Pulsoid Theory: a Summary

[Epsilon=One]

Pulsoid Theory: a Quick Summary

Forget the strange ellipses (www.101123.com/UEm).

Forget the Proof of One (www.101123.com/PoO).

Forget the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC).

Forget the esoteric arguments concerning Infinity; (www.101123.com/I) the Unified Concept (www.101123/UC); and, Triquametric motion (www.101123.com/TM), and seminal motion (www.101123.com/SM).

A key, a bit of courage, and a little practice will have you driving a car; it isn't necessary to understand gasoline/air ratios or "spark" advancement to "get going." Likewise, it isn't required to know advanced physics and mathematics to understand the Universe such that a person no longer must rely on the metaphysics and confusion of others.

It's true for most everyone that will think a bit . . . and ask questions: the enviroment, including Consciousness, can be easily rationalized with a little intuitive reflection upon what had seemed enigmatic.

We are a part of this environment; in fact we are the highest form of known evolution; and, as such, we are moving in the slowest "lane" of motion. We are the furthest away from that which creates, the locus of the duality of Infinity (www.101123.com/I), as it is possible to be.

Yet, with all that has occurred between the extremes of evolution, we, human beings, are the only known manifestation that may, eventually, know of our origin and destination. It is this wisdom that when properly applied can maximize happiness.

The Congeneric Realms of Reality (www.101123.com/CRR) should join the 3-Rs in grade school.

Coalescence, Propagation, Compression, and Dissipation, as the core of the Equilibrium Theory of Reality (www.101123.com/ETR), must replace the Big Bang theory.
If there were a beginning
it would be the quiet calm of
coalescence; ludicrous
bang of compression . . . Never!

The strength of Pulsoid Theory is the beauty, inevitableness, and logical completeness of its underlying Natural concepts and mathematics.

It is this strength of Pulsoid Theory that will eventually, essentially and ultimately, challenge the integrity of post-modern, academic peer review, and all of the fundamental postulates of the current standard models of theoretical physics.
Pulsoid Theory heuristically describes
the geometry of
the first essence of existence; and,
how that essence evolves to
the complexity of the Universe . . .
and then, dissipates to the beginning.

The logic of Pulsoid Theory has
never been seriously challenged by
academia. 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.

[Jameson]

I am very interested in Pulsoid Theory, Epsilon=One, but I must admit that it's hard for me to follow all of your posts. You have written so much and while I appreciate it, I find myself in an endless series of links. Could you summarize all your points about this theory in one post for me? I'd appreciate it. :D

[Epsilon=One]

I am very interested in Pulsoid Theory, Epsilon=One, but I must admit that it's hard for me to follow all of your posts. You have written so much and while I appreciate it, I find myself in an endless series of links. Could you summarize all your points about this theory in one post for me? I'd appreciate it.Sorry about your difficulty. I'm certain that the problem has been mine; and, probably not unintended.

I still have several more important points to establish that I have been leading up to.

They have to do with: Defining Resoloids, the logical flaws in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; and, why the speed of light appears to be constant.

Most of the theory is in separate manuscripts; whereas the forum threads are a bit ad hoc and quickly posted. The problem with the manuscripts is that it is too difficult to link to definitions and too many pages of “crackpot” (Non-standard and heuristic thought) must be waded through before a point is made. No one seems to wade very far before reverting to conventional metaphysics.

When I first realized what an excellent format the forum was for developing an understanding of Pulsoid Theory a single concept at a time, while protecting the intellectual property, with a step-by-step approach, I didn't realize the "usual" internet forum was so antagonistic to alternative thought. (And, I had thought peer review was repressive!)

Fortunately, I found a kindred, renaissance spirit who was also fighting the uphill battle at another forum (PM). (I had tried three or four prior internet forums, always generating tremendous interest, heated debate, occassional thoughtful agreement . . . and, always, I was quickly banned when the interest and participation soared.)

Imagine my delight and amazement when I discovered Dr. E had his own forum. Though, I am still nostalgic about the fun and time we shared for a few posts at PM. (Dr. E was banned before I was, an honor that can only be understood in context.) I had originally intended to target audiences (pro and con) from other forums to this forum. I still do, just taking longer for a dialogue to develop than I anticipated. It is difficult to entirly rationalize Pulsoid Theory without feedback from the learned. Can't imagine where the "Views" without comment are coming from.

I thought breaking the theory into small concepts would make each part easier to digest; though, the entire theory is dependent upon a melding of most all of its non-conventional parts. I had anticipated much discussion about each thread. I didn’t intend to “move on” until each controversial concept was thrashed out. So much for that . . .

I was sure that many would challenge the logic, math, and observations of each Pulsoid Theory thread. So much for that . . .

After a few more posts, I will post an abstract that should help you. It will probably just be several short paragraphs. These paragraphs would probably be meaningless without the prior posts. The posts are just outlines that I had intended to fill in as questions were asked. So much for that . . .

I am astounded that no one has asked questions and/or challenged the logic of: “The Universal Proof of One,” (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=165) the “Elliptical Constant,” (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) “Triquametric motion,” (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101) the origin of mathematics, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=244) the revised Fibonacci sequence, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=103) etc. etc.

My religious/political views have caused me much trouble lately and have limited my otherwise extensive computer equipment and time.

I will do my best to sketch the remaining posts and give you your abstract. In the meantime, please ask questions and/or challenge the logic.

I was sure that, by now, someone would assign a freshman class of physicists, mathematicians, or philosophers to tear apart my concepts. At the very least one would think that the academic elite must rebut that: all pomo theoretical physics is fundamentally based on metaphysics. So much for that . . .

Amazing, how difficult a time I’ve had in raising controversy among the learned that is so necessary to advancing alternative thought.

By now it should be obvious to all rational, thinking persons that alternative concepts amounting to nothing less than a Paradigm Shift! in the fundamental concepts of theoreical physics is the only way out of the current, obfuscating, miasma of the contrived standard models of pomo theoretical physics that is letting society slip away from a rational evolution.

The necessity of uniting Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP) cannot be overstated.

Ignorance of fundamental environmental concepts of where we are going; where we have come from; and, how to behave in between, at the academic level, is staggering. I place most of the fault for the current state of affairs upon the theoretical physicist.

Such academic slippage of fundamental rationalization between such primary disciplines (STP) is a direct threat to life as we know it; as well as, the short term survival of Earth as the currently only known environment that supports consciousness.

[Epsilon=One]

Pulsoid Theory is a philosophy that rationalizes the total environment of Reality in a manner that reconciles with individualism, philosophic logic, scientific method, and observation (IPSO).

Pulsoid Theory reconciles Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP).

Simplistically, Pulsoid Theory explains why seminal motion, the simplest concept of existence, manifests as a multitude of seminal pulses; what the dynamics and geometry of these pulses are; and, why the complexity of Reality is the evolution of these pulses, and their complex manifestations, as they coalesce, propagate, compress, and then, dissipate again to seminal pulses . . . throughout an endless cycle.

Important original concepts of Pulsoid Theory are: Triquametric motion (TM) (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101), the Elliptical Constant (EC), the origin of numbers (Unimetry), The Proof of One, fundamental intrinsic time (FIT), and the Equilibrium Theory of Reality (ETR) (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=131), which rationalize the enigmas of space (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=151), acceleration, time (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=164), Light, mass, gravity, mathematics . . . and life.

[Jameson]

Thank you for your summaries. I am not thoroughly educated in physics, and I try to read all your posts, but sometimes I don't see the connections. I can't picture how ellipses can help explain the real world. I don't understand how the speed of light could not be constant. I have much to learn, but am willing to listen.

[Epsilon=One]

I am not thoroughly educated in physicsNot to worry!

You have an advantage over those that hold degrees in physics.

A formal/academic education in the bias of physic’s standard models is not necessary to rationalize fundamental Reality as it is observed.

Standard models are contrivances to explain what is otherwise inexplicable or desired; much like the ancient . . . and not so ancient, gods.

I do not write for those that are so educated with impressed minds. For the most part, these minds, their neurons and synapses, are secularly impressed concerning their subject; as are the minds of the religiously devout.

Increasingly, particularly, in the pomo era, academic, theoretical physicists have been more the problem than the solution for understanding the fundamentals of our environment. Their pronouncements, without caveat for lay persons, have led to confusion, doubt, and mistrust; and, have made possible the threat of fundamentalism and unsustainable secular lifestyles.

For many reasons, not the least of which are: sinecure, peer review, lack of inter-discipline knowledge, hubris, greed, etc. Worldwide, academic, theoretical physics is near anathema for alternative thought.

…I try to read all your posts, but sometimes I don't see the connections.This is not your fault. To this point, the style has been to first establish many independent thoughts without clearly connecting them. I had anticipated that there would be questions, that didn’t arise, before I moved along to new concepts.

I can understand the confusion, as there are over 100 original ideas throughout all the posts.

You have given me the opportunity of starting from the beginning. I will try to explain more of the connecting logic; however, you must ask questions when you don’t understand. Hopefully, others will share their doubts and opinions.

No question is as foolish as not asking a question when there is doubt.

I can't picture how ellipses can help explain the real world.I will develop this answer in more detail with a Thread titled, “The nature of existence.” It may take a day or two depending on my computer access.

For now, my answer is: The fundamental property of everything that exists is that it is in motion; and that, that motion is elliptical. The ellipse is the curve of gravity. Einstein was unable to connect the ellipse with the sinusoidal curve of light. Einstein, and all others, have never considered the internal geometry of a light wave, which is that of an ellipsoid.

The logic that light does not have an internal geometry (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=110) is illogical. The fact that such geometry has not been previously considered is astounding. I refer to fundamental geometry as it applies to cosmogony as Unimetry (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=129).

More precisely, light is fundamental motion, which is Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101), which is the energy of complex oscillations that is often mystically referred to by theoretical physicists as "dark" energy (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=154). The overall fluence, or field, is that of an ellipsoid. This requires an illustration/diagram that will be forthcoming.

I don't understand how the speed of light could not be constant.The speed of light is now constant because Einstein said it is. There have been many experiments that, within the limits of the equipment, have verified this.

However, logically, such a constant is presently inexplicable; it does not logically follow from any standard model other than as a postulate . . . an assumption.

The problem is actually twofold. First, there must be an explanation of why the speed of light appears to be constant . . . in all directions. Currently there is no acceptable explanation. Second, there must be an explanation as to why, and how much, light varies from a constant speed.

The first has to do with light (it's fundamental state) being the “quanticized fabric of space”; the second has to do with elliptical pulses and the Elliptical Constant. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107)

I must present some detailed graphics to demonstrate the simple mathematics of the above statements.

I…am willing to listen.More important, are you willing to ask questions?

[Jameson]

Oh don't worry, I'm not afraid to ask questions or say when I think something is flawed. I look foward to your continued posting though. :)

[Epsilon=One]

Oh don't worry, I'm not afraid to ask questions or say when I think something is flawed. I look foward to your continued posting though. :)I'll ask some questions as a way to start a topic.

It is difficult to progress without some basic understanding of ellipses.

Can any ellipse be a Conceptual Ellipse?

What makes a Conceptual Ellipse a Brunardot Ellipse?

What makes a Brunardot Ellipse a Pulsoidal Ellipse?

What is the equation for the vector, "v," (in terms of the perigee, "p,") of any ellipse when the hypotenuse, "h," is one greater than the wave, "w"?

Don't take a lot of time with research. If you don't quickly know the answers, I'll explain.

It is important that the answers are almost as natural as: 1 + 0 = 1, 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, and 2 + 3 = 5, etc.

(None of the above logic can be found anywhere in academic literature that I am aware of.)

Would a glossary be helpful?

And, possibly an evolution or hierarchy of terms?

[Jameson]

I think my reading of your work and hopefully understanding it will have to be in small doses. I'm swamped with current homework from acadamia, and your posts are very though provoking. I want to give each one the time it deserves.

I know you have posts on the conceptual ellipse and the brunardot ellipse, but I would appreciate a more general post on how ellipses are relevent to physics. I think things should start simply, and then work from there.

You said that gravity is an ellipse. How so? I've taken math enough to know what an ellipse is and the general equation of describing it, but I've never seen its importance implied as much as you do.

Thanks so much

[Epsilon=One]

[Note: for now many links to definitions will be purposely omitted.
I don't want to break up your train of thought with "jumping about"; or,
extend the time of reading the posts.

If something is not clear either question it or ignore it.

I will add the URL links later
after we have moved on to several subsequent posts.]

I think my reading of your work and hopefully understanding it will have to be in small doses.”Small doses” is good. I know of no other way to master an understanding of any subject. (Key word: “master.”)

I'm swamped with current homework from acadamia, and your posts are very thought provoking.I understand. And, thank you; that is their sole purpose.
I want to give each one the time it deserves.Thank you, again . . . more so; time is the most precious gift there is.

I know you have posts on the conceptual ellipse and the brunardot ellipse, but I would appreciate a more general post on how ellipses are relevent to physics. I think things should start simply, and then work from there.I purposely omitted the links to BE and CE because I wasn’t interested in wasting your time; nor, did I want a rehash of what I had written.

You have completely answered my questions in the manner that I had most hoped for.

See my following post for details.

A primary concern of physics is to describe motion. All motion can be reduced to that of a pulsing ellipsoid that is referred to as a Pulsoid. A Pulsoid can be heuristically reduced to the ellipse.

For now, I will begin with several postulates to simplify matters. The explanation for the “Why?” of the postulates is subtle and a bit involved. For now, the arguments are difficult; as we progress, a rationalization of the “Why?” of the postulates will become more understandable.

Pulsoid Theory POSTULATE: That which exists is comprised of motion.

Pulsoid Theory POSTULATE: That which is motionless is referred to as Infinity.

Pulsoid Theory POSTULATE: First motion has the property of acceleration (It begins at a point where it is motionless.); and, it is referred to as Seminal motion.

Pulsoid Theory POSTULATE: Seminal motion manifests as a pulsing ellipsoid that is referred to as a Pulsoid.

The above four postulates can be jointly referred to as the Unified Concept, which for now, must be taken on faith. This faith (Conceptualism) can be reduced; however, even now, it is minuscule compared to the faith required by all other disciplines.

You said that gravity is an ellipse. How so?The relationship of the illusional force “gravity” and the ellipse is well accepted by academic mathematicians, astronomers, and physicists. Should you need some reassurance you might begin with: Google search for gravity+ellipse (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gravity+ellipse&btnG=Google+Search). This URL varies in hits; usually in the range of a quarter million to over a third of a million hits.

If you still have doubts after considering Cosmic gravitational motions (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=elliptical+cosmic+motion&btnG=Search), I’ll try to explain “Why?”; though, for now, I hope it will not be necessary.

Consider: geometry (mathematics) does not describe nature; nature creates (describes) geometry. All mathematics is a reflection of Nature . . . natural causes. As, are we; and, all else that “exists.”

I've taken math enough to know what an ellipse is and the general equation of describing it,..Good, I wasn’t sure. That’s about all that is required to understand Pulsoid Theory. Accepting the relevant conclusions doesn’t even require any mathematics.

…I've never seen its importance implied as much as you do.Also, you probably have never seen an explanation for what the dual force of gravity is; or, why the speed of light appears as a constant . . .

[Epsilon=One]

Answers to questions posed above.
It is difficult to progress without some basic understanding of ellipses.

Can any ellipse be a Conceptual Ellipse?Yes. All ellipses are Conceptual Ellipses when the difference between the hypotenuse, “h,” and the wave, “w,” is set as “One.”

This difference of “One,” between the hypotenuse and the wave, (as well as other aspects of the structure of a CE that depend on the value of One) is referred to as “epsilon.”

When epsilon equals One the following are true:
the vector equals the square of the perigee,
the soliton equals the Natural function of the perigee,
the wave equals twice the soliton,
the radius equals twice the perigee minus epsilon,
the key equals the perigee minus epsilon,
the Pythagorean radius of the inscribed
......Pythagorean circle equals the key, etc., etc.
What makes a Conceptual Ellipse a Brunardot Ellipse?When the perigee is exactly a multiple of epsilon. That is: when the perigee is a Natural integer. Thus, all the components of the set of CE equations are Natural integers.

What makes a Brunardot Ellipse a Pulsoidal Ellipse?When the amplitude of a BE is a Natural integer. This occurs when the perigee of a PE has a value that equals the hypotenuse of any BE. (Of course, there are other simple relationships between BEs and PEs.)

What is the equation for the vector, "v," (in terms of the perigee, "p,") of any ellipse when the hypotenuse, "h," is one greater than the wave, "w"?That is, when epsilon (the difference between the hypotenuse and wave) equals One, any ellipse is a CE. Thus, the vector equals the square of the perigee. (The "wave" is often referred to in the conventional literature as the focal length.)

It is important that the answers are almost as natural as: 1 + 0 = 1, 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, and 2 + 3 = 5, etc.These are not random numbers. They are a sequence that is part of a series that describes all CEs.

The above: 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5… is the revised (or complete or Natural) Fibonacci sequence, which describes all CEs. And, also, directly relates the revised Fibonacci sequence to pi, phi (the golden ratio), ellipses, etc., etc.

There is a reason that all this is related to fundamental Nature.

That reason underlies Pulsoid Theory . . . and all Reality.

Would a glossary be helpful?

And, possibly an evolution or hierarchy of terms?These are coming soon as well as a legend for the terms of ellipses as defined by Pulsoid Theory.