On the Non-Existence of the so-called 'four forces' of Nature

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun May 15 22:48:46 EST 2005


"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:i3Fhe.215207$cg1.39562 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]

| There's an overall energy-"sink" that em-
| powers everything, and, as I discussed
| in another recent post, our nervous sys-
| tems 'blindly' and automatically =do
| Physics= with respect to that overall
| energy-"sink", the result being that our
| bodies, more or less, 'climb' the energy-
| gradient within that overall energy-"sink",
| which is WDB2T.
|
| In 2c., above, the energy that flows
| doesn't flow from one's body into the
| "spark".
|
| Rather, one's nervous system Directs
| the motion of one's body in ways that
| =operate-upon= the overall energy-
| "sink" -- operate relative to WDB2T -- 
| the Universal Energy Supply [UES],
| and, depending upon the degree to
| which the motions of one's body con-
| form to the inverse of WDB2T, one,
| more or less, Directs the flow of
| energy =within the UES=.
|
| Which is what I was getting-at in my
| earlier post, in which I Failed to ade-
| quately account for the energy-flow.
| [...]

Whew! My 'correction' included a
lot of 'new' stuff that needs "cor-
recting", but I'm going to leave it as
it is -- because it, basically, says what
I intended to say -- inadequately, but
it does.

By 'now' folks know how I work, here
in b.n -- "stick my neck out", then "whit-
tle" [AoK, Ap5; "hippocampus"].

So, in this post, I'm going to =BRIEFLY=
discuss the stuff that I've been discussing,
recently, from a different perspective [which
is another way in which I routinely work].
I'll draw things together "down the road",
a bit. [In future posts, not this one.]

I've explained how and why the so-called
"four forces", that're invoked in the tradi-
tional view of physical reality, are replaced
by the single energy-flow that is WDB2T
in Tapered Harmony. I'm not going to re-
iterate that stuff in this post [I'll do so "down
the road" if anyone wants to receive such].

But I'm going to do the same thing -- toss-
out the so-called "four forces" -- from a
different perspective.

This brief discussion continues at the end
of this post, after I discuss some nervous-
system stuff.]

[Why it's useful to do this sort of "perspec-
tive-variation", BTW, is that, in doing so,
one's TD E/I-minimization dynamics con-
verge upon the same-stuff, in ways that're
=Directed= differently -- which [this is the
Important stuff in this "aside"] creates "bio-
logical mass" [AoK, Ap5] that has "inertia"
Directed at the same-stuff, but from differ-
ent Directions [remember that =everything=
that happens within nervous systems is
"mapped" with respect to Direction [this's
=why= the "special topological homeo-
morphism" [AoK, "Short Paper", and
throughout] exists as it does -- so that, in
solving the internal Directionality Problem,
the nervous system 'blindly' and automat-
ically 'solves' the Directionality Problems
that exist within its host organism's extern-
al experiential environment -- which is
how and why "TD E/I-minimization"
Works.] -- and these differentiated
"biological masses" accumulate, gradually
"filling-in" 'all' possible Directionality "gaps"
[AoK, "Short Paper"; "tuning-precision
voids"], with advanced-'stage' TD E/I-
minimization converging upon Direction-
ality-"consensus" within the differentiated
"biological masses" -- which is 'just' a re-
iteration, from a different perspective, of
my long-former discussions with respect
to the Need to "range widely" upon [with-
in] Truth's One Map -- and which, cre-
ation of differentiated "biological mass
'just' doesn't occur within one's nervous
system if one doesn't so "range widely" -- 
which is why I'm doing the stuff I'm do-
ing in the discussions I'm posting these
'days' -- to guide folks' nervous systems,
a bit, with respect to creation of relatively-
differentiated "biological mass", so that
folks can achieve some advanced-'stage'
TD E/I-minimization with respect to some
of TH's and NDT's "deeper" stuff.

See? I'm =NOT= "hiding" anything, and
I'm =NOT= "being obscure", or anything
else that's "untoward".

I'm =just= doing what needs to be done,
be-cause I long-ago [during the "Terrible
Times"] worked-through it, so I under-
stand it, and the Need for it, but, because
I wanted to "go slow" until folks got the
Basics of NDT [to maintain TD E/I with-
in endurable bounds [AoK, Ap5; "amyg-
dala"], didn't get-into -- so folks're 'unfam-
iliar' with it.

So I've got to be as a "guide" through this
advanced-'stage' TD E/I-minimization
stuff. [Note, also, how it is that "know-
ledge" gomes-into-Being by becoming
literally-embodied within nervous systems
via TD E/I-minimization -- I mean, note,
in particular, how NDT's understanding
literally becomes-embodied within nerv-
ous systems. Whatever the "learning"-
referrant, such physical-embodiiment of
it's particulars always takes the form of
internal<->external Directionality-map-
ping, and such never happens 'instantan-
eously'. Rather, it happens as above -- 
gradually, as Directionally-differentiated
TD E/I-minimization occurs within nerv-
ous systems [~"the curved path of learning";
AoK, Ap8 [I think :-]].

So that's what I'm working to accomplish
in the stuff I'm posting these 'days'. I'm
not concerned with writing "cleanly" [for
the same Reason that I've not been con-
cerned with such for as long as I've been
discussing NDT here in b.n] be-cause
the "typos", etc., are all just as differ-
entially-Directed TD E/I-minimization
Opportunities which have, if there's any-
one who's been reading-along, presented
them with little TD E/I fluctuations that,
when [if] they were "whittled"-down to
TD E/I(min) 'states', eliminated the small
"discrepancies", while enabling those nerv-
ous systems to converge upon overall
TD E/I-minimization with respect to NDT.
[This's a pretty-Hard Teaching "assign-
ment", BTW, because the "Teacher" can
expect nothing in return -- because "the
curved path" happens, relatively, "in the
background" -- so the "Student" never
feels that there's anything in-there that
warrants "acknowledgement". So the
"Teacher" pretty-much has to "go it
alone", until understanding converge's
within the "Student's" nervous systems -- 
somewhere =way= "down the road".
[It =is= "way down the road" with re-
spect to the Basic stuff of NDT -- I've
been "Teaching" it, here in b.n, since
~1990 -- fifteen 'years' is "way down
the road" enough.]

The above, which might 'seem' like a
"digression", is not a "digression". It's
just that it's necessary that I explain
the above stuff because, in what fol-
lows, I'll be taking a Big-step in Phys-
ics, which most folks won't, immed-
iately, comprehend, so there's a Need
to explain why they'll not comprehend,
and there's a Need to give folks a
rationale for doing the information-
processing work that's inherent in com-
prehending "deep"-stuff in Physics,
and, since =The= Topic remains Neuro-
science, it's "appropriate" to explain
that stuff, while I'm doing the Physics
[which I do, here in b.n, be-cause it's
at an "abstract-distance" from the
core-stuff of NDT, which allows folks
in Neuroscience to experience, and
consider, the "abstract" stuff without
experiencing any "need" to 'move
away from' -- because they're not
"supposed to" know this "abstract"
stuff, anyway.

It's the way I've been working, all
along, here in b.n.

Reread the stuff, above, about "fil-
ling in the gaps", "Directionally-dif-
ferentiated advanced-'stage' TD E/I-
minimization, etc., and you'll see
what's in the way I've been working.

Nervous system function is like this -- 
extremely "recursive", with each 'mo-
mentary' energy-gradient feeding-into
successive energy-gradients, creating
the Opportunity for overall TD E/I-
minimization to become more-inte-
as "experience" is accumulated [IFF
one "ranges widely", which the way
I've been working, here in b.n, "in-
vites" folks to do.

The above stuff is a bit "much", but
it's =REALLY= Important, so, if
you want to go further in NDT's
stuff, go over it, repeatedly, until
you get it. [I'd really like to receive
some "feedback", here, with respect
to whether or not anyone can follow
what's above -- because, if no one
can, then I've got to "back-track",
and pick things up at a less-"advanced"
'level' [because I don't want to Waste
my 'time' [energy] discussing stuff
that 'just' "flies-through" nervous
systems, undetected. I've got to
Protect my Being from such Waste.]

Back to Eliminating the so-called
"four forces", in yet-another way.

1. All available experimental evidence
substantiates that the one-way flow
of energy that is WDB2T is a Uni-
versal phenomenon [if it "were not",
then it'd be possible, in principle, to
go where it's "not" so, and build
a 'perpetual-motion machine, and,
from there, supply all of the Universe's
energy needs.

2. When one considers the above, one
sees that WDB2T is mutually-ex-
clusive with the possibility that "there
exist separable forces" [forces that
"act independently" of each other.

3. This's True be-cause, if it "were not"
True, then one would be able to vary
any such 'force' "independently" of
the others, and, therefore, 'independ-
ently of WDB2T. Which 'would lead'
directly to the "were not" 'condition'
of 1., above.

4. Rather, since all available exper-
imental evidence substantiates that
WDB2T is a Universal phenomenon,
the only way that it can be so is IFF
what've been held to 'be' the "four
forces of Nature" are actually one
thing, seen from four "different" points
of view.

5. What I'm getting at is what I discussed
in my prior post [linked-to above] in
its enumerated section and immediately
following -- =operations= upon the
Directionality of energy's flowing;
"power supplies" not being "energy
sources" but energy-operators.

6. In other words, there can be the all-
experimental-evidence-substantiated
stuff of 2nd Thermo, =or= there can
be "independent forces", but not both.

7. And that's all that's necessary to Elim-
inate the "conceptualization" that "there
exist four distinct forces".

8. Else, one has to "toss-out" all avail-
able experimental evidence.

Get it?

[Keep in-mind that what's actually hap-
pening is the stuff in the lengthy Neuro-
science portion of this post, while you
explore it to your satisfaction.

What happened was that Physics got
"myopic" with respect to what experi-
mental evidence "is applicable" to which
problem.

Along with the so-called "four forces",
I'm Eliminating that Myopia.

I'll probably expand this brief discussion
in follow-up posts. Don't know yet. It's
all crystal-clear to me as I write this.]

[Aside: I really do wish that Physicists
who disagree would state their disagree-
ment directly, here in b.n, instead of -- 
you know -- 'discounting' the Physics I
discuss without having ever addressed
it directly to me.

Pretty-'wimpy', no?

Yup.

And folks who listen to such 'behind-
the-scenes-discounting', are pretty-
gullible, no?

Yup.

That's one 'way' in which the Savagery
is perpetuated.]

I mean no offense.

I mean 'just'-the-opposite stuff.

K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list