The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]
Wed Jan 21 04:04:43 EST 2004

Further comments on a discussion originally posted
on 2004-01-02, and quoted, in its entirety, below.

The Article, discussing recent experimental results
obtained by Physicists working on the RHIC project,
that appeared in The =New York Times=, Tuesday,
2004-01-13 issue, p A19, seemed, to me, to consti-
tute a Confirmation of the Predictions that were
discussed in this post [and numerous prior reiterations
of the same stuff, going back through all the 'years'
that I've been discussing Tapered Harmony here in
b.n and other online 'places'].

Brief comments added below.

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]> wrote in message
news:LcgJb.20424$IM3.15967 at
> Hi Wolf.
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hqtwta2.pminews at
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:24:24 GMT, k p  Collins wrote:
> >
> > >I discussed it rather-thoroughly [giving a Complete Maths
> > >analysis] in, where you were 'in attendance',
> > >last year.
> >
> > No, I just followed up on posts to multiple NGs - I don't monitor all
> > NG's listed in any one post.
> >
> > >The Maths was in a little "Compton Refraction" QBASIC program
> > >that I posted in and elsewhere.
> > >
> > >Basically, the analogous thing can be done with respect to =any=
> > >replicable experimental result, which is what I'm usually doing
> > >when I'm not online.
> > >
> > >So, if you have an experimental result that's of particular interest
> > >to you, post it, and I'll discuss the wave<->wave view from the
> > >perspective of that experiment.
> >
> > Oh, for the sake of argument, I'll accept your word for it that you have
> > consistent mathematical treatment of your p.o.v. So what? Mathematical
> > consistency doesn't prove anything.
> >
> > Do you have any predictions, supported by experimental results, that
> > distinguish between your model and the standard model?
> Yes. I started discussing them, in bionet.neuroscience, in the recent
> past.
> Thare's a large 'class' of such predictions that are relatively easy to
> confirm in accelerator experiments.

The RHIC results are in this large 'class'.

> All of the members of this 'class' have the form of reducing to
> experimental instances in which there's a fleeting 'refactory period'
> during which no further 'action' can be detected.

The RHIC results are in this "'refractory period'".

> The most-fundamental members of this 'class' are already common-
> place Observable.
> These pertain to observations that have been invoked to 'substantiate'
> the 'existence' of so-called "quarks".
> Accelerator folks bombard 'protons' with accelerated 'bullets'.
> Tapered Harmony's position is that both the 'protons' and whatever
> accelerated 'bullets' are employed are 'just' SSW<->UES
> compression<->expansion harmonics - quantities of energy
> 'trapped' as harmonic Spherical Standing Wave interaction with
> their locally-surrounding 'portion' of the Universal Energy Supply.

The folks at RHIC used gold nuclei that were accelerated close
to the 'speed of light'.

> Tapered Harmony holds that all observables result =solely= from
> the fact that the ratio of the 'volume' to surface-area of a sphere
> varies nonlinearly as the 'volume' [in TH, the quantity of energy
> 'trapped within' an SSW<->UES harmonic] undergoes cpmpres-
> sion and expansion. This is easily verified to be True [I've posted
> little QBASIC apps that provide this verification, including the
> "Compton Refraction" app to which I've referred]. As a sphere
> undergoes compression, for instance, if the initial 'volume' of the
> sphere is treated as a 'constant' quantity of 'trapped' energy, and
> then that 'trapped' energy is forced to remain within a decreasing
> geometric Volume, the ratio of the 'trapped'-energy 'volume' to
> the geometric surface-area heads, in a rapidly-accelerating way,
> toward infinity.
> There's an analogous, but more-abrupt, acceleration toward
> infinity in the expansion [or "shelling"] phase of the harmonics,
> as the expanding 'volume' of 'trapped' energy slams-up-against
> the SSW<->UES harmonic's local UES, which occurs as a
> spherical "shell" of compression.
> All of this stuff is completely Verified to be True in the "Compton
> Refraction" app.
> Experimentors have observed that, when they bombard 'protons',
> as above, they 'see' "three things in there" - no more, no less - so
> they've presumed that there are literally "three `subatomic` particles
> within the so-called 'proton', and they have named these 'three
> things' "quarks".

The folks at RHIC saw more than three things in-there.

The article referred to the observables as a "smeared-out pudding".

> In Tapered Harmony's view, however, all that's being observed
> derives in the spherical compression<->expansion harmonics'
> fleeting nonlinear accelerations.
> If a target SSW<->UES harmonic is getting really-small really-fast,
> then it's only possible for geometrical "conjunctions" to occur,
> observably, during fleeting portions of targets' and projectiles'
> compression<->expansion phasing.
> During the rest of the targets' and projectiles'
> compression<->expansion phasing, because the energy 'trapped
> within' the SSW<->UES harmonics is nonlinearly relatively un-
> compressed, projectiles pass right through targets without there
> being sufficient energy density to enable observation of target
> and projectile interaction [but see below - this is where all of the
> predictions in the large 'class' that I'm discussing are Testable].
> This is =why= the experimenters consistently observe 'only
> three things in there'.
> At the energies employed, the compressed phases of the target
> and projectile SSW<->UES harmonics's nonlinearly-accelerating
> compression<->expansion dynamics are only commensurate with
> fitting three energy<->energy interaction 'events' in-there - be-cause,
> during the remainder of the harmonics' phasing, the energy 'trapped
> within' the compression<->expansion harmonics is too-rarified for
> interaction 'events' to be observed.
> It's 'just' an energy-flow =thresholding= dynamic that's conformed
> to spherical Geometry, as above.
> Get it?
> [Athough the Geometry inherent is much more rich, all of nervous
> systems' thresholding dynamics reduce to analogous stuff, BTW.
> The analysis is, basically, the same, but has to be carried out with
> respect to the neural Topology [the Geometry of entire neuronal
> extents, and, further, the Geometry of neuron-collections.]
> All of this is Proven in the little QBASIC apps that I've posted.
> [A groups Google[tm] on "compton refraction" or "QBASIC apps"
> should give some hits linking to this compter code.]
> It's all right-there in the Spherical Geometry.
> Anyway, Tapered Harmony predicts that, as accelerator energys
> are increased, further analogous observations will become
> possible, and =all= such observations will conform rigorously
> to the nonlinear compression<->expansion dynamics discussed
> above.

Which is what has been observed at RHIC(?).

> =All= the 'members' of the large 'class' of predictions to which I
> referred above have one thing in common. They all have
> 'refractory' periods during which target-projectile interactions
> will be unobservable, and =all= of these 'refractory' periods
> reduce rigorously to the spherical harmonics discussed above.

Which is what has been observed at RHIC(?).

> This is as it is be-cause the 'refractory' periods consist of the
> non-'trapped' UES "extreme fluid" just flowing in accord with
> local WDB2T - which correlates to a local 'speed of light'.

Which is what has been observed at RHIC(?).

> Going back to the 'three things in there' stuff that experimenters
> have presumed 'substantiates' the 'existence' of so-called "quarks",
> it is this 'refractory' period that Determines the number of
> observables that are 'in there'.

Which is what has been observed at RHIC(?).

> So, overall, in the 'refractory' period one can literally observe the
> UES-flow [the so-called "dark energy" - which is 'dark' be-cause
> it's just the UES extreme-fluid, flowing in rigorous accord with
> WDB2T.

Which is what has been observed at RHIC(?).

> I posted some more-explicit [with respect to a specific proposal
> for experimental design] discussion in the not-too-distant past
> [in b.n], but, when I looked for it just a 'moment' ago, could not
> find it on my PC. I'll look more, later. [Just got 'disconnected'
> in a way that my INet software did not detect :-]
> I can describe the necessary experimental design to Test what's
> here with respect to any observable phenomenon, and those
> Tests [all of them] will disclose observables that have, to date,
> been, supposedly, "invisible".

Which, it seems to me, the folks at RHIC have Confirmed.

 K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list