Another way to Test Tapered Harmony [was Re: The NLP [___]]
KP_PC
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Oct 13 09:12:48 EST 2003
CORRECTION and a [temporary?]
RETRACTION below.
"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:l5fib.177324$3o3.13216261 at bgtnsc05news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
 One of the things folks should be
 able to See in this sphericalGeometry
 app is How and Why the NLP variation
 of the volume/surfacearea ratio inherent
 in the SSW<>UES harmonics always
 undergoes energy emission and ab
 sorption via rigorouslystereotypical
 quantities.

 This's =all= builtrightinto the NLP
 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 stereotypicallyoccurring
 quantities of energy that moderntra
 ditional Physics has misinterpreted
 as constituting 'discrete particles',
 when all they are is the nonlinear
 variation of the spherical V/Ar ratio
 in interaction with the surrounding
 UES.

 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 atwill.]

 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 socalled '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 infinitepossible
asymmetrical 'attacks' will correlate
to subthreshold 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
threshold asymmetrical'attack'
possibilities [think of it in terms of all
possible 'eddycurrents within the NLP
energydynamics inherent in the
SSW<>UES harmonics'
'compression'<>'expansion' dynamics],
and subthreshold '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 subthreshold energydynamics, and
which 'attacks' yield superthreshold
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 NLPenergydynamics will
threshold differentially? And, is there
an infinity left after that asymmetry
'cushioning' is factoredin? [Such
'cushioning' occurs within the NLP
energydynamics because energy
just goes where it's mostfree to go.
It maximizes its ephemerance  and,
since, between the "nucleation" and
"shelling" NLPlimits of the
SSW<>UES harmonics, there's
freedom to undergo the basic
'compression' and 'expansion', there's
also freedom with respect to nonmax
nucleated and nonmaxshelled
'collisions', no matter the symmetry
inherent. Augmenting the power of the
collision only goesdeeper into the
NLPV/Arvariation dynamics, and,
since this can be done continuously,
I, presently, 'see' the infinity inthere 
but I've got to get a better handle on the
NLP wave<>wave thresholding. It is as
in the black body discussion  the deeper
into the NLP things go, the greater the
energygradient, and the greater will be
the spreading of incident energy into
lowerfrequency 'ranges'  which will
send some of the incident energy sub
threshold  which subtracts from the
'infinity' :]
The basic NLP energydynamics definitely
yield stereotypical energyemission and
absorbtion dynamics.
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 reallylittle  so how does
one 'attack' it "asymmetrically"? :]
As the SSW 'expands', asymmetry can be
applied, but the energycontent is 'rarifying'
NLPly, so it'll 'feel' the 'attacking'
asymmetry less, until the harmonic slams
up against the UES  and then there's
another "shelling" NLP 'compression'.
This maxshelled 'state' can be 'attacked'
asymmetrically, but, when it is, thresholding
comes into play, =mightily=  NLPly with
respect to any Normal to the shell.
So, now, it does seem that there's a lot of
Natural delimitation of thresholding 'events'
inthere.
Gotta digdeeper.
One thing that this discussion of the NLP
V/Ar variance makes easilyunderstandable
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 NLP energyflow.
The closest TH comes to QM with respect to
such is that, because of the NLP, as above,
such energyflows do 'typically' exhibit stereo
typy.
But I still think they can be tweaked via
asymmetrical 'attack' variation.
At the veryleast, such a strategy [the asym
metrical'attack'variation Test strategy] will
rigorouslyreveal the True Nature of the
energy thresholding dynamics inherent.
More additional discussion below.
This's the way to fullydisclose the
SSW<>UES harmonics.
I think it can be approached [to an ad
equate first approximation] using very
small accelerators  which would allow
Experimenters to focus upon the
necessary asymmetryof'attack'
variation  the significant results of
which will all occur NLPly :]
 The =only= thing that can Exist
 inthere is infinitelydivisible 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 Rigorouslynonlinearly
 varyingsphericalGeometrygoverned
 energycontents nonlinearlydifferen
 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 longformer
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
intraSSW 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 inthem.
For instance, any two [or more] SSW<>UES
harmonics that interact will generate their
own shared asymmetry, and this will 'warp'
their NLPV/Ar ratio Geometries.
More later, after I've increased the depth of
my analysis  NLPly.
[To Folks in Neuroscience: all of this TH stuff
is also Neuroscience, because it's in the
'Coulomb force' DNARNA 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 bgtnsc04news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
  ' sphyx01.bas  an exploration in spherical geometry 7:25am,
Sat,
 20031011
  [...]


More information about the Neursci
mailing list