Mockingbird & Rose Bushes & the Plasma Thingy

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins k.p.collins at
Tue Nov 19 14:12:27 EST 2002

One hundred and thrity-nine years ago, Lincoln stood at Gettysburg to
deliver his Address.

You know... so that "government of the people, by the people, for the
people, shall not perish from the earth".

The following URL provides multilingual translation of the Gettysburg

In 1895 the pencil is invented - how long has it been since you used
one to write-down your 'heart' stuff?

Anyway, the stuff from Tapered Harmony that I'm discussing is not
even 'difficult'. In it, the resort to 'random events' amongst
'discrete particles', on which 'qm', depends is replaced by
deterministic energy flow. Where, in 'qm', there're 'weird' 'quantum
states', which instantiate the Illusion of overall 'weirdness', in
Tapered Harmony there're =continuous= energy-flow thresholding
dynamics "all the way down", and all the way up - to infinity in both
directions, small and big.

In the 'qm' view, the 'fog' nearby the cathode [in the discussion
below] is supposedly comprised of 'discrete particles'. Thpered
Harmony has no problem with there being relatively-discrete
aggragates of energy, but, in Tapered Harmony, the existences of
these relatively-discrete aggragates of energy do not exist in a way
that's 'discontinuous' from the rest of the energy in the universe.
Rather, their relatively-discrete 'existences' are continuous with,
dependent upon, and, in fact, derive in the overall universal energy.
[I've discussed SSW->UES harmonics in long former posts.]

Superficially, this difference between the two conceptualizations
seems 'trivial', but it is, in fact, Huge, because it allows all of
physical reality to be reduced to the one energy-flow dynamic, and
because, having accomplished that, it eliminates the problems that've
impeded progress within Physics, and opens the door to vast

I =understand= that the probable reaction on the parts of
Professional Physicists will be to 'poo-poo' Tapered Harmony's view.
In that, they're taking advantage of Lay folks' naivete with respect
to Physics.

With respect to such, my sentiments are close to those of Darwin as
expressed in the Kuhn quote in AoK's "Short Paper" section - Young,
up-and-coming folks'll get it.

My confidence is this way because I've gone through all of Physics,
and know of no experimental result that contradicts Tapered Harmony's
position [challenges invited], but have come across many with respect
to which the thick layer of 'random' 'fudge that's invoked in order
to render 'qm' 'workable' is just 'hilarious'.

It's just the old Ptolemaic astronomy's having-no-prysically-real
'epicycles', being erroneously invoked all over again.

Sure, the planets seem to gyrate back and forth as they traverse our
view of the night sky, but they don't, in fact, move in any such way.
It's the same with the so-called 'quantum states' that 'qm' invokes,
the result being that 'physics' renders physical reality invisible as
it purports to 'explain' it - "to 15 decimal places" :-]

Please don't be 'angry' with me for just doing it. I've been asking,
for years, to be allowed to 'run the gauntlet' in quiet 'privacy'.
I'm doing it now because, should I succumb, it'd've been a great
Failure, on my part, to've not done these few things prior to that.

So don't be 'angry' with me, the intransigent PTOFA that's stood in
the way of Tapered Harmony's coming forward has been explained in AoK
all along.

I 'thank' 'physics' for collectively heaping such Substantiation upon

But, all along, my 'heart' was breaking on behalf of Physics.

K. P. Collins

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message ...
>First, I'm sorry about the greater-than-'normal' number of typos in
>the preceding post. I was late for the spaghetti dinner at the local
>K or C. It was on behalf of the Scholarships Fund for the Children
>the Church I attend. So I just hurried the post more than 'normal'.
>I'll fix them, in the quoted text below, while I'm adding some
>further discussion.
>Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message
>>This afternoon, I took a 'field trip' to a local mall - to
>> do my Christmas window-shopping.
>>While there, I was contemplating the 'impact' that Robert's post in
>>the 'Statistics' thread left 'reverberating' within me [within my
>>nervous system].
>>When I go to the mall, I just meander about - got my head
>>by a Young [and rather pleasant] Immigrant from Israel :-] She was
>>working at one of those little-shops that're set up in the middle
>>malls' traffic. Asked her what she thought of the New England cold.
>>She smiled, and responded kindly, even thoug[h], it turned ou[t]
>she'd had
>>a lot of experience with snow.
>>Kindness - experiencing it was welcome.
>>I stopped in the pet store, and dreamed of setting all the animals
>>free, like I always do [they must 'engineer' the cages with such
>>in-mind :-]
>>Marvelled at the Children with their Mothers, together, enjoying
>>delights of the animal's frolicking in window display.
>>I stopped in at a toy store, and had to ask a fellow, who turned
>>to be the Manager, where the Lego [tm] computerized stuff was. He
>>took me across the store and showed me. [I just like to look at
>>year to see what's new in it.] But I did engage the fellow in a
>>discussion of the differences in toys now-a-days and the toys that
>>were popular when I was a Child, which is huge. I explained to him
>>that there seems, to me, to be important stuff 'missing' from toys
>>now-a-days. There're very few toys that emphasize the sort of
>>hand-eye learning that's so important in creativity. You know, toys
>>that 'confront' a Child with a pile of bits and pieces, and the
>>challenge of making something distinct out of the pile. There're
>>Tinker Toys [tm] and Lincoln Logs [tm], and, of course, Legos [tm],
>>but where are the "Erector Sets [tm]"? And where are the "real"
>>tools that "really" work? [Gone [t]he way of 'dangerous toy'
>>I expect. It's not such toys that're 'dangerous'. What's Dangerous
>>the way that folks just don't get-in-there to exert guidance during
>>Child's play with such Enabling 'toys'. Buy 'em the toy, and be
>>with 'parenting'? Not much Promise of good-stuff in-there.
>Go ahead and 'play' along with your Kids to get them started in
>seeing what's in-there - it's fun - will do you a lot of good to
>>Anyway, the sorts of toys that confront Children with a pile of
>>[b]its-and-pieces are important because, when the Child
>>plays with them, if she/he plays them [which is where Parents
>>have to take the lead - to show the 'wonders' that are in-there],
>>the Child experiences a very special learning opportunity -
>>one that's applicable within all of Life. It's the stuff of
>>how to bring something that's not at all apparent into existence
>>from rather-indistinc[t] 'raw materials'. If a Child learns this
>>thing, the Child gains experience that's universally-applicable,
>>everywhere in Life.
>>Yet, except for the examples, above, there's really a dearth of
>>toys [a]vailable to Children these days.
>>Instead, 'modern' toys tend, strongly, IMO, to do all the creative
>>stuff 'on-behalf-of' Children, which is a 'good' way to prevent the
>>blossoming of that universally-applicable stuff within a Child's
>>Too-great a cost, no?
>>Anyway, I wandered into a 'science' store and, there, became
>>fascinated by a well-designed version of one of those
>>'spidery-plasma-discharge' [globe] things that've been around
>>for years.
>>I got lost in it, for I don't know how long - must've been at least
>>When one touches the glass-globe, most of the plasma-'spiders'
>>collapse - I could see them collapsing - and most of the effect
>>in the direction of one's finger on the glass.
>>I looked closer, and was delighted to see that the flow from the
>>discharge element [the little 'ball' in the center of the globe]
>>exhibited an ethereal convergence - starting as a 'fog' and ending
>>as a well-focused discharge-line that wiggled toward my finger's
>>position on the globe.
>Look 'deeply', here. There's importnt stuff to see.
>It has to do with "like charges repell" stuff - if it's so, then why
>does the 'fog' of like-charged so-called 'particles' converge
>of disperse?
>Why does it gather into a fine 'thread', instead of a bulging column
>in which the 'repulsion' of the like-charged 'particles' would be
>Of course, when I placed my finger against the glass of the globe, I
>obviously created a 'ground' path for the energy in the discharge to
>But I =pressed= my finger against the glass, do my finger's imprint
>was not a point thing, The fine 'thread' dis disperse, but only
>very-near my fingertip [on the inside of the globe].
>Why only very-near my fingertip? Why a fine 'thread'? Why not a
>bulging column? After all, like charges repell. Why, then, do these
>like charges 'attract'?
>It's be-cause there's an overall energy flow, and the charged
>'particles' are forced into the fine 'thread' by the dynamics
>inherent in that overall energy flow - it's a bit like an in-plasma
>'Bernouli effect'. The 'thread' forms along the line of least-action
>within this overall energy flow. That is, the 'particles' [they're
>not actually "particles"] go with the flow. They'd have to do some
>'mysterious' work if they were to behave in a like-charges-repell
>And, in this stuff, the energy surround can also be 'weighed'
>[measured]. Should've been done long ago, back when 'vacuum' tupes
>were 'high tech'.
>>Two fingers, placed 'just right' and the wiggly-discharge line
>>reverberates back and forth.
>>It was easy to see the underpinning energy-exchange dynamics,
>>and waining, in which the 'snapping' back and forth between my
>>tips derived.
>The overall energy flow can also be measured in the above 'snapping'
>[just as it can be in the little 'squirts' of the shampoo experiment
>that I discussed here in b.n in long former msgs].
>>"Why can't anybody else see this?"
>Folks 'closed the patent office' after they attained consensus [via
>groupwise TD E/I-minimization with respect to
>calculational-convenience :-] that all energy is 'quantized',
>thereby, 'agreeing' to 'move away from' Truth with respect to
>physical reality - in a "see no evil" kind of way :-]
>>It's all right-there-to-see.
>>I was very tempted to go to the ATM and extract the $39.95 purchase
>>price of the thing, so that I could 'play' with it in the dark of
>>tonight at home - but that'd've cost me a week's Life, so I left it
>>on the shelf, sayi[n]g to myself, "I'll tell the others to take a
>>at thes[e] dynamics."
>>Which is what I'm doing here.
>>Look quietly, and you'll See what's in-there.
>K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list