Another way to Test Tapered Harmony [was Re: The NL-P [___]]
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Oct 13 09:12:48 EST 2003
CORRECTION and a [temporary?]
"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:l5fib.177324$3o3.13216261 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| One of the things folks should be
| able to See in this spherical-Geometry
| app is How and Why the NL-P variation
| of the volume/surface-area ratio inherent
| in the SSW<->UES harmonics always
| undergoes energy emission and ab-
| sorption via rigorously-stereotypical
| This's =all= built-right-into the NL-P
| behavior of the spherical harmonics.
| There's a volume of energy 'trapped'
| in the SSW<->UES harmonic.
| Rigorous variation in the 'trapping'
| volume Rigorously forces emission
| or absorption of quantities of energy
| that are =specific= with respect to the
| 'instantaneous' SSW's nonlinear 'com-
| pression' and 'expansion'.
| It's these stereotypically-occurring
| quantities of energy that modern-tra-
| ditional Physics has mis-interpreted
| as constituting 'discrete particles',
| when all they are is the nonlinear
| variation of the spherical V/Ar ratio
| in interaction with the surrounding
| This's is =all= Testable via accel-
| erator trials in which the spherical
| Geometry is 'attacked' asymmetric-
| ally. [Which, of course, will require
| modifications to existing accelerat-
| ors - in order to allow the setting of
| the 'attacking'-asymmetry at-will.]
| If such asymmetrical-'attacking' of
| the spherical Geometry of the
| SSW<->UES harmonics is under-
| taken, it will be found that there are
| as many so-called 'particles' as there
| are ways to adjust the 'attacking'
| asymmetry - which is infinite.
This's NOT True - because the
correlated energydynamics are
wave<->wave =thresholding= dyn-
amics, many of the infinite-possible
asymmetrical 'attacks' will correlate
to sub-threshold energydynamics.
I RETRACT the following.
Beginning of RETRACTION.
| A =Complete= Proof of Tapered
| Harmony's position exists in the fact
| that one cannot assert that there
| are an infinite number of "discrete
| particles" in an 'atom'. So, since
| one can produce [as above] an
| infinite number of what have been
| referred to as "discrete particles",
| there cannot exist any "discrete
| particles" within an 'atom'.
End of RETRACTION.
I think it's still Valid - because I think
that there's still an infinity of super-
possibilities [think of it in terms of all
possible 'eddy-currents within the NL-P
energydynamics inherent in the
and sub-threshold 'attacks' can be
analyzed from the perspective of
their absence of reaction, but I've
just gotten back from "K. P.",
and I'm tired. So I'll sleep on it.
The main thing is which 'attacks' result
in sub-threshold energydynamics, and
which 'attacks' yield super-threshold
energydynamics, and are the latter
infinite in number? Another way of
stating the same problem is, how
much of a variation in the 'attacking'
asymmetry is necessary before the
SSW's NL-P-energydynamics will
threshold differentially? And, is there
an infinity left after that asymmetry-
'cushioning' is factored-in? [Such
'cushioning' occurs within the NL-P-
energydynamics be-cause energy
just goes where it's most-free to go.
It maximizes its ephemerance - and,
since, between the "nucleation" and
"shelling" NL-P-limits of the
SSW<->UES harmonics, there's
freedom to undergo the basic
'compression' and 'expansion', there's
also freedom with respect to non-max-
nucleated and non-max-shelled
'collisions', no matter the symmetry
inherent. Augmenting the power of the
collision only goes-deeper into the
NL-P-V/Ar-variation dynamics, and,
since this can be done continuously,
I, presently, 'see' the infinity in-there -
but I've got to get a better handle on the
NL-P wave<->wave thresholding. It is as
in the black body discussion - the deeper
into the NL-P things go, the greater the
energy-gradient, and the greater will be
the spreading of incident energy into
lower-frequency 'ranges' - which will
send some of the incident energy sub-
threshold - which subtracts from the
The basic NL-P energydynamics definitely
yield stereotypical energy-emission and
What I'm not sure of is how much this
stereotypy can be altered via asymmetrical
'attack'. After all, when an SSW is fully-
'compressed', it's really-little - so how does
one 'attack' it "asymmetrically"? :-]
As the SSW 'expands', asymmetry can be
applied, but the energy-content is 'rarifying'
NL-P-ly, so it'll 'feel' the 'attacking'
asymmetry less, until the harmonic slams
up against the UES - and then there's
another "shelling" NL-P 'compression'.
This max-shelled 'state' can be 'attacked'
asymmetrically, but, when it is, thresholding
comes into play, =mightily= - NL-P-ly with
respect to any Normal to the shell.
So, now, it does seem that there's a lot of
Natural delimitation of thresholding 'events'
One thing that this discussion of the NL-P-
V/Ar variance makes easily-understandable
is the way TH differs from QM with respect
to QM's assertion of 'particles' that 'med-
iate' this or that 'force'.
In TH, all such stuff is just NL-P energy-flow.
The closest TH comes to QM with respect to
such is that, be-cause of the NL-P, as above,
such energy-flows do 'typically' exhibit stereo-
But I still think they can be tweaked via
asymmetrical 'attack' variation.
At the very-least, such a strategy [the asym-
metrical-'attack'-variation Test strategy] will
rigorously-reveal the True Nature of the
energy thresholding dynamics inherent.
More additional discussion below.
This's the way to fully-disclose the
I think it can be approached [to an ad-
equate first approximation] using very-
small accelerators - which would allow
Experimenters to focus upon the
variation - the significant results of
which will all occur NL-P-ly :-]
| The =only= thing that can Exist
| in-there is infinitely-divisible energy
| that undergoes =continuous=
| wave<->wave thresholding,
| Deterministically, in Rigorous-
| accord with the nonlinearity in-
| herent in the spherical V/Ar
| ratio's behavior under 'compres-
| sion' and 'expansion'.
| Hitting the SSW<->UES harmonics
| assymmetrically =just= interacts
| with their Rigorously-nonlinearly-
| energy-contents nonlinearly-differen-
| tially, in a way that's Deterministically-
| coupled to the 'attacking' asymmetry.
| [=Of course= the SSW<->UES
| harmonics' spherical Geometry does
| not remain "spherical" under asymmetric
| 'attack'. This's a wellspring of the In-
| finity that TH predicts under the cond-
| itions of this proposed Test.]
| Test it.
| See the Infinity [or at least as much of
| it as 'you' need to See to satisfy exper-
| imental Rigor]
| Then, See Tapered Harmony's
| Reification of physical reality.
| ken [K. P. Collins]
While at work last night, I realized that
I'd not carried through a bunch of stuff -
all discussed sufficiently in long-former
posts - in this present discussion.
One of these things is "encapsulation".
I realized, last night, that "encapsulation"
has to occur Robustly =within= 'matter'-
phase SSW's - as a straightforward
function of maximizing ephemerance.
So I said, "YIKES! It's possible that
intra-SSW encapsulation yields stereo-
tyical 'particles' that will be emitted
from SSW's in accord with the stuff I've
been discussing in this part of this thread.
I've got to explore the inherent energy-
dynamics a bit more. There's a lot in-them.
For instance, any two [or more] SSW<->UES
harmonics that interact will generate their
own shared asymmetry, and this will 'warp'
their NL-P-V/Ar ratio Geometries.
More later, after I've increased the depth of
my analysis - NL-P-ly.
[To Folks in Neuroscience: all of this TH stuff
is also Neuroscience, because it's in the
'Coulomb force' DNA-RNA tuning stuff - which
is why I'm discussing it here in b.n [that, and
because no one in Physics will talk to me :-]
kpc [K. P. Collins]
| "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:tHShb.172216$0v4.13172290 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | ' sphyx01.bas -- an exploration in spherical geometry 7:25am,
| | [...]
More information about the Neur-sci