GGLG:en&q=philip+morrison), Professor Emiritus, Astrophysics, MIT

Mario Rabinowitz (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-33,GGLG:en&q=mario+rabinowitz), formerly Project Director EPRI (http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?)

...I too have a work that, well short it was, about seven pages, could of done it in Five, for the Supreme Court of Canada, a Case of a Pedophile trying to get legal ('Charter' here in Canada) Right to produce, self produced, "Works of the Imagination"...had to prove to the Court that the Government of the Country was NOT acting as The Mind Police....fun....that one, the Government lied about how it got solved, and I got, well, here....sorta....Original Thought(?) it Sorta wasn't, compilation of a Group of (Original et al) Thoughts, though, that is was, and what it ended up being successful at, was proving that the action of the government Was NOT the/a 'Policing' of the Human Mind. (Lots available from "Google" simply type << John Robin Sharpe >> and/or 'Pages in Canada' and Lots comes up)

Very interesting. I follow this sort of thing more than Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

...apparently, so far, mine has/had been Oprah, then, thereafter Mr. Bush...History, too, and the lack, as well...

I coined the term Amerigance. You might visit www.Amerigance.com (http://www.Amerigance.com)

Persona Non Grata, why? isn't that sorta contrary to the Principles of Science? wherein the Best, most meritorious, answer is meant to be what gets put forth...

Duh..... You would think....

as for ruining my career, well, I am a Homeless man, living in a tent, presently, so "I" suspect that my 'career' can only get better....

You're fortunate. For a while I didn't have a tent; and that year the county closed many libraries for lack of funds. Orange County (very wealthy and conservative) went Bankrupt.


I am simply suspicious of 'Connecting' on the net, so to speak...have had situations wherein I was sorta Competeing against a "Group effort" of thoughts...

Just me . . . living alone, near blind, broke, and missing one meniscus with diabetes and three new stents. Not much to lose anymore. (Dr. E. is a blessing) Getting old is a bitch.

Sad about the Physicsforums....I had stayed away from posting in the Physics sections, as they continually moved me to Theory Development, wanting some of the accreditations(?) (I don't actually know that but it felt like it)

Yeh, the "old peer review and published papers" dodge. So much for intellectual curiosity.

Certainly agree with respect to Dr. Elliot, first time I have been able to type out Oprah's Name and not get subsequently, Kicked off.

He's my Max Planck!!!

How the atoms/forces construct all of Chemistry...?

I think so. I was discussing Bjerknes forces with Pauling prior to his death; hoping to get him to critique my work. He preferred critiquing my grammar and puncuation.

Might I ask Who you were at the Physicsforums? your 'avatar' there? Mine was the same as Here, must have missed you, there....

I only lasted a few days until I was banned from the site.

I used Brunardot and MotoNick after being banned.

You seem to be 'well read' in these forums, (sorta) funny, no one responds

You noticed, too. You are the only member after a few thousands Views. Thank you very much for your time.

[Epsilon=One]

Thanks! your offer is Very Kind/Respectfull, but I, generally, tend to stay 'out in the open' till I have chance for the proper venue, then, it should be more private.

Funny "asking questions" I wasn't asked either, when I told then about "Sparkle and Shine" talked about how the Sun's image has that disc of light that seems to shimmer when properly (radiation protected) viewed (from Earth)....no one questioned me, so I didn't tell anyone that when viewed from the Earth the Shimmer can be attributed to the earth's atmosphere, so it needs be viewed from Space, and when done that way (a La Hubble..??) it is certainly clear enough that there is, along the edges of the Solar Body, a Slight 'tranisiting of light' that can be viewed, (sort of like a very quick Sliver of Light) as it transists the Curvature of the edges of the Solar Body. That is, actually, a Sorta 'Sheet of light' that is descending towards the Solar body, and is only viewable, from our perspective, due to the Curvature that is afforded us, Slightly past that very edge of the Sun's Body...sort of like we see into the descending light/Gravity, as it is Gravity that is doing that.

They never asked me, I never told, it could have been Very embarrassing....for them......

P.S. It is my typing that goes awry, just that I am, sorta, Lazy about the re-reads, re-reading what I have just typed.....who knew?

Very interesting. You have given me something to think about. I developed Pulsoid Theory with a slide rule (nice K&E), 3x5 cards, and a notepad before I was 22.

For 50 years I've taunted academia to ask questions and provide a forum with . . . no luck. If I released what I knew it would be stolen in a heart beat; and I'm sure misused; just note what happened to Karl Marx, and countless others. Dr. E. gave me the forum that I had been denied by Oppenheimer.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

So, sorry bout your Diabetes, that can be really rough dependant upon which you have, injectable, or pill 'relief', auto-immune disease, (too) can't fault anything, or anyone, but be gratefull that Dr. Banting found Insulin otherwise, well, we wouldn't be attempting this discourse, now would we....

Here's hoping you keep all of your apendages, nerves, kidneys... etc etc. (eyesight)

Homeless too, that could be real difficult even in "Sunny California" cause I am certain it can get real cold there too, probably not as cold as it can get here in Canada, slept out in minus 19 C last year, just before Christmas,otherwise I have to use the shelter systems and that is, well, not much fun for a person who can feel others in the manners and ways I can...(you know(?) "Loud and clear" was that a Hint?*) and you? do you use 'system offerings' (government, any level) to survive?

So, Is there a better thread, as venue, for conversation?

(I should, simply, go look...)

(*cause it is true, God's Grace I know what I can do, but it is very educational, at best, trickeeeeeee! at worst, cause WOOOOOW!!! do people ever like lieing to me! fools themselves! they do! usually Waaaaaaay more then they fool me, but that aspect is God's Grace, too!)

[Epsilon=One]

So, sorry bout your Diabetes...dependant upon which you have... Here's hoping you keep all of your apendages, nerves, kidneys... etc etc. (eyesight)

Adult onset; and, under control. Wish I was in Canada; Bush increased cost of management about $125/month a year ago. Kidneys and nerves "touch and go." Eyes are old retinal problems from trauma . . . only problem: can't drive; but then, I have nothing to drive. All else: prognosis good.

...even in "Sunny California" cause I am certain it can get real cold there too, probably not as cold as it can get here in Canada, slept out in minus 19 C last year, just before Christmas,otherwise I have to use the shelter systems and that is, well, not much fun for a person who can feel others in the manners and ways I can...(you know(?) "Loud and clear" was that a Hint?*) and you? do you use 'system offerings' (government, any level) to survive?

Small Social Security and Food Stamps; hopefully, eyes can be fixed; then, I can get back to accounting. Spent much time in the Quetico and Sioux Lookout as a kid; I only know Canada as god's country

So, Is there a better thread, as venue, for conversation?

I know you like transparency; I prefer "backdoor" e-mail. Can you setup an account?

...do people ever like lieing to me! fools themselves! they do! usually Waaaaaaay more then they fool me...

I would rather be lied to than ignored. At least you can reply/respond.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Originally posted By Epsilon=One
(SNIP)
All else: prognosis good.(SNoP)

That is Nice to hear, almost forgot about the Eyes, also, sorry about what Bush did....

Originally posted By Epsilon=One
Small Social Security and Food Stamps; hopefully, eyes can be fixed; then, I can get back to accounting. Spent much time in the Quetico and Sioux Lookout as a kid; I only know Canada as god's country
Couldn't agree more with that last statement as I have seen/experienced lots of this country...and I certainly hope you can keep your eyesight!


Originally posted By Epsilon=One
I would rather be lied to than ignored. At least you can reply/respond.

Sometimes, it is simply better, not, to respond to lies....Personally (God's Grace) I have found it sometimes waaaaaaay better simply to let them believe that they have succeeded, that way they don't look for better ways to lie to me, they stick with what they think works, and I don't get fooled.

As for a Backdoor e-mail account, whom can I trust? I already have accounts and get, well, very little, other then what comes as a result of the postings, in forums....so, trading information that way opens that info to anyone who can crack it...already had a Corruptor of My writings, Lord knows what they would do to my e-mail accounts if they had access to them.

[Epsilon=One]

Couldn't agree more with that last statement as I have seen/experienced lots of this country...and I certainly hope you can keep your eyesight!
I have no fear of blindess. Other senses thrive when the mind is not sight polluted (neuron bombardment).

Because of trauma I was sandbagged in bed and blind for sometime in the 60s. Got to know my thoughts.

A year or two ago (until surgery which fixed an eye that hadn't seen in 35 years . . . a true miracle), because of subsequent complcations, I couldn't see the computer screen in color, or cross streets or ride buses. I did fine as time passed.

With blindness, along with disadvantages; there are many advantages . . . people are nicer.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Epsilon=One
I have no fear of blindess. Other senses thrive when the mind is not sight polluted (neuron bombardment).
>
Because of trauma I was sandbagged in bed and blind for sometime in the 60s. Got to know my thoughts.
>
A year or two ago (until surgery which fixed an eye that hadn't seen in 35 years . . . a true miracle), because of subsequent complcations, I couldn't see the computer screen in color, or cross streets or ride buses. I did fine as time passed.
>
With blindness, along with disadvantages; there are many advantages . . . people are nicer.

Interesting, sometimes it is more difficult to see the Strengths, in others, over the Net, othertimes (person dpendant)....Not

Nice to know you were able to 'recover' sight.

But I suspect that the reality that I try to engage others in finding, is the Mindspace, alone....most won't realize that to detatch the Heart is waaaaay more critical, to their existence, then they know, as that is the 'Source' (sensational space) {So to speak} of the connection, to the infinite, the life source/spring.....but, none the less, it can be as 'thought of' as simply being a body-less person existant in a space of No reference, Ergo No perception, that is the idea of being existant, in the Infinite.....thereafter it Begs the question of whether, or not, you admit to the reality of there being another source of Mind-spring, thought source, other then, simply, you, the being that is "self-aware" and it is in the answering of that question, that we find, the admitance to the existence of Creator, or the Denial, of same....

It is a simply question, are you really alone in your own mindspace, or is there another (Spirit) that exists there, with you...helping you, if it is a Spirit that works in the manners and ways of the Creator, (God) not the 'other kind' of Spirit, the servant of the unequal opposite of God....so if God is the Truth, well then we can all know what the other one represents.....it is Probably the only Lie, in the Christian Bible, when the Devil offers, to Jesus, to Give him (Reign over) all of what he shows him, if he will simply bend his Knee to him, it is/was then, and now, a False offer....after all, he is the Devil, and Lieing is what he does best......ever wonder (I have) why Women ask about why God is engendered as a man, not a Woman? yet they never seem to want that same equality when it comes to the Devil....a Woman, Perhaps....Why is that?


Kinda waaaaaaay off topic here, so I am going to try to find a thread where this kind of stuff appears as more appropo.....will link it.

[Epsilon=One]

…it Begs the question of whether, or not, you admit to the reality of there being another source of Mind-spring, thought source, other then, simply, you, the being that is "self-aware" and it is in the answering of that question, that we find, the admitance to the existence of Creator, or the Denial, of same....
I believe there is a force of creation (Infinity, for lack of a better word; which is the source of “dark” energy); as the evidence is all about; however, I do not believe that, that which creates has any anthropic qualities.

....so if God is the Truth….
If such is the "Truth"; then, god must be intellectually viable; that is, no faith, beyond a possible minuscule, must be required for a full rationalization of Reality.
.....it is Probably the only Lie, in the Christian Bible….
All Scripture is anthropic in origin.

Kinda waaaaaaay off topic here….
Yes.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So then we can go Here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=225)?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I believe there is a force of creation (Infinity, for lack of a better word; which is the source of “dark” energy); as the evidence is all about; however, I do not believe that, that which creates has any anthropic qualities.
If such is the "Truth"; then, god must be intellectually viable; that is, no faith, beyond a possible minuscule, must be required for a full rationalization of Reality.
All Scripture is anthropic in origin.
Yes.

All of anything we do is 'anthropic' as that is all any of us can do, make a Subjective attestament, there is No 'Proving' unless we agree upon the Idea of "Truth(es)".....first.

Otherwise, well, hadn't realized that you were a solipsis....are you?

(Rhetorical=?)

[Epsilon=One]

...hadn't realized that you were a solipsis....are you?I am absolutely . . . NOT a believer in solipsism

I am diametrically opposed to anything that elevates the status of man to anything other than the highest form of evolution known; as far away from the "source" as can be achieved along the path of evolution.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I am absolutely . . . NOT a believer in solipsism

I am diametrically opposed to anything that elevates the status of man to anything other than the highest form of evolution known; as far away from the "source" as can be achieved along the path of evolution.

O.K. and agreed!

(Ooooops put this part in the wrong thread)

But I still believe (as I, personally, haven't direct evidence of it) that E = mc^2 and that it works for the "limited range" as you have mentioned....

Nuclear Bombs, and their yields, the mass losses, those, and Nuclear reactors, the losses, and gains, available, as evidence, from them....too.

(So I will transfer it)

[Epsilon=One]

This post is a placeholder/